Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 23, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000264
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Karen Kozma
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a new dock
Reference Number: A-2024-0039-H Kozma
Property Address: 38 Summit Drive
Municipality/UT: Seguin/Parry Sound
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000264
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000264
OLT Case Name: Kozma v Seguin (Township)
Heard: July 10, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Karen Kozma
C. Emmett
Township of Seguin
J. Biggar
E. Veldboom (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JULY 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Karen Kozma (“Appellant”) against the decision of the Township of Seguin (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment to deny a Minor Variance (“MV”) Application, pursuant to ss. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the property located at 38 Summit Drive (“subject property” / “site”).
2The Appellant is seeking to permit the construction of a new dock.
3The subject property is 0.31 hectares (0.77 acres) in size with approximately 35.7 metres (“m”) of straight-line frontage and approximately 31.7 m of actual frontage on Lake Rosseau (Cameron Bay). It is legally described as Lot 9, Plan 187, Part 8, 42R7383, Humphrey, and Roll No.: 1-2-218.
4The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling, a sleeping cabin and a dock. The shoreline of the subject property dips inward culminating in a longer distance of shallow waters extending into the bay. The subject property contains a number of mature trees along the shoreline and on other parts of the site.
5The Township staff Report was in support of the Appeal, subject to conditions.
6Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received communication that the Parties have resolved their issues.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST
7In advance of the Hearing, the Tribunal received one Participant Status request. The concerns identified in the request form are related to the impact on lakefront aesthetics and shoreline character from the construction of the dock. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to Ian Marshall and will consider his written submissions when making a decision.
REQUESTED RELIEF
8The Appellant is seeking relief from the Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 to construct a 20 m dock, where 15 m is permitted.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
9An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in s. 45(1) have been satisfied:
a) the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is being maintained;
b) the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is being maintained;
c) the variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
d) the variance is minor in nature.
HEARING
10Stefan Szczerbak appeared on behalf of the Appellant and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.
11In Mr. Szczerbak’s professional opinion, the proposed development satisfies the four tests of ss. 45(12) of the Act, as outlined in detail on pp. 259-265 in Tab 8 of Exhibit 1, and he recommended that the requested Minor Variance be approved.
Response to Participant Statement
12In his viva voce and written evidence (Exhibit 1, Tab 8, para 44-48), Mr. Szczerbak addressed the issues raised by Mr. Marshall, and concluded that “the application appropriately satisfies the prescribed tests and ultimately represents good planning”.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13When making a decision, the Tribunal has considered the written submissions of Mr. Marshall. However, the only planning evidence before the Tribunal is the Township Planning Report and the professional evidence of Mr. Szczerbak. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Application meets the criteria of the four tests set out in ss. 45(12) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the requested Minor Variance can be implemented without any adverse impact on the neighbouring properties or the character and aesthetics of the shoreline.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed and the variance to Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 is authorized subject to following conditions:
Maximum length of a dock extending into a waterbody is 20 m;
The construction shall proceed substantially in the location as identified on the Site Plan, and attached in Schedule B; and,
The planting of vegetation as identified on the Site Plan, and attached in Schedule C.
“P. Tomilin”
p. tomilin
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.
SCHEDULE B
Schedule C