Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 01, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000805
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Container Built Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a storage container as an accessory structure
Reference Number: A-23-52 (Minor Variance Application file), A-23-52 (Planning Report and Condition Chart)
Property Address: 360 Kingscross Drive
Municipality/UT: King/King
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000805
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000805
OLT Case Name: Container Built Inc. v. King (Township)
Heard: October 25, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Container Built Inc. (“Applicant”)
David Myers
Township of King (“Township”)
Unrepresented
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY jean-pierre blais and F. Lavoie ON OCTOBER 25, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by the Applicant of a refusal by the Township’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of a Minor Variance Application pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”). The Applicant is seeking relief from s. 3.2.1(f) of the Township’s Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 (“ZBL”) to permit an already built storage container as an accessory structure at 360 Kingscross Drive in the Township (“Subject Property”).
2Township staff supported the Application and recommended approval of the Application.
NOTICE
3Notice of this Hearing was sent administratively by the Tribunal on September 7, 2023.
4No other person sought Party or Participant Status.
5The Township indicated to the Tribunal that it would not appear at the Hearing.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
6The uncontested evidence for this appeal is in the form of the Appeal Record provided by the Township, including the Planning Report dated July 19, 2023, presented by the Township’s planning staff to the COA.
7Although this is an uncontested matter, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the Minor Variance Application meets all the legislative tests.
8From the outset, the Tribunal notes that the storage container is fully wrapped with an exterior wood cladding and no metal skin of the container is visible. The shipping container is thus being used as a support structure in much the same way as an interior wood frame is used for more traditional sheds or cabanas.
9For the following summary reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Minor Variance Application meets the four-part test provided in s. 45(1) of the Act.
10Firstly, the Tribunal finds that the Minor Variance Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Township’s Official Plan (“OP”). The OP defines ‘Outdoor Storage’ as the “stockpiling or storage of goods or a commodity required in association with the main use in an open yard not housed in any permanent building or structure but does not include the storage of vehicles for sale or repair or the display of finished merchandise for sale to the general public”. The shipping container in this instance does not meet the definition of Outdoor Storage and is considered to be an accessory structure to a Residential use. The property is designated “Established Neighbourhood” under the OP. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including single-detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto.
11Secondly, the Tribunal finds that the Minor Variance Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. The Subject Property is designated as RE- ‘Residential Estate’ under the ZBL. The intent of the ZBL is to prevent the use of storage containers within non-employment zones (i.e., residential, commercial, and institutional zones). Use of storage containers are often associated with an employment-related purpose such as the storage and sale of company equipment which is not a permitted use under non-employment related zones. Furthermore, shipping containers can constitute unsightly structures as they often have an adverse aesthetic appeal and are often quite large.
12However, the existing shipping container is being used as an accessory residential structure and has been designed to appear as such. To minimize any adverse aesthetic appeal, the Applicant has cladded the structure with wood boarding to create the appearance that the shipping container is similar to other accessory structures within the neighbourhood. The existing accessory structure (shipping container) is significantly under the lot coverage size and meets the height requirements of an accessory structure. Use of the structure is consistent with use of other accessory structures (i.e., storage of gardening equipment, pool equipment, bikes etc.). The storage container meets the front yard requirements, is accessory to the dwelling and is not located closer to the lot line than the existing dwelling. Furthermore, there is sufficient spacing between the structure and neighbouring property line. As such, the structure is consistent with a residential accessory structure and is subordinate to the existing dwelling.
13Thirdly, the Tribunal finds that the Minor Variance Application is desirable for the appropriate use of the land. The existing storage container is designed to mimic the appearance of other accessory structures within the neighborhood such as a personal storage building or a cabana. Use of the container will limit any outdoor storage of personal equipment and provide the Applicant with additional storage area. The accessory structure has been adequately setback from the street and adjacent properties.
14Fourthly, the Tribunal finds that the variance is minor. The Applicant is seeking to recognize only one storage container, with a lot coverage and a height which are less than the standards prescribed for accessory structures in the ZBL. The location and appearance of the structure do not create an adverse impact either towards the Subject Property or towards the surrounding properties.
15Finally, the Tribunal is also satisfied that the Application raises no concerns with respect to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe, 2020.
CONDITIONS
16Township staff recommended to the COA approval of the Minor Variance Application subject to two conditions. The Tribunal finds the conditions to be reasonable in the circumstances and has incorporated these conditions in its Order.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to the Township of King’s Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 is authorized subject to the following conditions:
i. That the location of the accessory structure does not interfere with the existing septic system; and,
ii. That the application submitted for a Building Permit be in substantial conformity with the Application submitted for the Minor Variance.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
MEMBER
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
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.