Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 29, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001471
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellants: Roland and Petra Hase
Applicants: Luke and Alicia Calma
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 1296 Grosbeak Drive
Variance from By-law: 2005-120
Municipality: Dysart et al
Municipal File No.: D13MV2021011
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001471
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001471
OLT Case Name: Hase v. Dysart et al (Mun.)
Heard: March 8, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
Luke and Alicia Calma Self-represented
Roland and Petra Hase Self-represented
Municipality of Dysart et al No one appeared
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON MARCH 8, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Roland and Petra Hase (the “Appellants”) against the decision of its Committee of Adjustment’s (the “CoA”) decision on August 31, 2021, in relation to a minor variance from Zoning By-Law No. 2005-120 (the “ZBL”) concerning 1296 Grosbeak Drive (the “Subject Property”).
2In the initial application, Luke and Alicia Calma (the “Applicants”) proposed to change the use of an existing two-storey accessory building and legalize the existing maximum lot coverage for their property on Straggle Lake. The Applicants do not plan to change the footprint of the existing building. No new development is proposed.
3The existing two-storey accessory building was constructed via building permit P10BP2000178 (with an approved 1.5 metre (“m”) side lot line setback) with the first storey being used as a garage and the second storey being used for storage. The garage was constructed prior to the implementation of the provision that the second storey of an accessory structure shall be restricted to a private cabin.
4The Applicants wish to change the use of the second storey to be a private cabin. Changing the use of the second storey to permit habitation requires a change of use permit to a private cabin and a minor variance application.
5The garage is 1.5 m from the lot line, the proposed private cabin will not comply with section 3.1(d)(v) of the ZBL which requires a private cabin to be 4.5 m from the interior side lot line. Section 3.1(d)(v) states:
(v) Despite the provisions of Tables 5.2, where an accessory building is a private cabin, the private cabin shall comply with the minimum lot line setbacks for the main building.
6The second storey of the two-storey accessory building is 37 square metres (“m2”) (399 square feet (“sq. ft.”)) which complies with the maximum area of 45 m2 (484 sq. ft.). The Applicants would like to legalize the lot coverage on the lot as it exceeds the permitted 15% by 3.9%, with the total being 18.9%.
7The cottage was built in 1979 via building permit P10BP1973019, and there were three cottage additions, in 1991, 1992, and 2003. The private garage was built in 2000 with a carport addition in 2007 (P10BP2007246). There is no record of a building permit for the shed with lean to, or assessment records as the lot is within Harcourt Park.
8The Staff report notes that the interior side lot line setback was brought to the attention of the Building Departments from a complaint, which lead to an investigation by By-law Enforcement staff. The Applicants have been completing the application for voluntary compliance in regard to the interior side lot line setback and the septic system.
9To address concerns of privacy due to the proximity of the building to the side lot line, staff recommend a condition that no deck, opening (e.g., window or door), exterior light or stairs be permitted abutting the south interior side lot line (which the Tribunal accepts for the purpose of this hearing as being the mutual lot line between the Applicants’ and the Appellants’ lands).
10Staff also recommend a condition that the gross floor area and/or structure height of the two-storey accessory building/private cabin shall not be increased.
11The CoA deferred the variance on July 14, 2021, for a site inspection of the Subject Property.
12Subsequently, after the site visit, the CoA granted the minor variances on August 31, 2021, subject to 12 conditions.
13The Appellants filed an appeal outlining several issues mainly, lighting and visual privacy, noise, septic, shoreline concerns including the legality (no permits) of the existing private cabin and the CoA hearing process itself. In addition, the concern of the residential structure is a major infringement of their rights to enjoy their property and its peace and tranquility.
DECISION
14The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence including documents filed as well as the submissions of the parties, and is satisfied based on the evidence of Marie Poirier that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) have been met by this application and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
15The following variances are requested to permit construction of a private cabin within an existing two-storey accessory building and to legalize the lot coverage on a property in the Waterfront Residential Type 4L-1 (“WR4L-1”) zone:
(a) A decrease to the provisions of section 3.1(d)(v) to permit a private cabin to have a south interior side lot line setback of 1.5 m (4.9 feet) as opposed to the required 4.5 m (14.76 feet);
(b) An increase to provisions of section 5.2 to permit a lot within a WR4L-1 zone to have a lot coverage of 18.9%, as opposed to the permitted 15%.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
16It must be noted that an appeal to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act is a hearing de novo and the onus of establishing that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act to meet is on the Applicant. In addition, in making a decision under the Act with respect to a minor variance, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2. The decision must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) under s. 3 (5) and conform with any Provincial plans that are in effect.
