Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 06, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000354
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Carol Arbour & Mark Brown
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Minor variance to seek relief for greater building height & coverage for an accessory residential unit
Reference Number: COA05-25-203
Property Address: 203 Willow Street
Municipality/UT: Central Elgin/Elgin
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000354
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000354
OLT Case Name: Arbour & Brown v. Central Elgin (Municipality)
Heard: September 16, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Carol Arbour & Mark Brown (“Appellant”)
Derek Truelove
Municipality of Central Elgin (“Municipality”)
Analee Baroudi
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 Municipality’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for minor variances (“Application”) to permit an accessory residential unit with greater building height and coverage on the lands municipally known as 203 Willow Street (“Subject Lands”).
CONTEXT
2The Subject Lands have a lot area of approximately 1,058.8 meters (“m”). There is an existing single-detached dwelling with an area of approximately 132.7 square meters (“m2”), representing a lot coverage of approximately 12.5%, and accessory buildings (the two-storey garage and a proposed shed made of a shipping container) with a combined footprint area of approximately 95.13 m2.
3The Subject Lands are immediately surrounded by single-detached residential dwellings.
4The Municipality Official Plan (“Municipality OP”) designates the Subject Lands “Residential” in the Community of Port Stanley, which permits a range of residential dwelling types, including single-detached dwellings. The Subject Lands are zoned “Residential Zone1 (R1)” in the Village of Port Stanley Zoning By-law No. 1507 (“ZBL”).
5The Appellant sought the approval of a total of two variances listed in Appendix “A” to permit greater building height and coverage for an Additional Residential Unit (“ARU”) above the existing garage.
6In the Municipality’s staff report for the Application to COA, the staff indicated that staff disagreed with the Appellant’s calculation of accessory building coverage and the staff’s method led to 18%. However, in the report, the staff recommended approval of the Application to COA. Despite the staff’s recommendation, COA refused the Application though COA held the same opinion as the staff.
STATUS REQUEST AND CONCERNS OF PARTICIPANTS
7The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant Status, nor were there any requests by individuals at the Hearing for either status.
NOTICE OF HEARING
8There is no issue with notice of this hearing.
EXHIBITS
9Following documents were marked as exhibits during the hearing:
Exhibit 1: Appellant’s Document Book;
Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Stephen Cornwell; and,
Exhibit 3: Consolidated Zoning By-law No. 1507.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10The Tribunal qualified Stephen Cornwell, a Registered Professional Planner, 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.
11Ms. Baroudi advised the Tribunal that the Municipality had no intention to call its own expert witness and would cross examine Mr. Cornwell’s opinion evidence for the matter before the Tribunal.
12Mr. Cornwell stated that the main dispute between the Municipality and the Appellant was the interpretation of the calculation of accessory building coverage in subsection 9.2.1.6(b) of the ZBL.
13Mr. Cornwell opined that the proposed deck should be considered accessory structures, not buildings, with respect to the sections of the ZBL as follows and accordingly, the area of this new deck should not be included into the accessory building coverage for calculation. Further, Mr. Cornwell stated that the proposed accessory building coverage was approximately 8.99%, instead of 18% as indicated in the Municipality’s staff report, which considered the deck as an accessory building.
2.1 ACCESSORY BUILDING means a building attached or detached which is customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use of the lot and which is not used or intended fur use as human habitation.
2.8 BUILDING means any structure used or intended for sheltering any use or occupancy.
2.12 COVERAGE means that portion or percentage of the area of any lot upon which buildings or structures are erected or are permitted to be erected, but does not include areas used for septic tanks, tile fields or drainage pipes.
2.48 STRUCTURE means any material object or work erected as a unit or constructed or put together of connected or dependant parts or elements, whether located under, on or above the surface of the ground.
9.2.1.6 Coverage: (b) 8% maximum for accessory buildings.
Mr. Cornwell requested the Tribunal to provide clarification on subsection 9.2.1.6(b) regarding the calculation of accessory buildings coverage.
14During the cross examination, Ms. Baroudi obtained confirmation from Mr. Cornwell that in a typical planning language, the regulation of subsection 9.2.1.6(b) of the ZBL should cover both accessory building and structures.
15Mr. Cornwell expressed his opinion that the proposed ARU was encouraged and permitted as a means of achieving a range of residential dwelling types and densities as indicated in the Municipality OP which further supports the Municipality’s commitment to develop well-designed neighbourhoods as a means of creating and maintaining an attractive, safe, liveable community. Mr. Cornwell concluded that the Application maintained the general intent and purpose of the Municipality OP.
16In Mr. Cornwell’s opinion, the intent of the subsection 9.2.1.6(b) was to limit the lot coverage of accessory buildings on the lands zoned R1 to protect and keep residential lots from over devoting space to accessory buildings that appear cluttered, and the size and location of the accessory buildings on the Subject Lands did not cause cluttered.
17Mr. Cornwell indicated that the proposed ARU on the second storey of the existing garage would not cause the privacy loss of the adjacent properties due to the screening of the existing vegetation and the layout of the neighbouring properties. Mr. Cornwell held the opinion that the Application maintained the general intent of the ZBL to protect the character of the existing neighbourhood without negative impacts to the adjacent neighbouring properties.
18Mr. Cornwell stated that the increased height of the ARU in the Application would not introduce new shadow or shade impacts to the neighbouring properties and the height of the ARU would match the height of permitted accessory structures without ADUs in the neighbourhood. Further, Mr. Cornwell demonstrated to the Tribunal that the impacts could be minor in nature as the existing mature vegetation along the property line provided effective screening to minimize the impacts of the garage with the ARU.
19In addition, Mr. Cornwell assessed the impacts of the Application regarding the character of the neighbourhood and found that the Application aligned with the neighbourhood’s character with a mix of renovated cottages and newer, larger homes. In conclusion, Mr. Cornwell opined that the Application could be considered minor in nature.
20With respect to the desirability of the Application, Mr. Cornwell expressed his opinion that the ARU would add one unit to satisfy the housing needs in the neighbourhood and represented residential intensification with efficient use of the lands and existing infrastructure.
21Mr. Cornwell concluded that regardless of how to implement subsection 9.2.1.6(b) of the ZBL, the Application met the four tests of the Act and requested the Tribunal to approve the Application.
22The Tribunal finds that the ZBL should be implemented in its entirety and the Municipality staff’s interpretation of the subsection 9.2.1.6(b) reflects the intent of the ZBL to limit the coverage of accessory buildings and structures.
23However, overall, the Tribunal favors the testified evidence of the Appellant and finds that the Application represents efficient 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 Municipality OP.
The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
The minor variances are considered desirable for the use of the lands.
The minor variances are considered minor in nature.
ORDER
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the variances to the Zoning By-law No.1507 of Village of Port Stanley in Appendix A are authorized.
“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
To permit one additional residential unit (ARU) in an accessory structure with a maximum building height of 5.94m, whereas Subsection 7.6.5(3) of the Zoning By-law provides that an ARU may be permitted in an accessory structure on the same lot as the primary dwelling with a maximum building height of 4m.
To permit a coverage of 18% for accessory buildings, whereas Subsection 9.2.1.6(b) of the Zoning By-law permits a maximum coverage of 8% for the accessory buildings.