Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 14, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000050

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

Applicant and Appellant: Roger Doucet

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To construct a deck, stairs and landing

Reference Number: PL-MV-2025-00157

Property Address: 216 Nolin Street

Municipality/UT: Greater Sudbury

OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000050

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000050

OLT Case Name: Doucet v. Greater Sudbury (City)

Heard: March 31, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Roger Doucet	Self-represented*
City of Greater Sudbury	Steve Watt

DECISION DELIVERED BY jackie denyes and ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Roger Doucet (“Applicant/Appellant”) proposes to construct new stairs to replace existing deteriorating stairs and to develop a new deck for the existing building. To this end, the Applicant requested minor variances to the City of Greater Sudbury’s (“City”) Zoning By-law No. 2010-100Z (“ZBL) with respect to the site municipally known as 216 Nolin Street in the City (“Subject Property”).

2The City’s Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) denied the requested authorization for minor variances filed under section 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) stating the variances are not minor in nature and are not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and buildings and did not meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and Official Plan (“OP”).

VARIANCES REQUESTED

3The variances requested under the ZBL before the Tribunal are:

1. 0.8 m of interior side yard setback for stairs and landing; whereas 1.8 m is required.
2. 0.8 m side yard setback for upper deck from lot line for an uncovered deck above 1.2 m whereas 1.2 m is required;

SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING AND SURROUNDINGS:

4The Subject Property contains a building with three dwelling units and accessory building. The surrounding uses are residential in nature. The Subject Property is designated “Living Area I within the City of Greater Sudbury Official Plan and is zoned R2-3 Low Density Residential.

TESTS FOR MINOR VARIANCES:

5Pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Act, the proposed variances must:

a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP; b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL; c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and, d. Be minor in nature

6Further, the Proposal must have regard to matters of provincial interest, must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”), must represent good land use planning, and must be in the public interest.

HEARING

7Noting Mr. Doucet is an unrepresented litigant, the Tribunal is mindful that pursuant to s. 1.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) that the rules shall be liberally interpreted to offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits in the proceeding.

8The following exhibits were entered:

Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Service dated March 12, 2026; Exhibit 2 - City’s Book of Documents; and Exhibit 3 – Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Duty (Stephanie Poirier).

9Mr. Doucet read into the record, his fulsome Formal Written Submissions and Rebuttal contained in Exhibit Two which also included a Generative AI Declaration that all content has been reviewed, verified, and approved by the submitting party, who accepts full responsibility for its accuracy and completeness.

10Mr. Doucet placed further reliance on photographic evidence, letter from his neighbour Neil MacIntyre, who resides at 220 Nolin Street who states he has no opposition to the construction of new stairs and platform as it is his understanding that the construction will be carried out in accordance with applicable building codes and municipal requirements; and finally, the written statement from Mike Latourelle, Carpenter who set out inter alia the immediate non-negotiable life safety hazard that is imposed due to the state of repair of the existing stairs with reference to the City’s Fire Services ordered on February 6, 2026, that based on inspection, measures necessary to ensure the fire safety at this property are ordered under section 21(1)(g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act by August 25, 2026. Mr. Latourelle described the main deck platform is situated approximately six feet away from the lot line confirming that this replacement poses no new impact regarding privacy, shadow, or sightlines for the adjacent property. All of which are contained in the City’s Book of Documents, Exhibit Two.

11In an effort to arrive at a resolution of this matter, Mr. Watt suggested at the outset, that the main issue in this appeal is not the replacement of the stairs and landing. Development Approvals Staff are of the opinion the requested 0.8 m setback will provide for adequate space for access and maintenance purpose for the ground level part of the proposed structure.

12It is the introduction of the second storey deck – a new amenity space – that is the crux of the issue for the City and it contends the deck is not minor in nature, not appropriate use of the land, or meets the intent of the ZBL. Mr. Watt suggested that some element of screening to alleviate privacy concerns would allow the parties to come to some sort of resolution. Mr. Doucet opposed the element of screening.

REAR DECK AND FOOTINGS

13The Tribunal qualified Stephanie Poirier, OPPI, CIP on behalf of the city to provide opinion evidence in land use planning and Ms. Poirier referenced the City’s Book of Documents. Following her evidence, Mr. Doucet cross-examined Ms. Poirier regarding her testimony.

GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

14With regard to the stairs and landing, it is the opinion of Mr. Doucet that the variance facilitates safety upgrades supporting the broader goals of neighbourhood renewal which includes livability and residential amenity without adverse impact. Mr. Doucet suggested his contractor could add some type of shielding or panelling on the stair landing sides to allow for some privacy but the degree of which would be limited and dependant on the already installed footings.

15It is opinion of Mr. Doucet that the minor encroachment does not alter the character of the neighbourhood or negatively affect the adjacent properties. The Subject Property contains a building with three dwelling units and accessory building. Mr. Doucet opined that there was no indication from City Staff that a platform or deck was in issue. He suggests the deck alleviates concerns for safety as drug addicts in the neighbourhood access between the two buildings.

16Ms. Poirier suggested the city offers many different forms of Living Areas including traditional inner-city neighbourhoods. Living Area I includes residential areas that are fully serviced by municipal water and sewer and are seen as a primacy focus of residential development. These designations will continue to provide a variety of housing forms and densities at various locations across the city and supports livability and residential amenity without adverse impacts. The objectives of the OP inter alia are to meet housing needs, including the special needs of the elderly, handicapped, low-income individuals and families.

17It is the City’s position that the Proposal will negatively impact privacy for the abutting neighbour and there is enough rear yard amenity space therefore the deck is unnecessary.

