Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 19, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000491

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

Applicant and Appellant: Jerry Ryksen

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor Variance to seek relief for additional driveway

Reference Number: A 08-25

Property Address: 439 Poldon Drive

Municipality/UT: Norwich/Oxford

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000491

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000491

OLT Case Name: Ryksen v. Norwich (Township)

Heard: September 12, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Jerry Ryksen	Self-Represented
Township of Norwich	Did not attend

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 (“Act”) by Jerry Ryksen (“Appellant”) regarding the decision of the Township of Norwich (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) to partially deny the Minor Variance (“MV”) application for the property known as 439 Poldon Drive, Township of Norwich (“Subject Property”).

2The Subject Property is located on the south side of Poldon Drive in the Township of Norwich. The Subject Property is surrounded by a mix of residential and agricultural properties with a stormwater pond to the west. An existing single detached dwelling is on the Subject Property.

3The Appellant installed a second driveway on the west side of the Subject Property to facilitate access to a rear yard storage structure. On April 9, 2025, the Township of Norwich issued a Notice of Violation informing the Appellant that they could remove the driveway or apply for a minor variance to permit the second driveway.

4The Appellant requested a minor variance from Zoning By-Law No. 07-2003-Z (“ZBL”) for a change in the maximum driveway width and a decrease in the separation distance between driveways.

5On June 3, 2025, the CoA approved an increase of driveway width with the following conditions:

a. that the additional driveway installed along the west property line be removed at the expense of the Applicant, to the satisfaction of the Township of Norwich Director of Public Works; and

b. that the fence located along the west side of the property be repaired at the expense of the Applicant, to the satisfaction of the Township of Norwich Director of Public Works

STATUS REQUESTS

6The Tribunal did not receive any Party or Participant status requests prior to or during the hearing.

SUBMISSIONS

7The Appellant submitted three documents: a document signed by neighbours in support of the application, which was marked as Exhibit 1; a statement including the Notice of Violation from the Township and visual evidence (pictures), which was marked as Exhibit 2; and a list of addresses, which was marked as Exhibit 3.

8The Township did not attend the hearing nor did it provide any witnesses.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

9The Appellant has appealed the CoA decision and requested the following relief:

a. Relief from Section 5.21.1.7.3 of the ZBL, Maximum Driveway Width (Residential Zones) – to permit an increased driveway coverage of 9.7 metres (“m”) (32 ft) where a maximum of 6 m (19.8 ft) of the front yard may be occupied by a driveway; and

b. Relief from Section 5.21.1.7.4 of the ZBL, Number of Driveways Permitted – to decrease the separation between two driveways from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 7.5 m (24.3 ft), to recognize a recently installed driveway on the west side of the subject lands.

SectionS 2 and 3(5) of the Planning Act

10The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act when making a decision regarding an MV application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

11The Appellant stated that the second driveway does have regard for matters of provincial interest and does not contravene the criteria found in s. 2 of the Act.

12The Appellant stated that the MV application is consistent with the PPS, specifically noting that there was no alteration to the Subject Property drainage or impeding of the water runoff to the stormwater pond.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

13When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:

1. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
2. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
3. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
4. is minor in nature.

14The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.

General Intent and Purpose of the Township of Norwich Official Plan

15The Appellant stated that the second driveway conforms to the general intent and purpose of the OP. It is not a visual detraction in the neighbourhood and is similar to driveways that exist on multiple other properties nearby.

General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

16Section 5.21.1.7.3 of the ZBL states that driveway width is limited to 6 m. The primary driveway on the Subject Property is 6.6 m wide. The secondary driveway on the Subject Property is 3.35 m wide. This is a total driveway width of 9.95 m.

17The Appellant provided several photos of nearby properties with driveways that exceed the width requirements of the ZBL.

18Section 5.21.1.7.4 of the ZBL states that only two driveways are permitted on a property with a lot frontage less than 30 m and a separation between the two driveways is a minimum of 9 m. The separation between the two driveways on the Subject Property is 6.1 m.

19The Appellant showed in visual evidence that one nearby property had two driveways and had a separation of less than 9 m.

20Additionally, the Appellant provided documentation from the Township stating that only one of the 19 properties listed requested relief from the ZBL to construct these driveways.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land

21The Appellant stated that the second driveway is a desirable use of land as it permits access to the rear storage area by a vehicle. He stated that the driveway is new, is similar to multiple other properties in the neighbourhood, is more than 9 m from the intersection, and does not impact sight lines.

Is Minor in Nature

22The Appellant stated that the MV application is minor in nature as it fits into the neighbourhood and does not impact any neighbour as it is next to the stormwater pond.

23Additionally, the Appellant provided signatures from five neighbours directly across Poldon Drive and the adjacent neighbour to the east stating that they do not object to the second driveway.

24To summarize, the Appellant contends that the MVs:

a. meet all policy requirements,

b. meet all requirements of s. 45(1) of the Act, and

c. meet the four tests.

FINDINGS

25The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of the Appellant and finds that the requested variances have regard for the Provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, and satisfy all four tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

26With regard to the Township’s assertion, via the CoA condition, that the fence surrounding the stormwater pond is damaged, the Appellant explained that the bottom of the chain link fence, which he stated is on the Subject Property according to survey markers, has been slightly bent and will be repaired. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant’s intention is acceptable.

ORDER

27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 07-2003-Z are authorized subject to the following condition:

a. that the fence located along the west side of the property be repaired at the expense of the Applicant, to the satisfaction of the Township of Norwich Director of Public Works.

“A. Snowdon”

A. SNOWDON 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.