Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000419

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tracy Tucker

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To seek relief regarding setbacks for a deck

Reference Number: PLZNA20250029

Property Address: 60 McColl Lane

Municipality/UT: Godfrey/South Frontenac

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000419

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000419

OLT Case Name: Tucker v. South Frontenac (Township)

Heard: October 20 and 21, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Tracy Tucker (“Appellant”)	Al Burton
Township of South Frontenac (“Township”)	Spencer Putman

DECISION DELIVERED BY l.p. you AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, with respect to the Township’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for Minor Variances (“Application”) to permit reduced setbacks for a newly constructed deck on the lands municipally known as 60 McColl Lane (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2The Subject Lands, located on McColl Lane and on the west shore of Thirty Island Lake, have an area of approximate 0.9 acres, approximately 35 metres (“m”) of frontage along the lane and 75 m of frontage on the lake.

3The surrounding neighbourhood primarily consist of waterfront properties developed with seasonal and single-detached dwellings. The Subject Lands have individual on-site sewage and water services available.

4There is a cottage, a deck and two detached accessory buildings on the Subject Lands. The building and structures were constructed without permits. The Appellant seeks the permit for the deck attached to the east side (i.e. water-facing side) of the building.

5The Subject Lands are designated ‘Rural’ on Schedule ‘A’-Land Use Plan of the Township’s Official Plan (“OP”).

6The Subject Lands are zoned Limited Service Residential-Waterfront (“RLSW”) within the Township’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75, as amended (“Township ZBL”).

7The Appellant sought the relief from the Township ZBL for below variances to legalize the water-facing deck:

1. Section 5.8.2(a) and 10.3.1 - to permit an attached deck to be set back a minimum of 1.5 m from the highwater mark of a waterbody, whereas a minimum 30 m setback is required (together, the “Shoreline Setback Variance”); and,
2. Section 5.8.2(b) - to permit an attached deck to be set back a minimum of 0.5 m from the top of the bank, whereas a minimum 15 m setback is required (the “Slope Setback Variance”).

8Quinte Conservation Authority (“QCA”) issued a permit for the cottage construction, including the deck. QCA commented on the Application that the deck must be supported by the footings of the cottage with a cross-brace to ensure the deck is safe and located outside of the erosion hazard area.

9The Township staff recommended refusal of the Application to the COA prior to the committee meeting in April of 2025, at which the COA decided to defer the Application to allow it to review additional information, including a slope stability analysis. Ultimately, in May 2025, the COA denied the Application as it held the same opinion in the staff report that the Application failed to meet the four tests under the Act.

EXHIBITS

10Following materials were marked as exhibits during the Hearing:

• Joint Document Book of marked as “Exhibit 1”;
• Witness statement of Rob Snestsinger marked as “Exhibit 2”;
• Staff Report dated March 28, 2012, marked as “Exhibit 3”;
• Staff Report dated May 12, 2022, marked as “Exhibit 4”; and,
• Staff Report dated February 9, 2023, marked as “Exhibit 5”.

NOTICE OF HEARING

11There is no issue with notice of this hearing.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS

12The Appellant called Rob Snetsinger and Jason Sands to provide opinion evidence in the area of Ecology and Land Use Planning, respectively, to support the Application before the Tribunal.

13Mark Cece and Christine Woods were called by the City’s Counsel to provide opinion evidence in the area of Ecology and Land Use Planning, respectively, to defend the City’s position in the matter before the Tribunal.

14During the Hearing, expert witnesses assessed relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), four tests as set out in the Act, relevant policies of the OPs and performance standards of the Township ZBL for the variances, individually and cumulatively.

15Before providing detailed assessment of the Application, Mr. Sands presented the relevant policies in the Table 1 attached to Exhibit 1 (“Policy Table”). The Policy Table provided detailed policies of the PPS 2024, County of Frontenac Official Plan (“County OP”) and Township OP in addition to the relevant provisions of the Township ZBL.

Shoreline Setback Variance

Issue #1: will natural heritage be negatively impacted by the reduced shoreline setback?

