Stephen LeMieux v. Township of Pelee, 2025 CanLII 119036

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 10, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000556

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

Applicant and Appellant: Stephen LeMieux

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To add additional deck on the south side of the proposed new cottage

Reference Number: MV 01-2025

Property Address: 305 East Shore Road

Municipality/UT: Township of Pelee/Essex

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000556

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000556

OLT Case Name: LeMieux v. Pelee (Township)

Heard: October 31, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Stephen Lemieux	Thomas A. Richardson
Township of Pelee	Darwin Harasym

DECISION DELIVERED BY MATHIEU E. QUESNEL AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Stephen Lemieux (“Applicant”) under section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the Township of Pelee (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in which an Application for Minor Variance (“Application”) was refused. The Application affects the land known as 305 East Shore Road, Essex (“Subject Property”).

2The Applicant is proposing to rebuild a dwelling after a fire completely destroyed the dwelling in 2023 and he is proposing a covered porch on the south side that would need a minor variance.

3The Applicant is appealing the COA decision to refuse his Application.

4The Application is to reduce the side yard setback from 6 metres (“m”) to 1.5 m.

5Notice of Hearing was sent by email by the Tribunal on October 1^st, 2025, and was marked as Exhibit 1.

6The Tribunal received a request for Party Status from Scott Collins. After reviewing the difference between a Party and a Participant and listening to Mr. Collins, it was agreed and the Tribunal accepted to grant Participant Status to Mr. Collins and, without objections from any party, he was granted the possibility to give his oral opinion.

SITE AND CONTEXT

7The Subject Property is a residential lot located on the east side of East Shore Road and is approximately 0.18 hectares (“ha”) in area, with 41 of frontage and an average depth of 29.32 m to the lake.

8The Subject Property is located in an area serviced by private water and private on-site septic system.

9The surrounding area consists of residential lots varying in size with frontage along the shore of Lake Erie.

10The Subject Property used to have a detached dwelling that was destroyed by fire in August 2024. All steel piles of the foundation, a shed and the existing septic system, which can still be used, remain onsite. The proposed new dwelling will maintain the same floor area as the former dwelling, at 105 square metres. Since the existing steel pile foundation system can be use for the reconstruction, the Applicant is proposing to construct the dwelling in the same location

11As part of the reconstruction, the Applicant wishes to replace and enlarge the deck along the southern exterior wall of the dwelling with an enclosed deck, for which the minor variance is required.

12The Subject Property is located on East Shore Road in the Township of Pelee and is zoned as Residential 2 (R2) in the Township of Pelee By-Law 2012-24 (“ZBL”).

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

13The Tribunal’s authority to grant variances is given under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances. It must be noted that the hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Applicant. The legislative tests require that the variances:

a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;

c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,

d. Be minor in nature.

PARTIES AND EVIDENCE

14The Township was represented by counsel Darwin Harasym but did not present any evidence and did not contest the evidence presented by the Applicant’s counsel.

15The Applicant was represented by counsel Thomas A. Richardson and called two witnesses. The first witness was the Applicant, who presented the evidence of the proposed building, some explanation of the reason that he is proposing to build on the existing steel pile and provided pictures of the vicinity, showing other property in the area having much less than 6 m between structures and lot line. The second witness was Danielle Turax, from the Township of Pelee, to give expert evidence in the areas of land use planning. After reviewing Mrs. Turax qualification, professional experience and Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified her as an expert in land use planning and she was affirmed to provide expert opinion evidence.

16The Joint Exhibit Book for the Township of Pelee and Stephen Lemieux was received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 2. The Joint Exhibit Book contained the expert witness’ background and qualification, copy of the site plan, application to the Committee of Adjustment, Staff Report and other relevant documents referred to by both witnesses.

17The Joint Book of Authorities for Pelee Township and Stephen Lemieux was received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 3.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Provincial Planning Statement 2024

18When considering an application for minor variance, the decision of the Tribunal shall be consistent with the direction of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

19Mrs. Turax testified that the requested variance will not impact matters of provincial interest, in particular natural heritage or natural hazards, and allows orderly and safe residential development. It will optimize the existing infrastructure and public service facilities.

