Chapnik v. Seguin (Twp.), 2021 CanLII 129316

Ontario Land Tribunal

Issue Date: December 06, 2021 Case No(s).: PL210205

Proceeding commenced under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Jodi & Jason Chapnik Applicant: Cathy Nullmeyer Subject: Minor Variance Variance from By-law No.: 2006-125 Property Address/Description: 4 Gray’s Road Municipality: Township of Seguin Municipal File No.: A-2021-0007-H OLT Case No.: PL210205 OLT File No.: PL210205 OLT Case Name: Chapnik v. Seguin (Twp.)

Heard: November 9, 2021 by video hearing

Appearances

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Jody and Jason Chapnik	Leo Longo*
Cathy Nullmeyer	Self-represented
Township of Seguin	No one appeared

Decision Delivered by T.F. Ng and Order of the Tribunal

Introduction

1Cathy Nullmeyer (“the Applicant”), owner of 4, Grays Road (“the subject property”), intends to construct a dwelling, boathouse, boatport and gazebo (the proposal/proposed development) on the subject property.

2The Applicant applied to the Township of Seguin (“the Township”) for a minor variance for the proposal and requested relief from the Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 (“ZBL”).

3The Township Planning Staff recommended approval of the variance and the Committee of Adjustment (“the COA”) approved the application for minor variance subject to conditions on March 10, 2021.

4The Appellants (the “Chapniks”) who owned the adjacent property to the west of the subject property, filed an appeal against the COA's approval of the variance application on March 26, 2021.

Background

5The Tribunal was informed, by the Appellants, that the parties were in a previous dispute, when the Appellants obtained approval for a zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) for the Appellants’ property. In that matter, the Applicant appealed the ZBA approval. The result in that matter was that the Applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

6It became clear in this matter that the parties were adjacent property owners who had clashed in planning applications on their respective properties. However, the Tribunal will decide this variance application on a de novo basis and based on its particular facts.

Issue

7The core issue is:

Does the proposed development respect the shoreline character, aesthetic and policy requirements for shoreline residential developments?

8The variance proposed as follows, is evaluated against the s. 45(1) Planning Act ("the Act") tests:

Variance: To permit the proposal under ZBL No. 2006-125:

By-law s.6.3 Table 6.3 Maximum lot coverage required is 5%. The proposed lot coverage is 5.5%.

The Tests (in [s. 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec45subsec1_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html))

9The Tribunal must be satisfied that the variance:

1. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
2. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);
3. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
4. is minor in nature.

10Each test is to be satisfied. If any test is not met, the variance application fails.

11The Appellant’s planner had conceded that his main arguments focused on the first three tests. Further, he takes no issue with the application’s consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); regard to the provincial interests of s. 2 of the Act; or conformity with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (“NGP”).

12The Tribunal is clear that the COA decision pertains to the variance application for a proposal to construct a dwelling, boathouse, boatport and gazebo (the proposed development). A garage accessory structure was not considered by the COA in that decision and the appeal before the Tribunal is in respect of the proposed development only. Hence, no analysis is directed to the question, as to whether a proposed garage is or is not, an accessory, since there is no appeal on that matter before the Tribunal.

Hearing

13Ms. Nullmeyer advocated for herself and the Tribunal provided the usual guidance to lay persons who self-represent. The Tribunal advised that she could make submissions and also cross examine the Appellants’ witnesses after they have given evidence. She called Bradley Nullmeyer as a fact witness. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant could have requested a summons to be issued to require the Township Planner to appear and testify with respect to the planning report and which would permit his/her opinion to be tested.

14Mr. Longo, counsel for the Appellants, called Jason Chapnik as a fact witness; and Stefan Szczerbak, a registered land use planner, who was qualified by the Tribunal to give expert opinion on land use planning. No other land use expert or other expert was called at the hearing.

Applicant's Position

15Bradley Nullmeyer testified that he and his wife Cathy Nullmeyer, have been part-time residents of the Muskoka area since 1972 and have owned property on North Lake Joseph since 1994.