Evidence and Submissions

16Mr. Snetsinger provided his overview of natural resources, based on the Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion, Survey Protocol for Ontario’s Species at Risk Snakes, developed under policies and directions of Ministry of Natural Resources Forestry (“MNRF”). His assessment also applied to the Forestry and Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (“PPS 2005”). Mr. Snetsinger stated that the fish habitat was the only significant natural heritage feature near the deck and nesting fish had a high tolerance to nearby human activities.

17Mr. Snetsinger noted that the proposed deck was perched above the shoreline, therefore, there would be no disturbance to possible nesting fish offshore. In summary, Mr. Snetsinger opined that no measurable impacts of the deck on significant natural heritage features or accumulated impacts to lake capacity were identified with respect to policy 4.1 of the Township OP.

18Counsel for the Township, Spencer Putman questioned Mr. Snetsinger and received confirmation that some areas under the deck could be vegetated should the deck not be constructed at the current location. Further, Mr. Snetsinger agreed with Mr. Putman that the removal of the skirting under the deck would allow additional sunlight to enter the area under the deck and to help vegetation cover in this area.

19Mr. Snetsinger also confirmed that the purpose of an ecological corridor is to allow wildlife to move safely between habitats, but he disagreed with Mr. Cece’s opinion that the area between the wall of the cottage and the slope could function as an ecological corridor.

20During the cross examination, Mr. Snetsinger further stated that the deck would slow down rainwater to run off the shoreline to the lake and the fish habitat would be less disturbed. He added that the deck was also considered as a mitigation measure to reduce soil disturbance as the deck provided a pathway for residents to access the two sides of the cottage without footprint on the shoreline.

21In Mr. Cece’s opinion, the proposed variance would impact the function and features of the natural heritage system within the setback and ultimately may result in accumulative impacts to the system despite no significant features identified and small encroachments to be allowed.

22During the cross-examination, Mr. Cece confirmed that the impact of the proposed variance on the features of the natural heritage system might be minor to the entire lake area, but the impact could be significant at the specific area of the constructed deck. Further, Mr. Cece indicated that he was unable to compare the site conditions before and after the construction of the building and the deck as the site condition had been altered before his visit.

23In addition, Mr. Cece stated that there were possibilities for vegetation to grow under the deck if the skirting of the deck was removed.

Findings

24The Tribunal acknowledges that the deck has been constructed and both expert witnesses in the area of ecology were unable to review the conditions of the site before the construction. Considering no significant natural features identified by both expert witnesses, the Tribunal finds that the impact of the deck will be minimal, however, to increase the possibility of vegetation under the deck, the skirt should be removed during the redesign of the deck.

Issue #2: does the Shoreline Setback Variance satisfy the tests?

Consistency with the PPS, 2024

Evidence and Submissions

25Mr. Sands opined that the deck represented the character of the rural area while maintaining vegetation with respect to s. 2.5.1 of the PPS 2024. He added that the proposed variance did not alter the shoreline character nor was it anticipated to negatively impact the water quality of the lake.

26Ms. Woods held a different opinion and cited s. 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 of the PPS 2024 regarding the directions and importance of protecting natural features and restoring the quality and quantity of water. In Ms. Woods’ view, the Shoreline Setback Variance proposes further encroachment into the riparian zone and could cause cumulative impacts to natural features. Therefore, Ms. Woods opined that the Shoreline Setback Variance was inconsistent with PPS 2024.

Findings

27Considering that no sensitive ground water and no significant natural features were identified on the Subject Lands, the Tribunal finds that the variances, individually and collectively, are healthy and safe and that there will not be cumulative impacts. The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances would maintain the rural character and protect natural features for the long term. In summary, the Tribunal prefers Mr. Sands’ opinion that the Shoreline Setback Variance is consistent with the PPS 2024.

General intent and purpose of County and Township OPs

Evidence and Submissions

28Mr. Sands’ Policy Table listed relevant policies of the County OP that encourage development to meet the objectives of preserving open space and rural character, maintaining ecological balance and economic sustainability within the County area, and protecting or improving natural features along the shoreline.