17Applications for minor variance must satisfy all four tests as set out under s. 45(1) of the Act, namely that the requested variances:
i. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”),
ii. maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL,
iii. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, and,
iv. are minor in nature.
EVIDENCE
18Ms. Poirier is a professional planner, who appeared before the Tribunal to give expert testimony. After reviewing Ms. Poirier’s professional qualifications (marked as Exhibit 1a) and confirmation of her Acknowledgement of Expert Duties (marked as Exhibit 1b), the Tribunal on consent qualified Ms. Poirier to provide expert testimony in the field of land use planning.
19The Appellants advised the Tribunal that they would be self-represented. The Applicants had no objections.
20Evidence presented showed the Subject Property zoned WR4L-1 in the ZBL. The Subject Property is legally known as part Lot 12 Concession 5 Harcourt, Part 246 RD49 (Harcourt Park), in the Municipality of Dysart et al, County of Haliburton. The Subject Property is an approximately 0.35 acres (0.14 hectares) parcel of waterfront property with approximately 29 m of frontage onto Straggle Lake.
21The property is developed with a detached cottage dwelling, a two-storey garage with a lean to, and a small shed and gazebo. Ms. Poirier presented a sketch of the Subject Property, “Title Site Plan Sketch 1296 Grosbeak Drive, Harcourt” dated May 27, 2021 with added edits on February 17, 2022 (see attached Sketch Schedule 1, marked as Exhibit 2).
Character Analysis
22Ms. Poirier advised the Tribunal that the Subject Property is used for seasonal recreational purposes. Similarly, the surrounding properties fronting Straggle Lake are similar lots in shape and size. This area, known as Harcourt Park, is comprised of multiple leasehold lots which are similarly developed with modest cottages and accessory structures on small lots. The area has a natural landscape as there are no substantial developments or any development other than cottages in the area.
23Ms. Poirier’s opinion is that the existing development on the Subject Property is cohesive and in character with the surrounding properties and landscape. The design of the property is cohesive, with consistent colours and architectural style found on the property. Permitting the proposed minor variance would maintain the character of the property, which is represented by its undersized lot and modest development.
24Ms. Poirier opines establishing a private cabin above the existing garage would not contribute to any massing on the property and prevent the property from becoming over developed, while maintaining the function and use of the property.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
25With respect to the PPS, Ms. Poirier testified special attention was given to s. 2.1 natural heritage and s. 2.2 water policies, as the Subject Property is located on Straggle Lake. According to Ms. Poirier, these sections are pertinent because the property is a waterfront property surrounded by natural features, which comprise the character of the area. Maintaining and protecting natural features such as natural landscapes and lake quality is of provincial interest.
26In regard to s. 2.1.2 natural heritage resources, Ms. Poirier submitted the proposed planning application intends to maintain the existing natural features of the property and there will be no adverse impacts to natural features in any way.
27In regard to s. 2.2 concerning policies for water, Ms. Poirier testified that the Subject Property has an existing septic system and has been developed and existed for over 20 years. The proposed minor variance is to recognize an existing setback deficiency on the garage and convert the second storey of the garage to a private cabin. In Ms. Poirier’s opinion, this will not lead to increased strain on water or septic systems. No new construction or development is proposed, as the private cabin is proposed in an existing structure, therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to water quality.
28In conclusion, Ms. Poirier testified the Subject Property is not located on or adjacent to any significant wetlands, significant woodlands, or significant wildlife habitat. However, it was noted that there is a deer wintering area identified in the area in relation to the animal natural heritage designation. Ms. Poirier testified however, there would be no removal of trees or vegetation and no impacts to natural features that will result from this variance.
29Ms. Poirier’s opinion is the existing and proposed development associated with this application are consistent with the PPS in its entirety and specifically with respect to s. 2.1 and s. 2.2.
County of Haliburton Official Plan (2017)
30Ms. Poirier informed the Tribunal that the County of Haliburton OP was reviewed with special attention given to s. 3 “rural lands,” under which the property is designated. According to Ms. Poirier other sections of the OP were either irrelevant or non-applicable.
31Ms. Poirier explained s. 3.1 defines rural lands as “all lands outside of the urban settlement areas (the Village of Minden, the Village of Haliburton and the Village of Cardiff) and rural settlement areas (West Guilford, Irondale, etc.)).”
