Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 2, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000523

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

Applicant and Appellant: Charles & Kim Mackenzie Subject: Minor Variance Description: Minor Variance to permit the construction of a new single detached dwelling with an attached three-car garage. Reference Number: A24/2025 Property Address: 1441 Christina Street Municipality/UT: Sarnia/Lambton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000523 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000523 OLT Case Name: Mackenzie v. Sarnia (City)

Heard: September 17, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Charles & Kim Mackenzie (“Appellant”)	Ms. Analee Baroudi
City of Sarnia (“City”)	Ms. Randi Kalar

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for minor variances (“Application”) to permit the construction of a new single-detached dwelling with an attached three-car garage on the lands municipally known as 1441 Christina Street North (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2There are a single-detached dwelling with driveway access onto Christina Street North and a detached covered porch accessory structure on the Subject Lands.

3The Subject Lands are an irregular-pie shaped corner lot with a frontage of approximately 7.01 metres (“m”) along Beacon Court to the south, a flankage of approximately 69.94 m on Christina Street North (terminus) to the east and an overall lot area of approximately 0.12 hectares (0.29 acres).

4The Subject Lands are located adjacent to Lake Huron to the north and surrounded by existing single-detached dwellings to the east, south and west. A public access route begins from the terminus of Christina Street North to the Lake Huron shoreline by a pedestrian sidewalk on the City’s lands abutting to the east of the Subject Lands.

5The City provided a letter to the Appellant stating that the Christina Street North Right-of-Way (“ROW”) extended beyond the road termination to the lake water’s edge and ROW was utilized for public beach access and other uses, such as the City’s construction and maintenance.

6The County of Lambton’s Official Plan (“County OP”) designates the Subject Lands as “Urban Centre” and the rear portion of the lands along Lake Huron as “Primary Corridor (Group “C” Feature)”.

7Further, the Subject Lands are designated “Existing Community Area”, “The Greenlands System”, “Existing Neighbourhood”, “Environmental Protection” and “Natural Heritage” on the City’s Official Plan (“City OP”). The City OP’s Appendix I Maps 1 through 3 delineate the Subject Lands as part of the “High Vulnerable Aquifer/Significant Groundwater Recharge Area”, “Natural Hazards Area” and “Shoreline Management Area”, respectively.

8The City’s Zoning By-law No. 85 of 2002 (“ZBL”) zones the Subject Lands “Urban Residential 1 (UR1)” zone, which permits single-detached dwellings and further delineated within the “Flood Plain”, “Shoreline Management Area 1” and “Shoreline Management Area 2”.

9The Appellant sought the approval of total three variances listed in Appendix “A” to facilitate the single-detached dwelling with a three-car garage on the Subject Lands.

STATUS REQUEST AND CONCERNS OF PARTICIPANTS

10The Tribunal received no written request for Party before or during the hearing. Further, the Tribunal received two written Participant Status requests from below individuals and granted the requested status to the individuals with consent from parties:

• Dave Mitchell
• Stephen Stock

11The Participants’ concerns are summarized as follows:

• Encroachment to City’s right-of-way and further negative impacts to the public beach access;
• Driveway size and building scale; and,
• Impact to neighbourhood character.

NOTICE OF HEARING

12There is no issue with notice of this hearing.

EXHIBITS

13Following documents were marked as exhibits during the hearing:

• Exhibit 1: City’s Document Book;
• Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Patrick Matkowski;
• Exhibit 3: Appellant’s two visual evidence; and,
• Exhibit 4: Email from St. Clare Region Conservation Authority.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

14The Tribunal qualified Mr. Patrick Matkowski, a Registered Professional Planner and a full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning in the matter before the Tribunal.

15The Tribunal qualified Mr. Stephen Bradshaw, Planner I with the City, with solid knowledge of and experience in the land use planning area, to provide opinion evidence concerning land use planning for the Tribunal’s consideration.

16In the opening remarks of the Appellant’s Counsel, Ms. Baroudi indicated that the Appellant and the City had no disputes on the variances #1 and #3 and both parties agreed on the assessment of the Application with respect to the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and the County OP.