29Mr. Sands referred to s. 4.1 and 4.6 of the Township OP that state that the objectives of the Township OP are to facilitate development activities while ensuring that natural features are properly preserved for the long term and enjoyment of future generations and ensuring that other residents are not negatively impacted.

30In Mr. Sands’ statement, s. 5.2.7 of the Township OP includes policies that are applicable to Environmentally Sensitive Areas and to all the lands within 90 m of the highwater mark of all lakes and rivers, which are not designated Environmental Protection but are included as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In the present case, the Subject Lands are identified within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The Township OP designates the Subject Lands as “Rural”, which permits multiple forms of uses, including limited service residential with primary access from a private road or navigable waterway pursuant to s. 5.7.7 of the Township OP. Mr. Sands stated that the intent of these policies is to preserve natural aesthetics as much as possible with the long term in mind.

31Mr. Sands stated that the constructed dwelling has the same footprint as the demolished one, and the uncovered deck is attached to the dwelling. He added that the COA previously approved a similar Minor Variance application in COA file number PL-ZNA-2024-0103 (“Reference Application”) and this application proposed an uncovered deck to be closer to the highwater mark than the existing single detached dwelling. Therefore, he opined that the Township should maintain consistency in considering applications for minor variances and interpreting Township OP policies. He concluded that the Shoreline Setback Variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the County and Township OPs.

32Mr. Putman challenged Mr. Sands’ evidence regarding the interpretation of the relevant polices of the County OP. Particularly, he referred to the policies 3.3.3.4.4.7 and 3.3.3.4.4.8 of County OP, which state that slight reductions to the minimum setback from the highwater mark would be permitted only if the required setback could not be physically achieved. The policies also direct the Township to develop criteria to determine an appropriate setback. He added, however, that the Application proposed an addition to the existing cottage, which is already within the 30 m setback. Mr. Sands expressed his disagreement by stating that the Township had already approved 34 other applications to permit reductions to the setbacks from the highwater mark in the area and the Township should be consistent in implementing the policies of the OPs of the County and the Township while considering applications for similar variances.

33Ms. Woods disagreed with Mr. Sands’ assessment of the policies of the County and Township OPs. Ms. Woods discussed particularly the policies of the County OP in Para.[32]. In her view, the County policies direct the Township OP and ZBL to develop policies and performance standards, respectively, which regulate new development (minimum 30 m from highwater mark) and set criteria for considering the Shoreline Setback Variance and determine appropriate setbacks for an existing lot of record should the minimum required setback not be achieved. The intent of these policies is to improve and protect waterfront areas. In Ms. Woods’ opinion, allowing further encroachment into the riparian zone by reducing the setback does not maintain this intent.

34Ms. Wood presented her evaluation of the Shoreline Setback Variance against the policies of the Township OP. Particularly, she referred to the objectives and goals described in the policies 2.2, 4.0, and 5.2.7 where the Township OP encourages sustainable development with a balance of development and protection of local environmental features, natural heritage, rural characteristics of the existing neighborhood and waterfront features for the long term. Further, Ms. Woods cited the policy 5.2.7(b)(ii)(3) that addresses existing dwellings within a setback area and sets up three considerations for when the Township assesses applications for matters such as the Shoreline Setback Variance:

a) the proposed ultimate total gross floor area, building footprint and lot coverage, b) the closeness of the existing dwelling to the high watermark, and c) the capacity of the lot to accommodate new development at a greater setback from the high watermark.

Ms. Woods stated that the policy states that “in no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark”.

35In Ms. Woods’ opinion, the proposed 1.5 m wide deck attached to the existing cottage, which is 3.2 m setback from highwater mark, would result in a significant reduction, and the new deck could be located on the south side of the cottage without further encroachment.

36Further, Ms. Woods referred to Mr. Cece’s evidence of cumulative impacts resulting from the requested variances and the benefit of a riparian zone to support the intent of the Township OP. Ms. Woods also stated that development setbacks would help to minimize environmental and visual lake impacts. Ms. Woods reached the conclusion that the Shoreline Setback Variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township OP.