32In regard to s. 3.1, Ms. Poirier submitted the Subject Property is developed with a modest recreational, seasonal dwelling, much like the surrounding properties. The existing use and accessory structures are categorized under the predominant land uses and is suitable rural development for the area.
33In regard to s. 3.3.1 policies specific to rural lands designation, Ms. Poirier’s opinion is the subject garage does not put any undue strain on resources. The development on the property has existed for many years on a private septic system and follows attractive design principles. All buildings on the property are the same colour with the same brown siding and green accents, which is cohesive with the rural surroundings. The development on the property does not strain existing infrastructure, nor does it have any negative visual impacts.
34In regard to s. 3.4 permitted uses, Ms. Poirier submitted the Subject Property, and the permitted uses conform to the relevant policies for rural lands in the County OP. Section 5 of the OP includes policies for the environment, which is pertinent because of the extensive natural sustaining lakes, forests, and natural habitats. Ms. Poirier submitted the integrity and function of natural heritage features and areas will be protected, restored and enhanced for the long term. Ms. Poirier testified, this planning application intends to recognize an existing setback deficiency and establish a private cabin within that existing garage, therefore, no new development is proposed on the property which would impact any natural heritage features.
35In conclusion, Ms. Poirier summarized to the Tribunal that the Subject Property is an existing lot of record. New development is not proposed on the Subject Property. Since the existing property has been developed and has functioned for over 20 years, it can be determined that the property is suitable to sustain its existing uses. The property functions using a private septic system, which is only used by the main dwelling as there are no facilities in the accessory structures on the property. As such, the private cabin which is the subject of the proposed minor variance does not put any strain on the existing water, wastewater systems on the property. Therefore, the Subject Property and the permitted uses thereon conform to the relevant policies for rural lands in the County OP.
Dysart et al Official Plan
36The Subject Property is designated as “Waterfront Residential Area” in the OP for the Municipality of Dysart et al.
37Ms. Poirier informed the Tribunal s. 4 general development policies, apply to both settlement areas and rural lands (which includes waterfront areas and rural areas) in the Municipality. This section states that development policies pertaining to waterfront properties is in s. 5 and s. 9 of the OP, so special attention was given to these sections.
38Ms. Poirier advised the Tribunal that since no new development is proposed, the existing development does not have any adverse impacts to the environment. Alternatively, the removal of the garage, which is subject to the setback minor variance would lead to a large unsightly hole in the landscape, as well as lead to a property that has less storage and indoor parking, resulting in a diminished visual aesthetics and function on the property.
39Regarding s. 5 resource protection policies, Ms. Poirier testified, the existing garage and proposed private cabin are setback well behind the existing dwelling on the property, which exceeds the minimum setback from the water. As such, the proposed application will have no adverse impacts to the shoreline. The existing dwelling and all structures on the property conform to this section.
40Ms. Poirier informed the Tribunal that s. 5.2.2 lake trout lakes, includes a table for the status of lake trout lakes indicating whether they are at capacity. Straggle Lake is not identified on this table; therefore, it has not been identified as a sensitive lake. However, Appendix B of the Dysart et al OP identified “Summer Recreation Carrying Capacity, Key Lakes.” The table identifies Straggle Lake as a lake over recreational capacity. Ms. Poirier’s opinion is that the property has been developed for many years and no new development or lots are being proposed. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the lake’s health or capacity by recognizing an existing structure.
41In conclusion, in Ms. Poirier’s opinion, these sections of the OP iterate the powers of the CoA to grant minor variances, provided they meet the four-part tests for a minor variance. The existing structure that this minor variance application proposes to recognize is a permitted use, has no negative visual or environmental impacts and conforms to the Dysart et al OP.
Dysart et al Zoning By-Law
42The Subject Property is zoned WR4L-1. Ms. Poirier informed the Tribunal the main building and accessory structures are already established on the lot. Therefore, per s. 3.1(a) permitted structures and uses, the proposed second storey private cabin is permitted on the property.
43In regard to s. 3.1(d) private cabins, Ms. Poirier testified the proposed private cabin seeks relief from the above provision which requires the minimum lot line setback to be 4.5 m. Since the private cabin is being proposed above an existing garage, the reduced setback would minimize the required construction and impacts to the property as well as allow for increased function and use of the property. When the garage was built, the side yard setback requirement was for accessory structures, which was met and exceeded. However, with the second storey being converted from a storage to a private cabin, this will increase the minimum setback requirement. To minimize construction impacts on the property, this application proposes a variance from the side yard setback from 4.5 m to 1.5 m, which will increase the use and function of the property. In Ms. Poirier’s opinion, this variance is minor in nature and represents desirable development for the property.
