Barrotta v. Sequin (Township), 2022 CanLII 71591

ISSUE DATE: August 5, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001445

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Charlie and Tanya Barrotta

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 35 Greenwood Camp Road

Variance from By-law: 2006-125

Municipality: Township of Sequin

Municipal File No.: A-2021-0031-H

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001445

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001445

OLT Case Name: Barrotta v. Sequin (Township)

Heard: February 9, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Charlie and Tanya Barrotta

Marc P. Kemerer

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON FEBRUARY 9, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a hearing regarding an appeal by Charlie and Tanya Barrotta (“Applicant/Appellant”) regarding the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of Seguin (“Township”). The minor variances were sought from Township By-law No. 2006-125 to rebuild a larger dock structure.

2The Applicant/Appellant owns property municipally known as 35 Greenwood Camp Road in the Township (“Subject Property”).

3The Township and the Applicant/Appellant informed the Tribunal that they have reached and executed minutes of settlement to resolve all the issues in this appeal.

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

4The Tribunal received no requests for additional party or participant status, and none were granted.

WITNESSES

5There were two witnesses. The witnesses were affirmed/sworn per their choice.

6Jamie Robinson appeared on behalf of the Township. Mr. Robinson was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

7John Jackson was presented by the Applicant/Appellant and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

EXHIBITS

8The following exhibits were marked as part of the evidence at the hearing:

(a) Exhibit 1: Document Book

EVIDENCE

9The experts provided opinion evidence in the context of possible authorization of minor variance(s) if certain test as per s. 45(1) of the Act are met. Namely:

(a) Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained?

(b) Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained?

(d) is it minor in nature?

10Mr. Robinson provided details about the original minor variances sought by the Applicant/Appellant as follows:

By-Law No. 2006-125

Required

Proposed

Variance

Section 4.28 c) Table 4.3 Minimum Setback From Side Lot Line

15 m

5 m

10 m

Section 6.3 Table 6.3 Maximum Lot Coverage

6.25%

12.9% (Existing lot coverage is 10.2%)

6.65% (2.7% increase from existing)

11Mr. Robinson described the Subject Property as a pie shaped very large lot not typical of what the Zoning By-law No. 2006-1125 (“ZBL”) envisages in establishing side lot and lot coverage parameters.

12Mr. Robinson informed that as part of the settlement, maximum lot coverage has been reduced from the requested 12.9% to 12.5%. He stated that this was primarily achieved by reducing the size of the new boathouse from originally requested (11 m by 11 m) size to a new reduced size of (11 m by 9 m).

13Mr. Jackson in his oral testimony supported the evidence and expert opinions presented by Mr. Robinson.

OFFICIAL PLANS

14Mr. Robinson reviewed the Township Official Plan (Exhibit 1, page 76). He opined that the proposal maintains the character of shoreline areas. He opined that in the context of the sought variances, the general intent and purpose of the Township Official Plan is maintained.

ZBL

15Mr. Robinson opined that the significant variance is the requested minimum setback of 5 m from the side lot line. He explained that this setback is with respect to a Township road allowance and does not interface with other properties. He opined that given the location of this setback and the overall proposed location of the boathouse, there are no impacts on navigation or visual impacts on neighbouring lots.

16Mr. Robinson also reviewed the existing lot coverage at 10.2% of the pie shaped lot. He opined that the final agreed to lot coverage at 12.5% is a marginal increase of 2.3%. He concluded that given the small increase and the location of the proposed boathouse there is little impact on shoreline or surrounding neighbours.

17Mr. Robinson concluded that the minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

MINOR

18Mr. Robinson opined that the impact of the requested variances are minor in nature. He reiterated that the variance from the setback from the side lot line is with respect to a road allowance which causes no navigation or visibility hindrances. In terms of lot coverage, given the pie shaped nature of the lot, the proposed boathouse size will not impact the shoreline or the neighbours in any major ways and is minor.

19Mr. Robinson concluded that the minor variances when considered together are thus minor having little impact on the surroundings and the shoreline.

DESIRABLE

20Mr. Robinson reviewed that the replacement boathouse will provide for an upgrade to the recreational uses of the property. He opined that the provincial policies and the plans encourage the development and use of recreational purposes for such properties.

21Mr. Robinson opined that given little negative impacts, the variances will facilitate the upgrade of a desirable recreational use.

PROVINCIAL INTEREST

22In the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”) Mr. Robinson referred to policy 1.1.5.2. He opined that this policy directs that the recreational uses are permitted and encouraged. He testified that the new boathouse facilities such attributes.

23Mr. Robinson stated that the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (2011) does not directly impinge on the requested minor variances but does support development of possible tourism or related like uses.

24Mr. Robinson concluded and opined that the proposed minor variances thus have due regard for the provincial interest.

ANALYSIS

25The Tribunal received oral and written testimony of the two experts in the area of land use planning. This testimony was uncontroverted and unopposed.

26Having consideration for all the material on file, oral and written testimony at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the minor variances have due regard for the provincial interest, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township Official Plan and the ZBL, are minor separately as well as when considered together, and are desirable for the appropriate maintenance and development of the recreational uses of the property.

ORDER

27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the following minor variances to the Township of Seguin Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 are authorized subject to conditions in Attachment 1 to this decision:

Whereas Section 4.28 c) Table 4.3 requires a Minimum Setback From Side Lot Line of 15 m, 5 m is authorized; and
Whereas Section 6.3 Table 6.3 requires a Maximum Lot Coverage of 6.25%, a lot coverage of 12.5% is authorized.

“Jatinder Bhullar”

JATINDER BHULLAR

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions

That the Owner applies for and obtains both a demolition permit for the existing boathouse, and a building permit for the new boathouse within two (2) years of the date of the OLT Decision; and
The extend of the variance will be limited to that shown on the sketch plan included in this Decision as Schedule A

SCHEDULE A