South Frontenac Woman Headed To OMB Over 105 Square Foot Extension

Jeff Green | Aug 21, 2013

Arlene Seale lives in a picturesque house on a tiny peninsula on Loughborough Lake. She is presently engaged in a dispute with South Frontenac Township that is going to the Ontario Municipal Board, and one thing that all the combatants in the dispute would agree on is that the house could never be built today.

The front, back, and west sides of the house are all located a few feet from the water, and as waterfront property owners throughout Eastern Ontario are certainly aware of, no new construction is permitted within 30 metres of any lake in the region. This has been the case in South Frontenac ever since the township approved its first Official Plan in 2001.

All of those waterfront homes that were built before 2001 were given a special status by municipal planning departments. They were given the logic-twisting status of “legal-non conforming”. That means that the homes are legal, although they do not conform to the comprehensive zoning bylaw of the township. The only time that this becomes an issue for the properties' owners is when they want to renovate. Putting in additions, new decks, etc. has been difficult or impossible because the new construction would be located within 30 metres of the water.

The only exceptions have been cases where a deck or a section of a home are being replaced, and in those cases the planning departments typically insists that the new construction remain within the ‘footprint’ of what it is replacing, to minimise potential run-off into the lake.

It does not take long when looking at an overhead photo of Arlene Seale’s property to figure out that she would have trouble getting approval for any new construction.

Arlene Seale tried to do just that in 2011. Her husband had just died in late November of 2010 after an extended illness, and she wanted to make a change to the house because the most commonly used doorway, the one facing the driveway, had a runoff problem from the roof. This meant flooding in the spring and danger from falling snow in the winter.

In order to rectify the problem, Seale wanted to either put in a garage at that location, or close off the porch with a small addition/mudroom at the side of her house.

Alan Revill, then the township's chief building official, met with Seale in February of 2012.

The porch was 17ft. by 7ft. and the new construction was slated to be 15ft. by 7ft.

According to Seale, Revill told her that she could not build the garage but closing off the porch would be acceptable. As well, she said that Revill also informed her that since the new construction was less than 108 square feet, a building permit would not be required.

So, in June, Arlene Seale’s son began building the addition.

As he was working on the project, Krista Johnston, a building inspector with the township, paid a visit and asked why construction was going on without a building permit.

The construction was halted on the spot, and Arlene Seale called the township. The very next day she met with Lindsay Mills, the township’s planner.

At this point, Arlene Seale says that she did not know that there may be zoning issues in her case.

“Lindsay Mills told me that Alan Revill had retired and he would have to contact him to confirm my story. I thought he was the new building official. I did not know he was the township’s planner. I showed him the picture of the house the way it looked and had drawn in the enclosure,” said Arlene Seale.

A little over a month later, on July 17, 2012, Lindsay Mills called Searle back, and according to her he confirmed that Alan Revill had approved the construction.

“I asked Lindsay Mills to put it in writing, but that never happened” Seale said.

Arlene Seale went ahead and built her extension.

Then earlier this year, she received a letter from the township’s lawyer ordering her to remove the structure because it was constructed without approval.

In one of his emails to Arlene Seale, Lindsay Mills put forward his own understanding of the phone conversation the two had engaged in on July 17, 2012.

“I wanted to emphasize the point that you and I initially

met in my office and later, on July 17, 2012, I left a message with you that the Planning Department would only support construction of an attached uncovered deck a maximum of six feet out from the cottage and extending the full width of the cottage. I specified that nothing more than this would be permitted.”

Mills did delay the demolition order so that Arlene Seale could apply to the township's Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to allow the construction, even though the process normally requires that a minor variance be received before construction commences and not after it is completed.

However, Lindsay Mills also told Seale that he would be recommending that the committee reject her application for a minor variance.

“I have determined that you would be requesting approval for a setback of approximately 6 metres on two sides whereas the required setback is 30 metres …

I should tell you that these policies and provisions would not support your application and, thus, I would recommend denial of the application. It is not minor and it does not meet the intent of the Official Plan or zoning by-law. Consequently I would not regard it as appropriate development,” he wrote.

Seale did apply for a minor variance nonetheless, and received supportive documentation from both the Cataraqui Region Conservation Agency and the Public Health.

Nonetheless the application was rejected by the committee on August 8.

She described the committee hearing as “non-transparent and unprofessional”, and said that while other applicants were given an opportunity to speak as soon as members of council were finished “I had to ask for an opportunity to speak.”

An appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board has been filed, and if the board decides to hear the case it will likely be three months before a hearing can be arranged.