Ned and Lily Krayishnik are not giving up.
Having lost one Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal earlier this year to keep two residences on a single lot, the Krayishniks are now moving ahead with another appeal because their request to alter the Wellington County official plan (used by Puslinch) and the municipality’s zoning bylaw to allow the two homes has not been acted upon.
On Nov. 21, Puslinch councillors here were made aware of the Krayishniks’ new OMB appeal via their solicitor.
Councillor Susan Fielding asked if there was a timeline for the appeal.
Clerk Brenda Law stated what was forwarded was a notice the Krayishniks intended to appeal to the OMB.
Fielding anticipated council would get together to discuss a plan of action.
Councillor Wayne Stokley asked if there would be a combined hearing regarding the county official plan and the township zoning bylaw.
Mayor Dennis Lever said it was normal for the OMB to combine similar matters.
The Krayishnik property, municipally known as 6643 Concession 2, has been at the centre of controversy for some time.
The Krayishniks have stated through their lawyer that they applied for amendments to both the Wellington County official plan and the Puslinch zoning bylaw.
The stated reason behind the current appeal is that neither the county nor the township have made decisions regarding those applications.
Background
The 27-acre property is located on Concession 2, near Puslinch Lake. Both of the dwellings sit on the site.
The older home was built in 1975, while the newer home was built in 2007.
In 2011, the Krayishniks applied to the committee of adjustment for a minor variance to permit both buildings (the older of the two was divided into two rental units).
The application, denied by the township, was appealed by the Krayishniks to the OMB.
That appeal was lost.
The OMB stated the application was not consistent with the plain wording of the official plan, which only allows for one home per lot.
When the 2007 home was constructed, a $5,000 security deposit was paid to ensure that the original 1975 dwelling would be demolished since only one dwelling is permitted per lot under the agricultural zone.
However, after the new home was occupied, the original home was not removed.
Since 2011, the Krayishniks unsuccessfully sought various remedies under the Planning Act to legalize the two dwellings.
At one public hearing, the applicant’s agent confirmed there were in fact three residential units on the property, comprised of the 2007 dwelling, and the 1975 dwelling, which contained two rental units.
The conversion of the 1975 single detached dwelling into two residential units was done without a building permit.
The township’s solicitor obtained a court order that the lower level apartment be vacated on or before July 1, 2012 and the upper level be vacated before Sept. 1, 2012.
When Puslinch chief building official Robert Kelly inspected the property on Oct. 2, the lower level was vacant and unoccupied, but the upper level remained furnished.
Councillors have shared concerns that allowing more than one home on a property would set a precedent within the township.
They were also quite clear at the October meeting that they did not support the Krayishnik application.
