Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 14, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000618
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
Roger Craig Short and Jodi Bechard
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
Minor variance to permit the existing use of a recently constructed carport.
Reference Number:
A-05/23
Property Address:
3465 Duke Street
Municipality/UT:
St. Clair/Lambton
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-000618
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-000618
OLT Case Name:
Short v. St. Clair (Township)
Heard:
December 8, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Roger Craig Short and Jodi Bechard (“Applicant”)
Melissa Scott
Township of St. Clair
Ken Melanson* Carlie McClemens*
DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order BACKGROUND
1Roger Craig Short and Jodi Bechard (“Applicant”) appealed the decision of the Township of St. Clair (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) denial of an application for minor variances (“MV”) from Zoning By-law 17 of 2003 (“ZBL 17-2003”) to permit the construction of an accessory structure (carport) at 3465 Duke Street (“Subject Property”).
VARIANCES REQUESTED
2The minor variances requested are as follows:
To permit an interior side yard setback of 0.7 metres (“m”), whereas 1.2 m is the minimum required.
To permit an accessory structure lot coverage of 76.6 m2 (“square metres”), whereas 67 m2 is the maximum permitted.
PARTIES AND EVIDENCE
3Counsel for the Applicant attended the hearing together with her client.
4There were no additional Party or Participant status requests.
5In addition to the CoA decisions, CoA minutes and Application for Minor Variance regarding the Subject Property, Counsel for the Applicant requested that the Township Planning Reports, that were prepared and submitted to the CoA in support of the requested minor variances, be entered as evidence. The Tribunal received and on consent, marked the following as Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Application for Minor Variances;
Exhibit 2: Township of St. Clair Planning Report for Minor Variance A05/23;
Exhibit 3: Township of St. Clair Committee of Adjustment Decision File NO. A05/23, dated February 28, 2023;
Exhibit 4: Letter of Support for Minor Variances from Gerald Fairchild;
Exhibit 5: Township of St. Clair Supplemental Planning Report for Minor Variance A05/23;
Exhibit 6: Township of St. Clair Committee of Adjustment Decision File NO. A05/23, dated April 25, 2023;
Exhibit 7: Township of St. Clair Committee of Adjustment Decision File No. A05/23, dated May 30, 2023;
Exhibit 8: Township of St. Clair Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes dated May 29, 2023; and
Exhibit 8: Township of St. Clair Committee of Adjustment Supplemental Planning Report 2 for Minor Variance File No. A05/23.
6Counsel for the Applicant did not summons the Township staff who prepared the Planning Reports. Upon its discretion and Pursuant to s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, the Tribunal accepted the reports and the contents therein as evidence.
7The Township confirmed with the Tribunal in advance of the hearing, that it would not participate. Ken Melanson, a Planner with the Township, who was not the author of the Planning Reports marked as Exhibits No. 2, 5 and 8 attended the Hearing as a Friend of the Tribunal. On consent, Mr. Melanson was affirmed and deemed qualified to provide expert evidence in land use planning.
8Mr. Melanson provided brief oral evidence in support of Exhibits 2, 5 and 8 that supported the minor variance request for a reduced requirement for an interior side yard setback from 1.2 m to 0.7 m. As the Township Planning Report marked as Exhibit 8 indicates a requirement for a minor variance to permit an increase for lot coverage of an accessory structure from the maximum permitted of 67 m2 to 76.6 m2 but did not include a staff recommendation or review, Mr. Melanson provided testimony on this matter in greater detail.
9It was the opinion of Mr. Melanson that the minor variance requesting an increase in lot coverage for an accessory structure maintains the intent of the Township’s Official Plan (“OP”) and the policies pertaining to residential development, by building an accessory structure to a dwelling. Mr. Melanson gave evidence that since one side of the Subject Property has clear and unobstructed access to the rear, the general intent and purpose of the ZBL would be achieved. Mr. Melanson opined that given the size of the residential lots in the community and that the proposed variance was consistent with the surrounding land uses, that it was appropriate and deemed minor in nature.
10The Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in S. 45 (1) of the Planning Act (“Act”), to determine a request for variance:
Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
Is minor in nature.
11Mr. Melanson concluded his testimony by stating that it was his opinion that the proposed variances met the four elements set out in s. 45 (1) of the Act, has regard for provincial interest as outlined in s. 2 of the Act, and are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”).
12Counsel for the Applicant stated that there were no public objections to this application and that the adjacent neighbour provided a letter of support, marked as Exhibit 4.
FINDINGS
13The Tribunal reviewed the Staff Planning Reports pertaining to the minor variance requesting a reduced interior side yard setback and agrees with the contents in its entirety.
14Given that the Subject Property is designated as Residential in the Township OP and that this designation permits singled detached units and accessory units, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and that it is appropriate for the use of the land.
15Maintaining adequate property access without the need for trespass, adequate separation between buildings to address potential fire safety issues, property sun shading and drainage were the reasons outlined in the Township Planning Report for the determination of the interior side yard setbacks within ZBL 17-2003. The Township Planning Report indicates that the driveway of the adjacent property is elevated and as such, the water drainage is already separated. The Tribunal concurs with the Township Planning Reports that there appears to be adequate separation of 5.6 m from the carport to the adjacent home providing access and thus maintain the general intent and purpose of ZBL 17-2003.
16The Subject Property has an area of 0.10 hectares with a single detached dwelling comprised of 91.6 m2 and an attached garage with an area of 49.0 m2. The carport had been added to the front of the existing garage with an approximate area of 49.3 m2. Both the Township Planning Reports and Mr. Melanson’s oral testimony provided evidence that the size and scale of the Subject Property, along with its consistency in character with the neighbourhood, would make the minor variances minor in nature. The Tribunal agrees with this summation.
17The Tribunal finds that the requested variances have regard for the provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2020 and satisfy all four elements of s. 45 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No 17 of 2003 of the Township of St. Clair are authorized.
“J. Innis”
j. inniS
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.