44In regard to s. 3.1(e) two storey accessory structures, Ms. Poirier submitted the existing garage was built in 2000 and the garage (lean to) addition was built in 2007, both with permits, exceeding the minimum side yard setback requirement of 1 m. However, the garage does not meet the 4.5 m setback requirement for the main building which would be required for private cabins. In Ms. Poirier’s opinion, the 3 m variance is minor in nature in the context of the overall size and development of the property and will not result in any negative impact on the property as the structure exists. The proposed application complies with all other provisions of the ZBL, including this section and maintains the overall general intent.
45In relation to s. 5.1 permitted uses, these include seasonal dwelling and private cabin. Ms. Poirier opines, per this section, the uses on the Subject Property are permitted and comply with this section.
46Section 5.2 Table outlines Zone Provisions. The following provisions apply to WR4L:
Lot area, minimum: 4,000 m2
Lot frontage, minimum: 60 m
Lot coverage, maximum; 15%
Minimum lot line setback, interior side, main building: 4.5 m
In Minimum lot line setback, interior side, accessory structure: 1 m
Minimum lot line setback, rear, accessory structure: 1 m
Minimum water setback, any other structure: 20 m
Structure height, any other structure maximum: 9.5 m
47Ms. Poirier advised the Tribunal that the Subject Property is a small lot with a restricted building envelope. Therefore, it is difficult to develop on the property without setback encroachments. The proposed private cabin complies with front and rear yard setback and height provisions. Despite the proposed private cabin being an accessory structure, provisions of the ZBL, namely s. 3.1 requires that a second storey private cabin be subject to the minimum lot line setback of the main dwelling, therefore, the required setback is 4.5 m. Ms. Poirier stated the relief is being sought to permit the existing garage and proposed private cabin to have a minimum lot line setback of 1.5 m.
48In regard to s. 5.4.6.1 WR4L-1 Exception Zone (Harcourt Park), Ms. Poirier testified this section is pertinent because the property is part of the lands known as Harcourt Park. However, since each property in Harcourt Park is leasehold, they are treated as individual lots and are subject to WR4L zone provisions. Ms. Poirier submitted the Subject Property and proposed private cabin will be brought to compliance by way of approval of this minor variance application.
49Ms. Poirier summarized for the Tribunal the Subject Property has been developed with the dwelling and accessory structures for decades. The Subject Property has a restrictive building envelope due to its size, therefore, it is constrained and requires a minor setback variance to permit the change in use. A two-storey garage with a private cabin on the second storey complies with all other provisions of the ZBL. By permitting a 3 m deficiency to the side yard setback, the second storey of an existing garage can be converted into a private cabin without needing to build a new structure, thereby, minimizing construction and overall impacts to the property.
50Furthermore, according to Ms. Poirier’s opinion, this application will positively contribute to the recreational function and use of the property, as intended by the Dysart et al ZBL. The size of the lot produces challenges and limitations for appropriate locations on the property on which to construct a new and separate private cabin.
51It is the opinion of Ms. Poirier, in all, the proposed minor variance conforms and complies with all relevant planning policies, including the general intent of the Dysart et al ZBL.
APPELLANTS’ ISSUES
52As noted above, the Appellants did not provide a witness and relied on cross-examination evidence including their closing submissions.
53The Appellants raised issues with the lot coverage and pointed out the sketch of the Subject Property (marked as Exhibit 2) was not accurate. Indicated on the sketch is a 3 m distance from the Applicants’ carport to the Appellants’ lot line; however, according to the Appellants, the setback is 1.5 m and therefore, not accurate. Ms. Poirier explained she had completed aerial photograph of the Subject Property which included a map from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) and acknowledged these maps are not always accurate and off scale. Ms. Poirier advised there was no survey conducted on the Subject Property.
54The Tribunal accepted the evidence and explanation of Ms. Poirier in relation to discrepancy of the 1.5 m distance from the carport to the Appellants’ lot line on the sketch. Ms. Poirier testified she relied on the MPAC map which are not always accurate and to scale. Noteworthy is the Staff Report dated August 6, 2021, notes the setback from the garage to the lot line is 1.5 m.
55The Tribunal advised both parties that a survey would have been preferable in this case to alleviate any potential future disagreements in regard to lot lines and setbacks; however, understands the additional costs associated with such.