18Based on the evidence and documentation filed, the Tribunal finds the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP by facilitating upgrades supporting the broader goals of neighbourhood renewal subject to the condition that the Appellant will install privacy screening to the back upper deck to alleviate any negative impact to the abutting property owners.

GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW

19Through Mr. Latourelle’s report, the existing external stairs are severely compromised with rusting and post an immediate non-negotiable safety hazard to the current tenants. The replacement is necessary to ensure code-compliant, safe access to the property. The design feature enhances safety that break the stair runs into three smaller, more manageable distances. The design ensures continued, full access to the existing sidewalk and perimeter of the building. It is Mr. Doucet’s view that the proposed deck creates no new massing as it is in the same alignment and setback as the existing stairs therefore there is no measurable adverse impact.

20Mr. Doucet’s submits that platforms are contemplated uses. The platform mass itself is set back appropriately, and the encroachment is limited to the functional necessity of providing safe access placement of the structure. Mr. Doucet asserts the non-conforming portion of the variance relates only to the walking path of the stairs and not to the platform issue.

21Ms. Poirier stated the intent of the setback in the ZBL is to limit encroachment in order to maintain a distance for maintenance, privacy and residential neighbourhood character. By contrast, she testifies the intent of the ZBL is not maintained for the proposed deck as the proposed height would not be in character with the neighbourhood.

22Further, Ms. Poirier testified the existing landing is not large enough to be used as amenity space without privacy screen and would be a new impact to abutting landowners.

23Ms. Poirier does not oppose to relief for the stairs and landing – “it’s not like for like”. However, the proposal includes an upper deck which does create a new privacy issue.

24She opined as a land use planner; decisions and recommendations are long-lasting and stick with the land and not the current owner which creates long term land issues.

25Development approvals staff believe the requested upper deck does not meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as it will negatively impact the abutting neighbour.

26Based on the evidence and documentation filed, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL subject to the condition that the Appellant will install privacy screening to the back upper deck to alleviate any negative impact to the abutting property owners.

APPROPRIATE AND DESIRABLE FOR THE USE

27Through Mr. Latourelle’s letter, the proposed new stair design shifts access from the old structure (moving from the front of the house towards the backyard) represents the safest and most architecturally sound solution for the stair replacement. Further the design is enhanced by breaking the stair runs into three smaller more manageable distances.

28Development Approvals staff believe the setback requested for stairs and landing is adequate for access and maintenance.

29Mr. Doucet suggests that the upper deck provides new construction and will be a “beautiful deck” providing equitable safe outdoor access to the tenants.

30It is the opinion of Ms. Poirier that the deck design is out of character for the area as there does not appear to be any 2nd storey rear yard decks in the area. However, she noted there are ground level decks in the area.

31Based on the evidence and documentation filed, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances are appropriate and desirable for the use subject to the condition that the Appellant will install privacy screening to the back upper deck to alleviate any negative impact to the abutting property owners.

MINOR IN NATURE:

32The construction and design of the stairs and landing ensure a continued full access to the existing sidewalk and perimeter of the building and creates no new massing. The setback reduction is modest and functional.

33Ms. Poirier testified through the illustration of site photos, that from a bird’s eye view, it illustrates the stairs hugging the hedge line creating impact on the neighbouring property. Through her staff report, she opines that the second storey deck is not minor in nature. She proffers there appears to be sufficient rear yard amenity space for the shared tenants to utilize without negatively impacting abutting landowners.

34Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed deck is minor in nature as the new construction creates no new massing. However, will be subject to the condition that the Appellant will install privacy screening to alleviate any negative impact to the abutting property owners.

35Mr. Watt requested the appeal be dismissed; that the deck does not meet all four tests, would be out of character of the area and affects reasonable enjoyment of private amenity space.

SECTION 2:

36The Tribunal must have regards to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as have regard to the decision of the CoA and the information considered by it as required under subsection 2.1(1) of the Act, though it is not bound by that decision.

37The Tribunal acknowledges evidence that the proposal will be fully serviced with existing municipal services, the proposal is within an existing mature neighbourhood and will provide an opportunity for enhancement design that does not worsen privacy conditions.

PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024 (“PPS”)

38It is Mr. Doucet’s opinion that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS as Chapter 2 concerns inter alia policy direction encouraging the provision of an adequate supply of affordable, ownership, rental and special needs housing in Living Areas which makes efficient use of the lot on full municipal services.

FINDINGS:

39Pursuant to Section 1.6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal may grant other relief as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure that the real questions in issue are determined in a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.

40The Tribunal is persuaded, having considered all the evidence and submissions, regarding the replacement of the stairs and platform (Variance 1), the requested 0.8 m setback will provide for adequate space for access and maintenance purpose for the ground level part of the proposed structure. Although, while not replacing them “like for like”, the exterior stairs pose an immediate non-negotiable safety hazard to the tenants pursuant to the Fire Code, the Tribunal finds that the tests established in subsection 45(12) of the Act are met.

41The Tribunal finds regarding the upper deck (Variance No. 2) that the deck provides for new construction and facilitates upgrades which support the broader goals of neighbourhood renewal. The tests established in subsection 45(12) of the Act are met subject to the condition that the Appellant will install privacy screening to the deck to alleviate any negative impact to the abutting property owners.

42The Tribunal further finds:

1. The Proposal is consistent with the PPS and has regard to matters of provincial interest; and
2. The Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS

43That the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City of Greater Sudbury Zoning By-law No. 2010-100Z are authorized subject to one condition as follows:

1. That privacy screening to the upper deck be incorporated into the structure and form part of its construction in accordance with applicable building codes and municipal requirements.

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES 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.