17Further, Ms. Baroudi stated that Mr. Matkowski would provide a brief overview of the tests for the variances #1 and #3 as details could be located in his written witness statement and his evidence opinion would focus on how variance #2 met the four tests. Ms. Kalar indicated that Mr. Bradshaw would present his opinion evidence with a focus on the same variance, accordingly.

18Ms. Baroudi requested the Tribunal to add an email from St. Clare Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA) to the exhibit list with the consent from the City. The email confirmed that SCRCA no longer had concerns about the Application regarding shoreline erosion protection. The Tribunal granted the request and included the SCRCA’s email into the exhibit list.

19Mr. Matkowski opined that the Application would facilitate the redevelopment and regeneration of an existing residentially designated and zoned lot while maintaining the compatibility to the existing neighbourhood character without negative impact to the surrounding nature environment nor to the public’s enjoyment of the existing shoreline.

20Mr. Matkowski further expressed his opinion that the Application would accommodate an appropriate type of housing with appropriate use of the lands and the existing infrastructure, including the available utilities and access to the municipal roadway. Lastly, Mr. Matkowski concluded that the Application was consistent with PPS 2024.

21In Mr. Matkowski’s opinion, land use matters were addressed at the City level, instead of the County level, and the Application was supported and encouraged by the policies of the City OP to contribute to the orderly and environmentally responsible growth of the City.

22Further, Mr. Matkowski specifically referenced policy 3.3 h) of the City OP that includes the definition of Compatible development and confirmed that the Application met the definition of “Compatible development”:

Compatible development is not necessary the same as, or even similar to existing development in the vicinity. Compatible development is development that enhances the character of the community, without causing any undue, adverse effects on adjacent properties.

Mr. Matkowski presented that the Application proposed the built form, scale and orientation for the new dwelling to be similar to the surrounded dwellings and therefore, it reflected the requirements of Compatible development in the City OP.

23Mr. Matkowski concluded that the Application maintained the general intent of the City OP and this conclusion aligned with the City’s staff report for this Application regarding the evaluation of the relevant policies of the City OP.

24Mr. Matkowski stated that the Application’s proposed single-detached dwelling was a permitted use in the City ZBL. The City released a new draft zoning by-law in 2024 (ZBL 2024), which was not in effect and force at the time of this Application. The City ZBL 2024 proposes to zone the Subject Lands “Residential One (R1)”, which permits a minimum exterior side yard setback of 1.5 m.

25Further, Mr. Matkowski indicated that the Subject Lands were an irregularly shaped corner lot, where the side property lines progressively narrow toward the front of the Subject Lands. In his opinion, the variance #1 (reduced exterior side yard setback to 1.5m) was reasonable to allow the new dwelling to be located further away from shoreline hazard, increasing safety and reducing potential risk without adverse impacts to municipal infrastructure.

26Mr. Matkowski confirmed that the proposed three-car garage provided three times the parking spaces required (one car garage) in the City ZBL, all the vehicles currently owned by the property owner’s/occupant’s household would be parked in the garage instead of on the driveway. In addition, Mr. Matkowski demonstrated that the dimension from the garage door to the curb of Christina Street North was over 6.0 m and this space would create a full driveway and maintain consistency with the built form and character of the existing neighbourhood.

27Ms. Kalar and Mr. Bradshaw stated the concerns of the City about the potential parking on the driveway, which did not provide sufficient space for parking without encroaching into the City’s right-of-way (ROW). Mr. Bradshaw further indicated parking on the driveway would limit the City’s ability to extend the sidewalk along Christina Street North and other maintenance activities within the City’s ROW if needed.

28During the cross examination, Mr. Matkowski responded that future guests’ parking could be accommodated through on-street parking whereas allowed by the City and the Appellant would accommodate the needs of additional parking for future guests if necessary.

29Further, Mr. Matkowski responded to the concerns of the participants that the Application would not adversely impact the public access to the beach with all the Appellant’s activities, including parking, remaining on the private land.

30Mr. Matkowski stated that the proposed 12-meter-wide garage was reasonable to position the building footprint on the pie-shaped corner lot and to provide independent access to each space in the garage from the street. Further, he held the opinion that the Application proposed comparable driveway widths as other driveways of the neighbourhood and that this maintained consistency with the existing neighbourhood character and development pattern.

