Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 5, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000633
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sonal Varma
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit construction of an inground swimming pool in the rear yard from the rear lot line of the Subject Property
Reference Number: D13-020-2025
Property Address: 1637 Boardwalk Drive
Municipality/UT: Kingston/Frontenac
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000633
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000633
OLT Case Name: Varma v. Kingston (City)
Heard: November 27, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Sonal Varma (“Appellant”) | Peter Gross, Stacy Porter |
| City of Kingston (“City”) | Jenna Morley |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON NOVEMBER 27, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This matter before Tribunal is to seek a Final Order related to a settlement (“Settlement Proposal”) between Sonal Varma (“Appellant”) and the City of Kingston (“City”) for an appeal from an Application for Minor Variance (“MVA”), filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (“Act”), affecting the lands known municipally as 1637 Boardwalk Drive (“Subject Property”).
2The MVA will allow for the installation of an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard of the Subject Property.
3The Subject Property is designated in the City of Kingston Official Plan (“CKOP”) as Low-Rise Residential. It is zoned Urban Residential 3 ‘UR3’ and is subject to Legacy Exception L133 (“L133”) under the City of Kingston Zoning By-Law Number 2022-62 (“ZBL”).
4L133 requires lots backing onto the buffer strip adjacent to the wetland to maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 12 m, with no accessory uses permitted within that area. As the Subject Property backs onto this buffer strip, an MVA is required to permit the proposed inground swimming pool to be located 9.1 m from the rear lot line, a reduction of 2.9 m from the ZBL requirement.
5Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the Parties had worked to arrive at an agreement that resolves the appeal (“MVA Revision”). Accordingly, they jointly requested an Order approving the requested MVA Revision and called expert land use planning evidence in support of the settlement.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
6This appeal is a hearing de novo of the MVA Revision. The Tribunal is required to hear the evidence presented by the Parties and decide whether to allow the Minor Variance based on the applicable legal tests. The Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the Committee but is not bound by it.
7In making its decision, the Tribunal is required to assess the Minor Variance based on the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act. The Tribunal must ensure that the variances sought:
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
- is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
- is minor in nature.
8Additionally, the variances must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (“PPS”) and conform to any applicable Provincial plan.
9The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest and to the decision made by the Committee, as well as the information and material considered by it in the course of making its decision.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
10The Tribunal heard evidence from one witness but had the benefit of sworn affidavits from within professional areas of ecology, aboriculture and engineering. Only one witness, Lincoln Lo, was qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
11The following materials were identified as Exhibits and marked as follows:
- Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Lincoln Lo, Land Use Planner
- Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Brian Henshaw, Ecology
- Exhibit 3: Affidavit of Sevan Torus, Certified Arborist
- Exhibit 4: Affidavit of Andrew Ip, Professional Engineer
- Exhibit 5: Correspondence from Appellant - Amendment to Minor Variance Application dated November 14, 2025
- Exhibit 6: Revised Pool Plan
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
12On November 14, 2025, the Appellant filed on consent of the City, the MVA Revision with the Tribunal. The MVA Revision and Revised Pool Plan (“RPP”) identified the following changes:
- There will be no removal of trees on the Subject Property. This change mitigates any potential impacts that could have resulted from the tree removals identified in the original MVA.
- The RPP results in the swimming pool is being located an additional 1 m from the rear lot line of the Subject Property.
13The requested Minor Variance of 2.9 m is still required under the MVA Revision as the setback must be measured from the outer edge of the pavers, not the pool edge. The 1 m shift of the swimming pool allows for the inclusion of the pavers and results in the same variance originally requested.
14Counsel for the Appellant made submissions on consent of the Parties that the Tribunal make a determination that the MVA Revision is minor in nature.
15The Tribunal, having the benefit of receiving the MVA Revision in advance of the Hearing to review and the uncontested Affidavit of Mr. Lo, the Tribunal is satisfied that the MVA Revision is minor in nature pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
16The Tribunal heard testimony in support of the settlement from Lincoln Lo, a Registered Professional Planner and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. Mr. Lo provided a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the settlement agreement and reviewed the proposed Minor Variance against the relevant legislative framework all outlined in his Affidavit.
Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
17Mr. Lo highlighted that the CKOP designates the Subject Property as Low-Rise Residential within the Cataraqui West Secondary Plan Area. He continued that the Low-Rise Residential designation permits ground-oriented housing forms, including single detached and multi-unit dwellings.
18Mr. Lo stated that the proposed in-ground swimming pool is a complementary accessory residential use to an existing and permitted single detached dwelling and therefore conforms to the permitted uses of the designation.