16Their current family cottage is located at 122 Grays Road. The 4 Grays Road property was purchased as an investment and possible inheritance for their children. The purchase was done in two transactions, one lot each and then merged into one lot. They had recently considered moving to this property to build a property for themselves as they get older, due to its easy access to the Lake. They determined that they needed an extra 550 square feet of living space.

17While neither he nor his wife are planners, they have long taken a conscientious interest in the planning approach taken in the Muskoka community. In particular, at the time of the last update of the Township Official Plan, he engaged in a number of input and discussion sessions with the Mayor of Seguin on the specific and important issue of maintaining the "view from the canoe" (the visual experience of the shoreline from a canoe on the lake, which in this matter, is a drone video taken of the lakeshore line).

18He explained that, as they are retired, they were unable to hire legal counsel or a planner for this proceeding, due to the expensive nature of such ‘experts'. That was why, the Applicant did not call any expert witness or engage counsel, he added.

19They intend to construct a family cottage on the subject property based on its easy access to the waterfront. They had considered severing the subject property into two lots in order to build two separate cottages with permitted accessory structures, but concluded, (notwithstanding that they can do this as of right, he said), that this would create more structures and massing on the waterfront (two versus one of everything) which is less desirable. As such they reverted to the single cottage concept. To this end, they constructed a road into this property (from Grays Road) and applied to the Township for a minor variance for a lot coverage increase of 0.5% (from 5.0% to 5.50%, or approximately 550 square feet).

20Although only 5 m was required as a minimum setback, they voluntarily agreed with the Township at the hearing, to keep the main cottage at least 25m from the lot line with the neighbour's property on the west side (Chapnik’s property) and, substantially more setback from the neighbour on the east side (Paul Bronfman). The location of the cottage on the western side of the lot is based on the access to the lake without having to disrupt the natural fall lines.

21They consulted with the Township and neighbours and produced letters of support for building a single home on a single lot. This minor variance was approved by the COA at a meeting on March 10, 2021. At that meeting, Mr.Chapnik opposed the minor variance and presented a letter from Planscape which is included in the municipal materials. Despite this opposition, Mr. Nullmeyer stated that the COA approved the minor variance noting that it was very minor in nature, is subject to site plan control and that the Applicants were agreeing to a 25m setback on the main cottage instead of the 5m that is required. He said that the planning issues in the Planscape letter have all been addressed by the Township in the process, or they would not have approved the variance.

22Nonetheless, the Appellants appealed the approval. The precise nature of the appeal is noted on the Planscape letter. Mr. Nullmeyer stated that the variance requested by him is far less significant than the variance recently obtained by the Appellants at their property. That variance included an increase in the size of the main structure of 0.5% from 6.25% to 6.75 % (versus the Applicant’s 0.5% from 5.0% to 5.5%) and the Chapnik’s application included a zoning amendment for an 8,500 square feet Sports Arena. The Appellants’ zoning amendment was appealed by the Applicant, but not the minor variance for size increase. The Tribunal there, noted in their decision, that the Chapnik’s minor variance and the zoning amendment was 'good planning' with a zoning amendment and a larger size variance. Mr.Nullmeyer then noted that the instant application must also be very good planning as it includes no zoning amendment and it is for a smaller size variance request. He applied for a minor variance to increase the size of the main structure (the cottage) by only 550 square feet or 0.5%, the same percentage as the Chapniks have applied for and been granted on their lot next door.

23Mr. Nullmeyer added that the Applicant has applied for a single-family structure, one boathouse, one garage (as noted above, the minor variance application did not include a garage) and one cabana (in fact, a gazebo). As of right, they could build two main structures of each, 2 boathouses, 2 garages (sic) and two cabanas by severing the land. Each of these structures could be 5 m set back from the neighbours on each side.

24Mr. Nullmeyer also referred to the Planning report where planning staff recommended approval and stated that all the four tests are met for the variance application.