56The Appellants also highlighted that the sketch did not have all the buildings or shed on the sketch. Ms. Poirier acknowledged the lean to and the gazebo were missing from the sketch; however, added the lean to and gazebo which were part of the lot coverage percentage and were to be removed as part of the CoA conditions.
57In relation to the Appellants’ concern of not having sufficient Notice from the CoA, Ms. Poirier advised the Appellants were at the statutory public meeting and made submissions and the CoA deferred their decision on July 14, 2021, and conducted a site visit to consider all of their concerns, which were taken into consideration that is highlighted in the subject conditions of the CoA decision issued August 31, 2021.
58Ms. Poirier testified, and the Tribunal agrees, that the CoA took all of the Appellants’ concerns into consideration in formulating their decision.
59In regard to the Appellants’ concern for the septic system, which in their opinion is very old and the septic is determined by the number of bedrooms, Ms. Poirier highlighted that in the private cabin, there is no kitchen, or bathroom facilities and is used only for an overnight cabin. The Municipality had no concerns with the existing septic system which was built with the proper permits. However, in closing submission, the Applicants acknowledged the CoA condition to having to contact the Building Permit Department for a septic review for the proposed private cabin with the possibility of having to upgrade the septic system.
60In regard to the Appellants’ concern for drainage of water onto their property, Ms. Poirier submitted there have been no concerns from the Municipality and there is a condition to comply with the Drainage Act which the Applicants are prepared to do. In closing submission, the Applicants highlighted the fact, the cottage has been in existence since 2000 and the flow of water or drainage is not a concern.
61The Appellants highlighted lighting concerns onto their property and highlighted Dysart et al ZBL s. 3.1.2 whereby, all exterior lights must be downward lights and not horizontal. Ms. Poirier advised there have been cases where, By- Law Enforcement Officers have had to attend the Applicants’ dwelling for noise and lighting issues, however, no violations were ever cited. Ms. Poirier added that Harcourt Park have similar lot sizes and flashlights are used for safety which is normal activity. This included the concern of vehicle headlights onto the Appellants’ property while parking in a driveway or residents having lights on in their respective dwellings which in Ms. Poirier’s opinion, and the Tribunal agrees are all normal activity.
62In closing submissions, the Applicants advised they removed a standard light from their front entrance on their own volition to a motion detector to show “good faith” to the Appellants’ concern of lighting and advised the one exterior light will be removed on the south interior side abutting the neighbour as required by the CoA condition to comply with s. 3.12 of the ZBL.
63The Appellants’ raised concerns of privacy, specifically the fact that the Applicants can see through to their kitchen and bedrooms. Ms. Poirier added the height of the building complies with the ZBL and one CoA condition is to have no openings or windows and/or remove all windows on the south interior side abutting the neighbour.
64In closing submissions, the Applicants raised concerns about removing the side windows due to not having a fire escape but advised they would comply with the CoA condition of having no openings, windows or doors on the wall adjacent to the south interior side lot line abutting the neighbour and removal of same if they currently exist.
65In regard to the Appellants’ lot line concern of the 1 m planting strip and gulley in between the properties, Ms. Poirier highlighted the private cabin already has a tree buffer on the Appellants’ lot line even though the Applicants will provide a 1 m planting vegetation strip as a required condition. Ms. Poirier added the private cabin is 14 m from the Appellants’ cottage and is not parallel.
66In regard to an oil tank beside the private cabin, the Applicants advised it is empty, and it will be removed as part of the CoA condition.
67Ms. Poirier summarized that privacy concerns from noise or illumination are the same as any other normal activity. Considering the private cabin has no washroom and people come and go and, in her opinion, is not an issue as far as a planning perspective is concerned.
FINDINGS
68In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided Ms. Poirier. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the application promotes good land use planning and is satisfied that the minor variances meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act.
69The Appellants presented multiple issues and concerns that were based mainly on apprehension. The Tribunal found the Appellants did not present any witnesses and only minimal applicable evidence in this case.
70The Tribunal finds that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the County OP. Regarding s. 3.1 rural lands and s. 3.4 permitted uses in the OP, the Tribunal finds there is an existing structure that has been there for 20 years, and no new development is proposed and there would be no impact to natural heritage features. The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Poirier, the private cabin does not put any strain on the existing water, wastewater systems on the property and will have a condition for the Applicants, who must contact the Building Permit Department for a septic review for the proposed private cabin. Therefore, the Subject Property and the permitted uses thereon conform to the relevant policies for rural lands in the County OP.