19Mr. Lo noted that although the requested variance seeks a reduction of that setback, the purpose of L133 to preserve the function of the woodland buffer adjacent to the wetland, continues to be achieved.
20Mr. Lo advised that a portion of the rear yard of the Subject Property appears to be identified as significant woodland in the CKOP. Mr. Lo further advised that a Provincially Significant Wetland is located approximately 140 m west of the Subject Property.
21Mr. Lo stated that a Natural Heritage Assessment was conducted and concluded that the edge of the significant woodland is located outside of the Subject Property and that no negative effects on either the significant woodland or the Provincially Significant Wetland were anticipated, as a result of the proposed Minor Variance.
22Mr. Lo detailed that an Arborist Report was conducted that inventoried and assessed seven trees within 6 m of the Subject Property. He continued that the Arborist Report recommended that all inventoried trees be preserved and that six native trees should be planted to mitigate against any adverse impacts to the inventoried trees.
23Mr. Lo advised that the Arborist Report concluded that the MVA Revision is not anticipated to have any noticeable adverse effects to the seven trees within 6 m of the Subject Property.
24Mr. Lo, referencing a Stormwater Management Letter stated that the proposed in-ground pool will not discharge any water toward the rear yard ravine and will not increase stormwater run-off into the ravine or natural features.
25Mr. Lo reviewed s. 9.5.19 of the CKOP, which outlines nine criteria to be considered for a Minor Variance. Mr. Lo opined that the MVA Revision satisfies all nine criteria as it is compatible with surrounding residential uses, does not generate adverse impacts, and maintains the planned environmental function of the woodland and passive open space.
26Mr. Lo summarized his opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the CKOP by preserving the function of the woodland buffer, respecting the Low-Rise Residential designation, and being compatible with the planned function of the neighbourhood.
Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
27Mr. Lo detailed that the original MVA was reviewed by the City and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and confirmed that the original proposal that was before the Committee of Adjustment would not intrude into or negatively affect the woodland buffer or the wetland. He further detailed that the accessory use remains entirely on the residential portion of the Subject Property, and tree impacts were mitigated through preservation fencing, replacement planting, and securities required through the Tree Permit process, thus preserving the function of the buffer.
28Mr. Lo opined that the MVA Revision, supported by technical studies demonstrated that there were no negative impacts on the adjacent significant woodland, Provincially Significant Wetland or ravine. He further opined that for the reasons highlighted in paragraph [27], the requested Minor Variance meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Desirable for Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building or Structure
29Mr. Lo stated that the size, scale, and siting of the proposed in-ground swimming pool are appropriate and will result in development that is in keeping with the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, as several neighbouring properties have rear yard swimming pools.
Minor in Nature
30Mr. Lo opined that the variance of 2.9 m is modest, the use of the land remains unchanged and the in-ground swimming pool does not result in any increase in height, massing, or built form that would generate overlook, shadowing, or privacy impacts on adjacent properties.
31Mr. Lo stated that the Minor Variance will not result in any unacceptable planning impacts as verified by the technical reviews completed.
32It was Mr. Lo’s summary opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature based on his review outlined in paragraph [30] and [31].
Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest
33Mr. Lo provided a review of s. 2 of the Act in his Affidavit. Mr. Lo opined that the MVA Revision maintains natural heritage protection, does not create any public health or safety risks, and represents appropriate and compatible residential development within a fully serviced urban area.
Consistency With the PPS
34Mr. Lo advised that the variances were assessed for consistency with the PPS and that policies 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.5 and 4.1.8 were of relevance.
35Mr. Lo opined that the Subject Property is located in a settlement area and that the Natural Heritage Assessment confirmed that the proposed in-ground swimming pool is located outside the limits of the Provincially Significant Wetland and significant woodland. Mr. Lo continued that the Natural Heritage Assessment demonstrated that the proposed in-ground swimming pool will not result in negative impacts on the adjacent natural heritage features or their ecological functions.
SUMMARY
36Overall, Mr. Lo recommended that the Tribunal approve the requested variance as, in his opinion, it met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act; has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest; is consistent with the PPS; and, in general, constitutes good land use planning and in the public interest.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
37The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning opinion evidence of Mr. Lo in its entirety and is satisfied that the proposed variance has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS and meets the requisite legislative four-part test as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act and, in general, represents good planning and in the public interest.
ORDER
38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variance to the City of Kingston Zoning By-law No, 2022-62 is authorized for the property legally described as PIN: 36089-3927 (LT) LOT 10, PLAN 13M139 CITY OF KINGSTON subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 and the Site Plan set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.
“W. Daniel Best”
W. DANIEL BEST
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.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2