25Mr. Nullmeyer stressed that his application is:(a) minor in nature, 0.5% and the same as the Chapniks have received and routinely granted by Seguin; (b) has neighbour support; (c) is very much in keeping with the Township OP idea of 'view from the canoe'; (d) is far less obtrusive than two complete building sites with two of each allowed structures which can be done as of right; (e) is 25 m away (main cottage) from the Chapniks’ lot line versus 5 m, a very large concession granted by the Nullmeyers to the Chapniks; (f) was approved by the Township; (g) is subject to site plan control; and (h) has no valid planning reasons for not being approved.

Appellants’ Position

26The Appellants’ property abuts the subject property and Mr. Chapnik objected to the Nullmeyers’ plans for a large garage/storage structure (again, the minor variance does not include a garage) on the subject property in this hearing. This large garage structure is only 5 m off the mutual property line, while his (Chapnik’s) large recreational structure is 10m off the lot line.

27He stated that he was required to make a zoning amendment for his large recreational structure while the Applicant has not been required to seek any zoning by-law amendment or variance approval for their similarly sized garage/storage structure.

28Mr. Chapnik stated that the proposed development will have a significant detrimental impact on his property. The proposed cottage will dominate the view of the shoreline.

29Mr. Chapnik noted that no landscaping plans were filed with the variance application. Neither the public, Township staff or the COA had any means of assessing the impact of the proposal without such plans [especially the impact of the proposed location of the main cottage and garage/storage structure].

30Mr. Szczerbak, took the Tribunal through the legislative review and the requirements of the statutory tests that relate to this application. His evidence is the only professional land use opinion evidence available to the Tribunal. This evidence is uncontradicted and remain uncontroverted by the limited cross-examination by the Applicant. The Tribunal is persuaded by and accepts Mr. Szczerbak’s opinion evidence.

Site Context

31The following details the site context.

1. The property is legally described as Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 9, in the Township.
2. It is located on the northern shoreline of Lake Joseph, known municipally as 4 Grays Road.
3. The property is vacant with the exception of a recently created driveway.
4. The property appears to contain gradual to steep slopes along the immediate shoreline, with the interior having gentle slopes and relatively level. The majority of the property is well treed, with a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees, interspersed with quite a bit of barren areas and rock outcroppings directly along the shoreline. There is an existing driveway access for the property extending from Grays Road.
5. The property is located in an area of waterfront/recreational development, with land uses consisting of: North: Grays Road South: Lake Joseph East: Shoreline residential West: Shoreline residential

Property Information Lot Area: 4.1 hectares Frontage: 193.8 metres Access: Private Road (Grays Road) to Clear Lake Road Official Plan Designation: Shoreline Area Zone: Limited Service Residential- LSR Zone

32Mr. Szczerbak contended that the Applicant intends to develop the vacant property with a new:

• 652.34 square metres dwelling (with a footprint of 429.26 square metres).
• 767.6 square metres detached garage/classic car storage (same footprint).
• 9.29 square metres gazebo.
• 160.16 square metres boathouse/boatport (with a footprint of 136.87 square metres) and 75.65 square metres swim dock.

Development located between shoreline and 60 metres would include the dwelling, boathouse, boatport and gazebo.

33Mr. Szczerbak’s opinion is that the Minor Variance application to permit the development of the subject property is premature, without clear, concise and complete supporting documentation to fully understand any possible impacts of the proposed development to the Appellants’ property, the surrounding waterfront community and the “view from the canoe”.

34It is his opinion that the proposed oversized garage/classic car storage building is not “accessory” to the proposed development, as defined in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and should have been included within an appropriate planning application to be processed and reviewed by the public and Council within the applicable planning policy framework. The Tribunal acknowledges that the garage has not been included in the minor variance application, and will not deal with this question.

35Further his view is that the application before the Tribunal continues to be premature and a final assessment of the four (4) tests contained under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, cannot be completed.

Nevertheless, the application cannot and should not be found to:

a. maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law; or b. be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.

Analysis

ISSUE: Does the proposed development respect the shoreline character, aesthetic and policy requirements for shoreline residential developments?

