Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 12, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210044
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sinatra and Sandra Frempong
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 150-85
Property Address/Description: 225 River Forks Lane
Municipality: City of Cambridge
Municipal File No.: A66/20
OLT Case No.: PL210044
OLT File No.: PL210044
OLT Case Name: Frempong vs. Cambridge (City)
Heard: September 15, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Sandra Frempong | Alhasan Robah |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1On September 1, 2020, Sandra and Sinatra Frempong (“Appellants”) applied to the City of Cambridge (“City”) Committee of Adjustment for a variance to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 150-85 (“Zoning By-law”) to facilitate the creation of a two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit in the basement of the existing house at 225 River Forks Lane (“subject property”).
2The proposed variance is to permit a secondary dwelling unit on the subject property, which has a lot area of 353.56 square metres (“m²”). The Zoning by-law requires a minimum lot area of 450 m² for such a unit.
3The subject property is designated as Low/Medium Density Residential under the City’s Official Plan. It is zoned Residential R6 under the Zoning By-law. Site-specific provision 4.1.274 of the Zoning By-law, which applies to the subject property, allows for a reduced lot area, reduced lot frontage, and reduced setbacks in the R6 zone.
4On September 30, 2020, the City’s Committee of Adjustment refused the requested variance.
5On October 20, 2020, the Appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to the Tribunal.
6On September 15, 2021, the Tribunal heard the appeal by video hearing.
ISSUE
7The issue in this appeal is whether or not the proposed variance meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. More specifically, does the proposed variance maintain the general purpose and intent of the Region of Waterloo (“Region”) Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan, does it maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law, is it desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property, and is it minor? The proposed variance must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with any applicable provincial plans (in this case, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”)). Finally, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and must have regard to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment and the information considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
8At the hearing, the Appellants’ representative, Alhasan Robah, described the subject property and the proposed variance. He stated that the proposed variance would recognize the existing lot size of the subject property and facilitate a two-bedroom accessory apartment unit in the basement of the existing dwelling. He said the proposed accessory unit’s entrance would be from the interior side yard of the subject property and would satisfy the required interior side-yard requirements. He stated that the proposed development satisfies the Zoning By-law’s parking, open landscaping, setback, and frontage requirements for accessory dwelling units. He said the proposed variance would facilitate a development that adds to the housing supply and would have no negative impacts on neighbours. Mr. Robah said it would increase the mix and variety of housing units in the area and provide affordable housing. He said the subject property is connected to municipal services and the proposed development would not affect the character of the neighbourhood.
9With no one appearing on behalf of the City, the Tribunal requested that the City’s planner attend as a Friend of the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence regarding the proposed variance. Rachel Greene, who is a senior planner employed by the City, was contacted and she agreed to provide evidence. The Tribunal qualified her to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
10Ms. Greene opined that the proposed variance satisfied the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. She opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the Region’s Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan. She said the proposed variance facilitates a development that would assist in the provision of a mix of safe and affordable housing. She stated that the proposed development would have adequate parking, would be compatible with the character of the neighbourhood, and would satisfy the City’s intensification and density policies.
11Ms. Greene opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. She stated that there is sufficient amenity space on the existing lot and the proposed development satisfies the lot coverage, landscaping and setback requirements in the Zoning By-law.
12Ms. Greene opined that the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property. She stated that a secondary unit is permitted on the subject property, the proposed development would have no impacts on the streetscape, and, again, it satisfies all of the other zoning requirements in the Zoning By-law. She opined that it is in the public interest.
13Ms. Greene also opined that the proposed variance would be minor. She said it would not result in an increase in the footprint of the existing dwelling on the subject property, the entrance would be on the side of the dwelling, and impacts on neighbours would be minimal.
14Ms. Greene opined that the proposed variance is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan in that it would assist in the provision of a variety of housing types and would provide affordable housing. She opined that it addresses the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and represents good planning.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15Based on Ms. Greene’s opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance satisfies the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, and constitutes good planning. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding this matter and the information that the Committee had before it.
ORDER
16The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 150-85 is authorized.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.