Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 07, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001191
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Angela Henry and Steven Chinn
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law: 2004-035
Property Address/Description: 204 South Road / Part Lot 9, Concession 10
Municipality: Hastings Highlands
Municipal File No.: A-1-2021
OLT Lead No.: OLT-21-001191
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001191
OLT Case Name: Henry et al v. Hastings Highlands (Municipality)
Heard: December 14, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Angela Henry and Steven Chinn
Self-represented
Municipality of Hastings Highlands
Tony E. Fleming and Spencer Putnam
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This appeal arises out of an application by Angela Henry and Steven Chinn (“Appellants”) for minor variances in relation to their property at 204 South Road (“subject property”), which the Municipality of Hastings Highlands (“Municipality”) refused.
2The Appellants are siblings who purchased the subject property in or around 2017 in the hopes of fulfilling a specific vision – a “family” property to be enjoyed by themselves, their children and grandchildren, large enough to accommodate two dwellings to comfortably house each of their respective immediate families.
3The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (“WR”) and Environmental Protection (“EP”). It is irregular in shape, approximately 2.43 acres in size and abuts the southern shore of Lake St. Peter. Lake St. Peter is identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”) as a cold water lake trout fishery and is classified by the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) as “at capacity for development”. According to the MECP, this is a highly sensitive classification in that the lake is managed for lake trout and requires ongoing maintenance of excellent water quality and reduction of cumulative impacts of development further impacting water quality.
4Previously, the subject property contained two dwellings - a cottage, which was recently rebuilt and a log cabin, which has been demolished. It is the log cabin which is the focus of this hearing. It was originally built in the 1930s and was demolished in late May-early June 2020, subject to a permit issued by the Municipality. It is to be noted that the Appellants demolished a portion of the cabin in advance of receiving the demolition permit, because they were concerned it was unsafe.
5The Appellants now seek to construct a new dwelling where the log cabin once stood and initially submitted an application for a number of minor variances under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act 1 (“Act”) on the advice of staff in the Municipality’s planning department. On April 15, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) deferred the application to allow the Appellants an opportunity to have further discussions with the Municipality’s planning staff. The Appellants amended the application to reduce the height of the proposed dwelling, but on June 24, 2021, the Committee ultimately denied same, resulting in the present appeal.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
6Because the subject property is situated in an EP zone, a dwelling is not a permitted use pursuant to s. 26.2 of Zoning By-law No. 2004-035 (“ZBL”). However, s. 5.10.4 of the ZBL provides the following exception:
Nothing in this Bylaw shall prevent the rebuilding or repair of any legal non-conforming building or structure