36The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Szczerbak that it is the goal of the Official Plan, s. A.2.2.1, that all development on the Township’s lakes and rivers must protect and preserve the quality of the water, protect the visual and aesthetic character of the lakes and rivers, protect the recreational, social, and environmental experiences, protect public safety by prohibiting development in areas subject to flooding or erosion, and respect the unique character of each lake.

37The General Objectives for the Shoreline Area designation, OP s.C.3.1.1 are as follows:

a) To identify the ecosystem and community that is physically, functionally and socially focused on the lakes and rivers in the Township. b) To ensure that the quality of the lake environments are maintained or improved. c) To preserve the visual qualities that attract people to the waterfront. d) To maintain and protect the character of the shoreline residential areas. e) To protect the natural features of the Shoreline Area and the immediate shoreline including fish habitat.

38It is evident to the Tribunal that s. A.2.2.1 and s. C.3.1.1 of the OP encapsulate the goals and objectives that the Township shall hold all developments to protect and preserve lake water quality, shoreline character, shorelines environment and visceral quality of the waterfront.

39Mr. Szczerbak stated that the policies in relation to shoreline areas emphasize the following:

• New development in the shoreline shall be sensitive to the preservation of tree cover and vegetation wherever possible so as to prevent erosion, siltation and possible nutrient migration and help maintain wildlife habitat (C.3.1.3.6).
• Waterfront Design policies address the complex relationships between all of the elements of built form, the natural environment and the lake environment, and focuses on:
  • the connections between people and these places,
  • the relationship between buildings and the lake, natural areas and vegetative buffers, and other uses,
  • the lake as public domain (C.3.1.3.10).
• the following are objectives of this OP relating to waterfront design:
  • to improve the aesthetic quality of the Township’s waterfront built form, and promote development which is based on good design principles and standards that reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of this OP;
  • to enhance the unique character of the Township’s waterfront areas by encouraging high quality design that is complementary and compatible with existing development, the Township’s natural heritage, and which fosters a strong sense of place.

40The Tribunal accepts the opinion of Mr. Szczerbak with respect to the above principal policies and acknowledges that the character of the shorelines in the Township includes exposed bedrock, coniferous and deciduous vegetation and a landscape where the natural environment predominates over human built buildings, structures or alterations to the landscape (C.3.1.3.12).

41Mr. Szczerbak referred to the Township Official Plan being based on the policy B.3, that all eligible development proposed on the lakes in the Township shall meet the highest standards for development established by the OP. This includes the submission of a Site Evaluation Report where required, which will address the maintenance or improvement of shoreline vegetation, limiting shoreline use areas, meeting all setback requirements, controlling storm water runoff and erosion, etc.

42These general policies apply to all the lakes in the Township: Applications for new development on the shoreline of all eligible lakes in the Township will be evaluated and based on the submission of a Site Evaluation Report. Among other things, the Report shall provide: s.B3(d) i) sufficient information about the nature of the lands, the development proposal, and the site’s context in the lake system; ii) site specific information such as a description and evaluation of the lands, sites location, slope analysis, soil characteristics etc.; v) potential impacts of the development on lake water quality, storm water quality and quantity, erosion, vegetation, habitat, shoreline visual/aesthetic concerns should be identified; vi) the Site Evaluation Report shall assess the constraints and impacts of development and address if the constraints and impacts can be managed effectively through the utilization of appropriate development control techniques; and vii) the Report shall also address the appropriateness of the proposed development and its ability to satisfy the principles and goals of this Plan in accordance with the policies of this Plan and specifically sections B.3 and B.14 of this Plan.

43He opined that to properly review the Applicant’s proposal, a site evaluation should have been submitted to determine if this is the best location of a large dwelling at this minimum 5 m setback (as per the original site plan submitted). A Site Evaluation Report has not been submitted with the minor variance application.

44It is the intent of the OP that new developments in the Shoreline Area be directed to lands that are physically suitable for development in their natural state in an effort to maintain the area’s unique character. Creating lands that are suitable for development by blasting or filling the natural landscape or dredging the lake bottom shall not be permitted (C.3.1.3.3).

45Mr. Szczerbak stressed that proper planning analysis must consider as-of-right development potential. This is a large existing vacant lot of record.