31Mr. Matkowski concluded that the Application maintained the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL and ZBL 2024.

32Ms. Baroudi added that speculation on the needs of visitor parking was inappropriate and the City should have bylaws to enforce illegal parking encroaching into the City’s ROW. Ms. Baroudi also got confirmation from Mr. Bradshaw that the City ZBL did not include parking requirements specifically for guests or visitors and the City could take actions on illegal parking.

33Mr. Matkowski expressed his opinion that the Application recognized the irregular-shaped lot and had an appropriate use of the lands through detailed design of the new dwelling and streetscape. He further opined that the variance #2 was proposed in an efficient urban form, providing sufficient space for the City to maintain City infrastructure and utilities within the abutting City’s ROW.

34Mr. Matkowski demonstrated that the Application improved public safety by increasing distance from the shoreline hazard without negative impacts on adjacent properties, the streetscape and the City’s infrastructure. Lastly, Mr. Matkowski concluded that the Application was desirable, represented efficient use of the Subject Lands and existing utilities and was an appropriate development.

35Mr. Matkowski presented that the Application did not anticipate any negative impacts on privacy, shadowing or the maintenance and operation activities of the City’s infrastructure and utilities. Further, he held the opinion that the Application reflected the Appellant’s effort to shift the new dwelling further away from the shoreline hazard to improve safety without encroaching into the City’s ROW. Therefore, Mr. Matkowski concluded that the Application met the criteria of “minor in nature”.

36The Tribunal recognizes that the driveway of 6.0 m in length, demonstrated by the Appellant, includes the space within the City’s ROW and the setback from Christina Street North is calculated from the garage door to the property line. The Tribunal disagrees with Mr. Matkowski’s opinion that the space between the garage door to the property line will be sufficient to create a full driveway.

37However, the Tribunal does agree with the Appellant’s opinion that the City has a mechanism to manage illegal parking through the City’s bylaws when needed and the City’s ZBL does not specify requirements of visitor parking. Further, the Tribunal finds that the possibly for illegal parking is not a planning matter before the Tribunal and the Appellant’s response to the concerns of the City and the participants was appropriate.

38Finally, the Tribunal favors the testified evidence of the Appellant’s witness and finds that the Application is consistent with PPS 2024, has appropriate use of the lands and meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:

• The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP.
• The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL and Draft ZBL 2024.
• The minor variances are considered desirable for the use of the lands.
• The minor variances are considered minor in nature.

ORDER

39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No.85 of 2002 are authorized, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU 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.

APPENDIX “A”

List of Variances

1. To permit a reduced exterior side yard setback to Christina Street North of 1.5 m, whereas the City ZBL requires a minimum of 3.0 m;
2. To permit a reduced setback from a garage door facing a municipal street of 2.4 m, whereas the City ZBL requires a minimum of 6.0 m; and,
3. To permit an increased driveway width of 12.0m within the exterior side yard, whereas the City ZBL requires a maximum width of 6.0 m.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Approval

1. Prior to the issuance of a City of Sarnia Building Permit, the owner/applicant must provide, in writing, confirmation that the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (“SCRCA”) has been satisfied in all facets, including but not limited to, required costal engineering assessments, a recent topographic survey provided by an Ontario Land Surveyor, and that the SCRCA is satisfied with provided access to the shoreline management area.
2. That the owner/applicant be responsible for obtaining the City of Sarnia’s approval to utilize the municipal right-of-way along Christina Street North, and that the access be registered on title for the subject lands, in favour of SCRCA.
3. That the owner/applicant be responsible for coordinating all curb cuts and driveway locations/access with the City of Sarnia Engineering Department at engineering@sarnia.ca.
4. The lot is currently serviced with a ½” water service off Christina Street North and a sanitary lateral located on Woodrowe Avenue. If redevelopment occurs, the storm and sanitary lateral must be cameraed and reviewed by the Engineering Department to ensure the structural integrity of the services. The water service size to be verified-minimum ¾” copper. If found to be unsatisfactory, the owner will be required to financially upgrade the service.
5. As per City Lot Grading Policy a lot grading plan is required. The plan must be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City, that the development is graded in a manner so that surface water will not accumulate on neighbouring properties, at or near the building and will not adversely affect adjacent lands.