20Mrs. Turax opined that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.

THE FOUR TESTS

1. Does the variance meet the general Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan?

21In accordance to section 4.4 of the Township Official Plan (2011) (“OP”) the Subject Property is intended for residential land uses and structures. Subsection 4.4.3 f) acknowledges the character of lots on the east shore as having constraint due to natural heritage and natural hazards.

22The Subject Property is located outside the area where significant natural heritage features are identified. The natural hazards for the Property (shoreline and flooding) have been addressed to the satisfaction of Essex Region Conservation Authority (“ERCA”).

23Mrs. Turax testified that the proposed development is not constrained by either factor. She also testified that the proposed development will best utilize the remaining steel piling and the existing septic system, which will have a minimal impact on the environment.

24Mrs. Turax opined that the request to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 6 m to 1.5 m would respect and maintain the character of the area and conform to the land use policies of the OP.

25The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance meets the general intend and purpose of the OP.

2. Does the variance meet the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

26The ZBL zones this site Residential 2 (R2) Zone. A detached dwelling is permitted in this zone. The size of the property exceeds the minimum lot area and frontage requirements.

27The ZBL requires that the detached dwelling, including open and enclosed decks or porches, be at a minimum distance of 6 m from the neighboring lot line. The Applicant is proposing to build a covered porch what would bring a small portion of it to 1.5 m, thus needing a minor variance. Before the former dwelling was destroy by fire, an open deck was found along the south side of that dwelling, approximately 5.5 m from the property line.

28Mrs. Turax testified that the proposed setback will allow for the construction and maintenance of the residential structure on the subject property. She added that the proposed setback of 1.5 m is the standard setback for residential structures in Residential 1 (R1) Zone.

29Mrs. Turax referred to section 7.4 a) iii) of the ZBL that provided an exception for another property on East Shore Road, of a minimum side yard of 1.5 m.

30She testified that the variance is not being requested as a result of an over development of the property but will allow the Applicant to use the existing structures and services.

31Mrs. Turax opined that the requested variance meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

32The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance meets the intend and purpose of the ZBL

3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

33Mrs. Turax testified that the location of the existing septic system, property access, parking and shed constrain the Applicant to construct a new dwelling, with the proposed covered porch at another place on the property, without undue hardship.

34Mrs. Turax testified that the proposed reconstruction plans has been reviewed by Leamington Building Services and they have no concerns with respect of the location or design of the existing steel pile foundation or septic system.

35She opined that the reconstruction, including the proposed variance, represents orderly residential development that is not seen to create undue nuisance or impact to the surrounding area.

36Mrs. Turax was of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, is appropriate in the context of the existing surrounding uses and is considerate of the character of the neighbourhood.

37The Tribunal agrees that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

4. Is the variance considered Minor in nature?

38The evidence provided by Mrs. Turax was that the requested variance is minor, will not have an impact on lands beyond the Subject Property and will not pose harm to the character of the area or the continued use of the adjacent properties for their current or future purposes.

39She testified that it is not anticipated that the proposed enclosed porch will have any impact on the normal use and enjoyment of the abutting residential property. The variance will not impact the ability for the abutting lot to developed.

40The Tribunal is satisfied that the requested variances are minor in nature.

PARTICIPANT

41Mr. Scott Collins provided a letter to the COA outlining his opposition to the minor variance application. His statement is part of the Joint Exhibit Book at page 18. At the hearing, he provided the same statement by oral submission to the Tribunal. None of his arguments are supported by expert evidence or facts. The Tribunal can appreciate his concerns but is not agreeing that application should be rejected for the reason he brought.

FINDINGS

42The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mrs. Turax that the requested variance for the Subject Property will have a minimal impact on the neighbouring and surrounding properties.

43The Tribunal accordingly comes to the same conclusion as Mrs. Turax and as the Township staff report and finds that the requested variance has regard for the provincial interests expressed in the Act, is consistent with the PPS, both the official plan and the zoning by-law, and satisfy all four elements set out in the Act.

ORDER

44THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances are authorized.

“Mathieu E. Quesnel”

MATHIEU E. QUESNEL

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.