37Mr. Burton cross-examined Ms. Woods’ evidence regarding the size of the deck and other variance applications previously approved by the Township. Ms. Woods agreed that the proposed deck would be modest in size, and the proposed variance did engage policy 5.2.7 of the Township OP. She added that she reviewed the Township OP in its entirety while considering the Application and each variance.

38Ms. Woods also confirmed that the impact to water quality would be minimal but would be accumulative and there would be loss of the riparian buffer due to the Shoreline Setback Variance.

39Mr. Burton challenged Ms. Woods’ assessments regarding consistency among the various local applications for reductions to setbacks from the highwater mark with respect to relevant policies of the Township OP. Ms. Woods confirmed with Mr. Burton that she was consistent with the interpretation of the Township OP and explained the different interpretations of the Township OP case by case.

Findings

40The Tribunal finds that Ms. Woods’ explanation was acceptable and reasonable. The objectives and goals of the County OP and Township OP are to ensure developments to be healthy, safe and sustainable with a balance of long-term protection of natural, environmental features, and rural characters.

41The Tribunal has considered that the required setback cannot physically be achieved in this circumstance. In the view of the Tribunal, the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the County OP. However, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance fails to address s. 5.2.7(b)(ii)(3) of the Township OP, which holds the same intent as other relevant policies of the Township OP to protect natural features and waterbodies on environmentally sensitive lands. Though no measurable impacts were identified in the evidence before the Tribunal, the Township OP’s policy referred to in para. [34] above states that ‘in no case shall’, which provides no exemption nor support of the exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the Shoreline Setback Variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township OP.

General intent and purpose of Township ZBL

Evidence and Submissions

42Mr. Sands stated that the Township ZBL required the land zoned RLSW to meet a minimum 15 m setback from the top of bank and this standard was intended to ensure safe construction and maintenance for residents’ health and safety. He added that the cantilevered design would be introduced for the construction and there would be little phosphorus loading, aesthetic impact from the waterbody, or adverse impacts on the riparian area. Therefore, he expressed his opinion that the proposed variance maintained the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

43Ms. Woods held an opposite opinion. She stated that the Shoreline Setback Variance failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township ZBL. In her written statement and oral evidence, she demonstrated to the Tribunal that the Shoreline Setback Variance requested further encroachment into the required 30 m setback from the highwater mark, which failed to meet the objective of environmental protection and rural character described in the Township OP. Subsequently, the Shoreline Setback Variance failed the test regarding maintaining the intent of the ZBL, which was developed under the direction of the Township OP. Also, she noted that the deck could have been located on the south side of the cottage, instead of the north side, to avoid worsening the state of non-compliance with the minimum setback requirement.

Findings

44The Tribunal finds that the Appellant explored the relocation of the deck from the north side of cottage to the south side and the south side location was not feasible. Despite the evidence of the Appellant on construction practices and maintenance activities on the Subject Lands, the Tribunal agrees with Ms. Woods’ opinion that the Township OP was the foundation of the Township ZBL. Considering the Shoreline Setback Variance having failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township OP, the Tribunal holds the conclusion that the Shoreline Setback Variance subsequently fails to meet the general intent and purpose of the Township ZBL.

Desirability for the Appropriate Development of the Lands

Evidence and Submissions

45In terms of the desirability and appropriateness of the proposed variance, Mr. Sands noted the deck to be necessary for access purposes and stated that the proposed variance would be compatible with adjacent uses and built form of other waterfront developments in the neighborhood. In Mr. Sands’ opinion, approval of this proposed variance would not set an undesirable precedent for such approval for the immediate area due to the topography of the shoreline and needs of pedestrian access north-south on the Subject Lands.

46Mr. Sands also presented to the Tribunal that the deck was located on the north side of the cottage to connect the west and east side of the cottage to allow the residents of the cottage to access the two sides.

47As such, Mr. Sands held the opinion that the proposed variance was desirable and represented appropriate use of the lands.

