Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 7, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001094
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: A&E Holdings
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Minor Variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback for a proposed single detached dwelling.
Reference Number: A49/2024
Property Address: 2056 Lakeshore Road
Municipality/UT: City of Sarnia
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001094
OLT Case Name: A&E Holdings v. Sarnia (City)
Heard: March 12, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| A&E Holdings (“Appellant”) | Analee Baroudi |
| City of Sarnia | Not In Attendance |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE ON MARCH 12, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Hearing was convened because the Appellant is appealing the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to refuse Minor Variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback.
2The Subject Land is located at 2056 Lakeshore Road (“Subject Land”) in the City of Sarnia (“City”). The purpose of the Minor Variance application is to facilitate construction of a single detached dwelling by requesting relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 85, to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 2.0 metres (“m”) for a proposed single detached dwelling in the Suburban Residential 1 Zone, whereas a minimum setback of 3.0 m is required. The Appellant will maintain a 4.0 m side yard setback from the west side yard lot line to ensure shoreline access to the Lake Huron side of the dwelling.
3The proposed variance is necessary due to a requirement by the Conservation Authority that a 4-metre side yard be maintained on one side of the building to ensure shoreline access.
4The Subject Land is designated Existing Neighbourhood and Environmental Protection on Schedule ‘2’ of the City of Sarnia Official Plan (“OP”) and identified as Environmental Protection with Natural Heritage Overlay on Schedule ‘3’ of the OP. The Subject Land also has Natural Hazards identified and is within the Shoreline Management Area.
5There are no current plans to build any other structures on the Subject Land apart from the proposed single detached dwelling. There is a detached garage located towards the front of the Subject Land that will remain on the subject site. The Subject Land is in a residential neighborhood backing onto a lake.
6The Planning Report generated by City staff recommended granting the requested relief with three conditions of approval, however, the COA refused the Application on the basis that the requested relief was not minor in nature.
7The recommended conditions are:
Per the City Lot Grading Policy, the applicant will be required to submit a Lot Grading Plan by an OLS for review by the Engineering Department. The property grading must be assessed by an OLS to ensure the variance of the east setback for the new development will not impact neighbouring properties. The lot grading plan must be submitted for review and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
That a 4.0m unobstructed setback be provided on the western side yard of the lands, in order to allow for continued shoreline management.
That the applicant be required to obtain all necessary approvals and permits from the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (“SCRCA”) prior to the issuance of abuilding permit. Written approval from the SCRCA shall be provided at the time of an application for a building permit.
8The Tribunal heard from one witness who was under summons; Stephen Bradshaw, who is a Planner for Sarnia and who authored the Staff Report. The Tribunal found Mr. Bradshaw qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning.
LEGISLATIVE TEST
9An appeal to this Tribunal for a Minor Variance, pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”), is a hearing de novo and the onus of establishing that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act are met is on the Appellant. In addition, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act. The decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and conform with any provincial plans that are in effect.
10The four tests set out under s. 45(1) of the Act are that the requested variances:
i. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
ii. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);
iii. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
iv. are minor in nature.
EVIDENCE
11Mr. Bradshaw was the only witness heard by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found his uncontested evidence clear, credible and thorough.
12Mr. Bradshaw testified that the OP states that an Existing Neighbourhood designation applies to lands that are to be recognized as attractive residential areas, providing a variety of residential forms. Further, he explained that permitted uses within the Existing Neighbourhood designation include residential dwelling units, additional residential units, and their accessory uses.
13Mr. Bradshaw opined that the proposal to develop a single detached dwelling is in keeping within the permitted uses and policies outlined within the OP.
14Concerning the ZBL, Mr. Bradshaw testified that the requirement for a 3.0 m setback on each side of a single detached dwelling in the Suburban Residential 1 Zone is primarily due to the required installation, maintenance, and access to septic systems that are commonly located on lands in the Suburban Residential 1 Zone. Mr. Bradshaw also testified that the septic system is proposed to be in the front yard, on the Lakeshore Road side of the dwelling.
15Mr. Bradshaw also provided evidence that some similar dwellings in the neighbourhood have minimum side yard setbacks that vary from approximately 1.2 m in certain instances, such as the dwelling adjacent to west of the Subject Lands at 2054 Lakeshore Road, and slightly further down to the east at 2070 Lakeshore Road.
16Mr. Bradshaw opined that the application, if approved, would facilitate the development of a new single detached dwelling on currently vacant residential land, therefore, the proposal is desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
17It was also Mr. Bradshaw’s evidence that the proposal is minor in nature as the surrounding neighbourhood includes varied side yard setbacks between 1.2 m and 3.0 m, and that any access issues are alleviated by the 4.0 m access that will be provided on the other side of the property.
18Mr. Bradshaw opined that the proposal has regard to matters of provincial interest as, one example being, the increased side yard will allow for the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as set out in section 2(a) of the Act.
19The proposal is also consistent with the PPS, particularly section 5.2 (natural hazards), as erosion control measures have been included in the development proposal, Mr. Bradshaw opined.
20Mr. Bradshaw also went over the proposed conditions, outlined in Attachment 1 to this Decision, and opined that they were necessary to ensure the proposed Minor Variance has little to no impact on the neighbours and maintains and protects the ecological features on the Subject Land.
DECISION
21Having due regard to the decision of the City and based on the above analysis, the Tribunal allows the appeal and grants the Minor Variance Application.
22The Tribunal finds that the proposed Minor Variance has appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest outlined in Section 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS.
23The Tribunal finds that the proposed Minor Variance conforms to the OP and maintains the general intent of the ZBL.
24The proposed Variance is minor in nature and meets the four tests. There is no evidence that the proposed Minor Variance will result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the surrounding area. The proposed Minor Variance represents good planning and should be approved.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the Variance to City of Sarnia’s Zoning By-law No. 85 of 2002 is authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“A. Sauve”
A. SAUVE
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