Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 03, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000779
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Calvin Gingrich
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the construction of a barn
Reference Number: A2025-09
Property Address: 7192 Sideroad 18
Municipality/UT: Mapleton/Wellington
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000779
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000779
OLT Case Name: Gingrich v. Mapleton (Township)
Heard: January 21, 2026, in person hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Calvin Gingrich
Self-represented*
Township of Mapleton
Michelle McCabe*
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY Carmine TUCCI ON JANUARY 21, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Hearing was convened to consider the appeals by Calvin Gingrich (“Applicant”/“Appellant”) of the decision of the Township of Mapleton (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”), made on September 10, 2025, to refuse the minor variance requested. The Applicant is proposing the construction of an accessory building/structure to be utilized to accommodate the horses he uses for his daily travel needs.
2The subject property is located in the Township and is comprised of a rectangular-shaped parcel of approximately 0.7 hectares (“ha”) in lot area (“Site”). The Site contains a dwelling and a garage and is designated “Prime Agricultural Area”, which permits hobby barns and the keeping of animals.
VARIANCE REQUESTED
3The following relief is requested from Zoning By-law No. 2010-080 (“Zoning By-law”), as amended:
Permitted
Requested
Difference
Hobby Barn Minimum Lot Area – S. 8.3.1
0.8 ha
0.7 ha
0.1 ha
Minimum Ground Floor Area – S. 8.3.1
92.9 square metres (“m2”)
197.6 m2
104.7 m2
4The COA refused the variance request.
SUBMISSIONS
5At the onset of the Hearing, the Tribunal was informed, through the Manager of Planning and Development for the Township, Ms. Michelle McCabe, that the Parties would advise the Tribunal that the initial variance request would no longer be required.
6The Tribunal was informed that, through negotiations between the Appellant and the Township, the structure would be relocated to the rear of the Site with a smaller footprint of 147.16 m2 from the original request of 197.6 m2.
7The updated request relief would be from the rear and side yard setback requirements:
Permitted
Requested
Difference
Rear & Side yard Setback
2.98 metres (“m”)
2.13 m
0.85 m
8The Tribunal was in receipt of the of the original Planning Report (“Report”) prepared by staff of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2025. The Report emphasized that there were no concerns with the relief requested for the hobby barn.
9Township staff provided that the application maintains the intent and purpose of the County of Wellington Official Plan (“Official Plan”) and Zoning By-law as the lands are located within an agricultural area and zoned accordingly.
10The Tribunal heard, through Ms. McCabe, that the Township would fully support the updated relocation of the structure and the variance requested.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
11Through Mr. Gingrich and Ms. McCabe, the Tribunal was advised of the relevant criteria that was presented to support the requested variance against the four legislative tests described below.
1. Maintains the general intent of the Official Plan
12The Tribunal heard that the Site is designated as a “Prime Agricultural Area, Zoned (A)”, which permits a hobby barn.
13The proposed variance is needed to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure, which is a required to house a horse and buggy, which is the Appellant’s only mode of transportation.
14The requested variance complies with the general intent of the Official Plan.
2. Maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law
15The Tribunal heard the Site is zoned “Agricultural (A)”. The current provisions permit a hobby barn on the Site.
16Minimum distance separation (“MDS”) calculations were completed by Township staff, who confirmed that all MDS setback requirements are met.
17Township staff informed the Tribunal that the requested variance complies with and maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
3. Desirable development of the Site
18The Tribunal heard the requested variance aims to support the development of an accessory structure for the use of storage of a horse and buggy. The proposed structure is not contemplated for human habitation, or use as a dwelling unit, and is not expected to have a negative impact on the functionality or aesthetic appeal of the Site.
19The Tribunal heard the variance is desirable for the development of the Site.
4. Minor in nature
20The Tribunal was informed that the requested variance is considered minor and is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts on the Site or surrounding properties.
FINDINGS
21The Hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo, with the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests being on the Applicant.
22The Tribunal’s authority to authorize variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, which sets out the four above tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variance(s).
23The Tribunal accepts and agrees with the testimony of Mr. Gingrich and the Township’s Report.
24The Tribunal accepts that the Township’s Planning staff reviewed the application and supported the requested variance.
25The Tribunal finds that the proposed accessory structure is suitably located in the rear yard for which the intended sole purpose is the housing of a horse and buggy, being the Appellant’s main mode of transportation.
26Further, the Tribunal finds the location of the structure in the rear yard will not compromise the open space or the neighbourhood character.
27The Tribunal acknowledges the reduced setbacks maintains sufficient separation from the principal dwelling and adjacent properties, ensuring space for maintenance, proper drainage, and minimizing any adverse impacts. The reduction is considered minor and does not affect the functionality or aesthetics of the Site.
28Furthermore, the Township’s Report not to oppose the variance provides added credibility to the appeal, and the Tribunal determines the appeal should be allowed.
29Finally, the Tribunal finds the proposed variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variance to Zoning By-law No. 2010-080 is authorized.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARMINE TUCCI
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.