48Ms. Woods disagreed with Mr. Sands’ opinion as the Township OP and ZBL were developed to protect and enhance or restore water quality and quantity by restricting developments on the land with the same designation as the Subject Lands. She stated that the proposed variance proposed further encroachment and would result in cumulative impacts. Ms. Woods repeated that the Application could propose the deck on the south side of the cottage, which would reduce the impact to the waterbody and riparian area.

Findings

49The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Sands’ opinion that the deck is necessary to connect north and south sides of the dwelling. However, the test related to desirability for appropriate development of the land also requires the development to be appropriate. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the Shoreline Setback Variance is desirable but inappropriate for the use of the land. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the proposed variance fails to satisfy this test.

Whether the Shoreline Setback Variance is Minor

Evidence and Submissions

50Mr. Sands indicated that the deck was supported by neighboring property owners and the assessment of whether a variance was ‘minor’ was not a mathematical equation, rather a consideration of the degree of the land use impact resulting from the variances, individually and/or collectively. He opined that no negative impacts on the adjacent properties were anticipated, therefore, the proposed variances, individually and collectively, are minor in nature.

51Ms. Woods repeated her opinion that the Shoreline Setback Variance proposed significant reductions to the minimum requirements and further encroachment worsened the non-compliance issue. In her opinion, the Application, including the Shoreline Setback Variance, would cause cumulative impacts and is not minor.

Findings

52The Tribunal acknowledges that the proposed reduction to the setback from the highwater mark seems significant from the mathematical perspective. However, the Tribunal must focus on the impact of the Shoreline Setback Variance to the neighborhood and environmental features and whether the individual/cumulative impact is adverse and unacceptable. The Tribunal favors the Township’s evidence and finds that the Shoreline Setback Variance is not considered minor in nature and the adverse impact to the waterbody and existing natural features is not acceptable.

Conclusion

53In summary, the Tribunal concludes that the Shoreline Setback Variance fails to meet the tests of 45(12) of the Act.

Slope Setback Variance

Issue #1: Is the deck located within the erosion and hazard area?

Evidence and Submissions

54Mr. Sands stated that a Slope Stability Analysis (“Analysis”) prepared by Groundwork Engineering Ltd. dated October 2024, was submitted to the Township and QCA for review. Mr. Sands indicated that QCA confirmed the deck would be located beyond the extent of natural hazard.

55Ms. Woods referenced the Analysis, which determined that the deck footings are located within an unstable area (i.e. shoreline erosion hazard) and recommended mitigation of this hazard through construction design. However, she confirmed that this issue had been addressed through the evidence of Mr. Sands that the QCA was satisfied with the resolution of the redesign of the deck.

56Ms. Woods stated that she did not contest the Slope Setback Variance’s conformity to the intent and purpose of the Township ZBL as the QCA was satisfied with the proposed deck to be redesigned beyond the erosion and hazard area.

Findings

57Based on the above evidence, the redesigned deck will be located outside of hazard and erosion area to meet the conditions as required by QCA. The Tribunal finds that the concern about the location of the deck has been addressed through the examination of the evidence of both Parties.

Issue #2: does the Slope Setback Variance satisfy tests?

Consistency with the PPS, 2024

Evidence and Submissions

58Mr. Sands opined that the deck to be redesigned would be located beyond the lands impacted by erosion hazards pursuant to s. 5.2.2 of the PPS 2024.

59Ms. Woods stated that s. 5.2 of the PPS 2024 directed the development to be located in areas outside of lands impacted by flooding hazards and/or erosion hazards. Further, Ms. Woods referred to s. 5.2.8 of the PPS 2024 that the municipality might permit development and site alteration on hazardous lands where the effects and risk to public safety are minor and where the risk can be mitigated. In her opinion, the Slope Setback Variance was consistent with the PPS 2024.

Findings

60Considering the above evidence, the Tribunal agrees with the expert opinions from both Parties that the Slope Setback Variance is consistent with PPS 2024.