• Permitted main uses include a cottage, detached dwelling and home occupation.
• Permitted accessory uses are guided by provisions contained in section 4.1 and applicable definitions contained in the ZBL.
• Lot coverage provisions provide for 5% maximum for the area between the shoreline and the first 60 metres of the property. This equals 522.92 square metres. A 0.5% increase accounts for 52.51 square metres (565 square feet).
• ZBL also sets a maximum GFA size of a dwelling being 1.25 x max lot coverage – 653.66 square metres. Proposed Dwelling is 652.34 square metres.

46The Tribunal concurs with Mr. Szczerbak that at 429.26 square metres, the footprint of the dwelling will likely require substantial site alteration to the barren rock, both to accommodate the location of the building and also to facilitate its construction. Any existing vegetation in and around this barren area will be lost. This may pose potential impacts on drainage patterns and impacts when observing the property from the “view from the canoe”. It will create an even larger hole in the landscape (see Site Plan and location of bedrock on shoreline) and a possible intrusion within the shoreline area which may not be mitigated by any proposed landscaping plan or revised dwelling location.

47His view is that the location of the large dwelling on exposed bedrock may limit proper re-vegetation and landscaping, in accordance with OP policies noted above.

48The extent of site alteration, vegetation removal, or appropriate stormwater management and construction mitigation techniques have not been provided through a proper Site Evaluation Report (SER) (in accordance with sections B.3 & C.3.1.3.3 of the Official Plan). The Tribunal agrees with this assessment, as the importance of the SER cannot be overlooked or overstated. Without a proper SER, the COA simply does not have the ability to assess the possible negative impacts between the parties’ properties. This proposal needs an SER to ensure the buildings are located in the best location to minimize negative impacts to the abutting properties and the area’s shoreline. Siting the dwelling on the barren outcrop section of the subject property shoreline will result in obtrusive visual impacts from the canoe on the water.

Findings

49Mr. Szczerbak testified that the subject property is designated Shoreline Area in the Township OP. The policies listed permit a single detached dwelling as well as accessory buildings. Mr. Szczerbak explained that the drawings and plans submitted and the development proposal, as it stood, cannot be found to represent good planning and in the public interest without a site evaluation report and landscaping plan. He gave the Tribunal a video viewing of a drone recording, that he took of the shoreline that captured the Appellants’ property lakefront and the Applicant’s property lakefront. This is the “view from a canoe” that the parties referred to at the hearing. He opined that the proposed development will affect the property shoreline landscape.

50The subject property is zoned Limited Service Residential LSR under the ZBL. The Applicant is seeking a variance to allow for a maximum lot coverage as per the application. The variance application relates to the cottage and other structures within the 60 m from the shore. The proposed accessory garage structure of approximately 767.6 square metre is placed further in lot and did not feature in the requested application. Mr. Szczerbak’s view is that such a large structure should be part of the Minor variance application or should be part of a rezoning. In this instance, that was not undertaken. This structure is quite large, and the omission is too obvious to ignore. Furthermore, the accessory garage proposed, may not qualify as an accessory, as it is not incidental to or secondary to the dwelling use. The garage is larger than the dwelling proposed and does not appear to be subordinate to the principal use, resulting in a total footprint of approximately 767.6 square metres as compared to the footprint of the cottage of 429.26 square metres.

51After hearing from the Appellants’ expert witness and taking into consideration the submissions, the video, the perspectives/drawings and the documentary material on record, the Tribunal finds that the variance under consideration fails to satisfy the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act for the reasons that follow.

52The Tribunal agrees with the uncontradicted land use opinion evidence of Mr. Szczerbak and finds that this variance application in respect of the proposed development fails the statutory tests. The Tribunal will disregard the proposed garage which does not fall for consideration under the appeal. The Tribunal reiterates that failing one statutory test, is all that is required for the application to be rejected.

53The Tribunal is satisfied that the determination of the proposed variance application at the subject property has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities. Under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), when directing development in settlement areas, a planning authority shall apply the relevant policies (s. 1.1.3.2).