71The Tribunal finds that the variance conforms to the Dysart et al OP. Regarding s. 5 resource protection policies, the Tribunal agrees with Ms. Poirier, the existing garage and proposed private cabin are setback well behind the existing dwelling on the property, which exceeds the minimum setback from the water. As such, the proposed application will have no adverse impacts to the shoreline. In regard to s. 9 waterfront areas, the Tribunal finds the Subject Property contains a single unit dwelling which is intended for seasonal occupancy, therefore, the property conforms with the designation and permitted uses in waterfront areas. In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the existing structures is a permitted use, has no negative visual or environmental impacts and conforms to the Dysart et al OP.
72The Tribunal finds the variance conforms and complies with all relevant planning policies, including the general intent of the Dysart et al ZBL. In regard to s. 3.1 accessory structure and uses of the ZBL, the existing main building and accessory structures is permitted on the property. In regard to d) Private Cabins, this application proposes a variance from the side yard setback from 4.5 m to 1.5 m. The Tribunal finds this variance is minor in nature and represents desirable development for the property. Regarding e) Two Storey Accessory Structures, the existing garage has been there since 2000, both with permits and even though the garage does not meet the 4.5 m setback requirement for the main building which would be required for private cabins, the Tribunal agrees with Ms. Poirier, the 3 m variance is minor in nature in the context of the overall size and development of the property and will not result in any negative impact. In regard to zoning and permitted uses, zone provisions and excepted zones of the ZBL, the Tribunal finds the proposed private cabin complies with front and rear yard setback and height provisions and a two-storey garage with a private cabin on the second storey complies with all other provisions as mentioned above of the ZBL.
73The Tribunal finds that the requested variances are desirable and have regard for matters of provincial interest under the Act and are consistent with the PPS specifically with. s. 2.1 natural heritage resources and s. 2.2 water policies. Regarding natural heritage resources, the Tribunal finds the application intends to maintain the existing natural features of the property due to no new development. In regard to water policies, the Subject Property is not located on or adjacent to any significant wetlands, significant woodlands, or significant wildlife habitat and there would be no removal of trees or vegetation and therefore, no impacts to natural features.
74The Tribunal finds the change of use from a garage to a private cabin with a south interior side lot line setback of 1.5 m as opposed to the required 4.5 m and to legalize the lot coverage by an increase of 3.9% is considered minor in nature with the reasons mentioned above.
ORDER
75THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed, and the variances to By-Law No. 2005-120 to permit a decrease to the provisions of section 3.1(d)(v) to permit a private cabin to have a south interior side lot line setback of 1.5 metres as opposed to the required 4.5 metres; and an increase to provisions of section 5.2 to permit a lot within a WR4L zone to have a lot coverage of 18.9%, as opposed to the permitted 15% subject to the same conditions imposed by the Committee of Adjustment, namely:
These variances apply to a seasonal dwelling, as shown generally on Property Sketch dated May 27, 2021, and attached to the Decision. Any encroachment beyond the variance granted herein will require a further application for a minor variance.
The County of Haliburton Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law No. 3505 applies. The injuring or destruction of trees within 30 metres of the high-water mark is not permitted. The exemptions noted in Section 3 of By-law No. 3505 apply. Furthermore, additional native shoreline planting is encouraged to screen the buildings, naturalize the shoreline and address environmental concerns.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the gazebo located on the marine facility is to be removed or brought into compliance with the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2005-120.
No decks, openings (e.g., windows or doors), exterior lights or stairs are permitted on the wall adjacent to the south interior side lot line abutting the neighbour. Any existing decks, openings, exterior lights or stairs are to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit to change the use.
Drainage from the two-storey accessory building/private cabin is to comply with the Drainage Act.
The gross floor area and/or structure height of the two-storey accessory building/private cabin shall not be increased.
The Applicants must contact the Building Permit Department for a septic review for the proposed private cabin.
The Applicants must contact the Building Department regarding a building permit for the shed.
The Applicants shall implement and maintain a 1-metre planting strip along the property line between 1296 and 1300 Grosbeak Drive to screen the private cabin from neighbouring property.
All exterior lighting shall comply with section 3.12 of the Zoning By-law.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the lean to of the shed is to be removed.
The Applicants agree to relocate the oil tank adjacent to the south lot line.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE
MEMBER
“Blair S. Taylor”
blair s. taylor
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
OLT-21-001471 – Schedule 1
SKETCH – TITLE: SITE PLAN SKETCH 1296 GROSBEAK DRIVE, HARCOURT DATED MAY 27, 2021 WITH EDITS ADDED FEBRUARY 17,2022