General intent and purpose of County and Township OPs

Evidence and Submissions

61Mr. Sands indicated that s. 7.3.2.1 of the County OP directs development to areas outside of hazardous lands adjacent to shorelines, rivers, stream and small inland lake systems. He stated that the deck would be redesigned to be outside of erosion and hazardous areas.

62Mr. Sands indicated that s. 4.6 of Township OP was developed to direct development away from natural hazards lands. He repeated that the Analysis was provided to support the Slope Setback Variance and addressed the policies referred to in Para. [61] and [62].

63He added that s. 5.2.4 of the Township OP further directs that development is to be located away from erosion and hazard areas, and to be safe and healthy to the users of the structure and other residents. Mr. Sands stated that the uncovered deck would be re-designed to satisfy the permit conditions issued by the QCA and the revised deck would be located outside of erosion areas and hazards.

64During the cross-examination, Mr. Putman confirmed with Mr. Sands that the footing of the deck would be removed, and the deck would be cross-braced to the existing foundation to satisfy the QCA’s conditions in the permit issued for the cottage and the deck.

65Ms. Woods confirmed that the Slope Setback Variance was excluded in her testimony regarding the policies of the Township OP in relation to development near erosion areas and hazards, as the deck would be redesigned and cantilevered above the erosion hazard.

Findings

66There is no dispute between the Parties on whether the Slope Setback Variance maintains the general intent and overall purpose of the County and Township OPs. The Tribunal agrees with the opinion evidence of both land use expert witnesses.

General intent and purpose of Township ZBL

Evidence and Submissions

67Mr. Sands repeated his evidence as described in Para.[42] and [54] that the proposed variances, individually and collectively, maintain the general intent purpose of the Township ZBL to ensure safety and health of residents and users of the dwelling.

68Ms. Woods repeated her position to not contest this as the deck to be re-designed would be beyond erosion and hazardous land and QCA expressed no objections to this proposal.

Findings

69According to the evidence presented by both Parties, the Tribunal agrees with their conclusion that the Slope Setback Variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Township ZBL.

Desirability for the Appropriate Development of the Lands

Evidence and Submissions

70As presented earlier, Mr. Sands maintained the same conclusion that the Slope Setback Variance was desirable to accommodate the uncovered deck to provide users of the dwelling to access both sides. Also, he indicated that the deck was modest in size and the variance was appropriate.

71Ms. Woods repeated that the design could be altered to accommodate the needs of connecting both sides of the dwelling without the proposed deck. In her opinion, the Application, collectively, is not desirable nor appropriate for the development of the lands.

Findings

72In the Tribunal’s view, the Slope Setback Variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land to accommodate the access needs of the dwelling residents.

Whether the Slope Setback Variance is Minor

Evidence and Submissions

73Mr. Sands repeated his opinion that the degree of land use impact of the proposed variance had been considered during his assessment and the requested relief, individually and/or collectively, is minor in nature.

74Ms. Woods’ testimony focused on the Shoreline Setback Variance and she did not testify whether the Slope Setback Variance is minor.

Findings

75The Tribunal accepts Mr. Sands’ opinion that the Slope Setback Variance is minor in nature.

76In summary, the Tribunal finds that the Slope Setback Variance meets the four tests of the Act.

CONCLUSION

77In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the variances are consistent with the PPS 2024, and that:

Shoreline Setback Variance:

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the County OP;
• fails to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township OP and ZBL;
• is considered desirable but inappropriate use of the lands.
• is not minor in nature.

Slope Setback Variance:

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the County and the Township OPs;
• maintains the general intent and purpose of the Township ZBL;
• is considered desirable for appropriate use of the lands; and,
• is considered minor in nature.

In summary, the Shoreline Setback Variance fails to meet the four tests of the Act, and the Slope Setback Variance satisfies the tests.

ORDER

78THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. the appeal is allowed, in part;
2. the Slope Setback Variance to the Township of South Frontenac’s Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is authorized; and,
3. the Shoreline Setback Variance to the Zoning By-Law No. 2003-75 is not authorized.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU

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.