54The subject property is zoned Limited Service Residential LSR under the ZBL. The OP designation is Shoreline Area, which permits single detached dwellings and accessory buildings.

55The objective of the OP is to ensure that new developments respect the lakefront and shoreline characteristics, quality and shore front aesthetics. The paramount goal of this municipality is to encourage developments that are compatible and protective of the quality of the shorefronts character of the area. Those are the policies enacted in the OP as outlined by Mr. Szczerbak. The scale of the new development is to be consistent with the scale and character of this shoreline area and to minimize the impact of any new development. The existing lakefront of this neighbourhood area requires a more concerted effort to ensure the quality and character of the shoreline landscape is maintained and enhanced. The policies of the OP are to protect and strengthen the character of these Shoreline areas. The Applicant has failed to provide a Site Evaluation Report (SER) which will enable the Township to ascertain the impacts or effects of the proposed new development at this particular site. This SER together with a landscape plan, will go a long way to alleviating any concerns with respect to any impacts this new development will have on this shoreline lakefront neighbourhood.

56The proposed cottage is a dwelling which is a permitted use in this area. From the perspectives/drawings, the proposed development will be visible from the canoe, after vegetation on the subject land is cleared for it to be constructed, and will affect and impact the shoreline landscape by its size on the subject property. The Tribunal finds that the proposed primary dwelling will not be compatible in this shoreline community. The cottage, which could be built at the barren rock surface of the subject site, will be exposed as a prominent building, when viewed from the canoe on the lake, thus will affect the character and shoreline landscape of the Lakefront properties. The Tribunal therefore finds that the proposed new development, does not meet the OP policies requirements nor respect the aesthetics and shoreline character of this shoreline neighbourhood. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this proposed development maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.

57The intent of the ZBL is to regulate land use and the location and use of buildings including accessory uses within the zone. The proposed use of a dwelling is permitted. The Tribunal finds that the proposed location at 5 m from the adjacent property’s lot line, (the original site plan for the minor variance application) has a negative impact on the neighbouring property. The sheer size of the dwelling building being that close to the neighbour is not conducive to minimising impact. Furthermore, without the SER or the landscaping plan, the Tribunal is unable to ascertain whether this is the best location for the dwelling, or whether 25 m (revised site plan) from the adjacent lot line is appropriate, taking into consideration, the natural bedrock characteristics, the treed and unvegetated areas, and the contours of the subject property. The Tribunal is unable to determine what the most appropriate setbacks are, that would enable the best site location for the cottage building. Upon the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Szczerbak, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL is maintained.

58The variance does not meet the Township’s planning objectives with respect to construction of a dwelling that is compatible with the characteristics of the established shoreline, as required by the policies in built form and the character of the shoreline area. The proposed dwelling building will overwhelm and affect the shoreline landscape with its size and scale, and will feature obtrusively when viewed from the canoe. The cottage being built at the barren outcrop of the property will have an impact on the shoreline landscape. The perspective from the canoe, will be a building that is prominently placed upon the subject property’s least vegetative location. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is not desirable for the appropriate use and development of the subject property.

59The proposed dwelling will not maintain compatibility with the aesthetics and shoreline character of the surrounding area. There is massing effect on the subject property. The Tribunal finds that there are negative impacts on the adjacent Appellants’ property by the scale, size and location at 5 m from the mutual lot line on the subject property. This massing has a negative impact on the shoreline at the lakefront. Whether a variance is minor or not depends on the impact it creates. The view from a canoe shoreline-scape will be impacted, if the proposed dwelling is placed at the barren rock portion of the property. The lack of vegetation or trees will augment the size and massing at the shoreline when viewed from a canoe on the lake. This is a negative impact that will affect the owners of adjacent properties and on the occupants of adjacent lands or the neighbourhood. The Tribunal finds that the variance is not minor in nature.

In summary, based on the particular facts and evidence of this matter, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development does not respect the shoreline character, aesthetic and policy requirements for shoreline residential developments.

Order

60THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 is not authorized.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.