Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 25, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210204
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Mantin Qamar
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2511
Property Address/Description: 606 Annland Street
Municipality: City of Pickering
Municipal File No.: P/CA 65/20
OLT Case No.: PL210204
OLT File No.: PL210204
OLT Case Name: 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. v. Pickering (City)
Heard: September 3, 2021 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| City of Pickering | No one appeared |
| Mantin Qamar | Self-represented |
DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal” or “OLT”) convened a Video Hearing (“VH”) on September 3, 2021, to consider the appeal of the City of Pickering (“City”) Committee of Adjustment decision dated March 10, 2021 (“Decision”) refusing the application by the Appellant Mantin Qamar (“Appellant”) for several variances under the Zoning By-law No. 2511, as amended by By-law No. 7610/18 (“ZB”) to permit the creation of a new single family dwelling to replace the existing dwelling at the Appellant’s property municipally known as 606 Annland Street in the City (“Subject Property”). The City did not appear at the VH or oppose this appeal. Alanna Turney, who is a co-owner of the adjacent property located at 660 Pleasant Street in the City, sought and was granted Participant status at the VH.
2The Subject Property is currently occupied by a very small cottage-like residential dwelling, which is more than 70 years old. The Appellant seeks certain variances to permit the construction of a new, larger single-family home. Interestingly, on the adjacent property at 660 Pleasant Street, the owners are in the midst of a similar endeavour: constructing a large, two-storey home, which, according to the photos tendered in evidence by Brian Moss as described in paragraph [4] (a), appears to be almost complete.
3The Appellant sought the following variances from the City’s ZB to:
(a) recognize a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres (“m”), whereas the ZB requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 m;
(b) recognize a minimum lot area of 130 square metres (“sq m”), whereas the ZB requires a minimum lot area of 460 sq m;
(c) permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.3 m, whereas the ZB requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 m;
(d) permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 m and a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 m; whereas the ZB requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 m on one side, 2.4 m on the other side;
(e) permit a maximum lot coverage of 52.5 percent, whereas the ZB permits a maximum of 33 percent;
(f) permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 m into the required front yard, whereas the ZB requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 m in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 m into any required front yard and not more than 1.0 m into any required side yard; and,
(g) recognize a vehicle parked in the rear yard to be setback a minimum of 0.0 m from the rear lot line and 0.0 m from the east side lot line, whereas the ZB requires in any Residential Zone, vehicles parked in a side yard or rear yard to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line.
(collectively, the “Variances”)
4The materials provided to the Tribunal by the Appellant comprised:
(a) Submissions of Brian Moss, Registered Planner, dated August 23, 2021, consisting of 24 pages, including photographs;
(b) Document entitled “Exhibit 3” dated September 3, 2021, prepared by Brian Moss, comprising 24 pages;
(c) Four Tests of Planning Act, dated September 22, 2021, prepared by Brian Moss, comprising two pages;
(d) OLT Submission Letter, dated September 22, 2021, prepared by Brian Moss, comprising one page;
(e) Shadow Study Memo, dated September 14, 2021, prepared by Sadia Ibnat Raisa, Architect, comprising five pages;
(f) Document entitled ‘Fence Matter’, dated September 22, 2021, comprising one page;
(g) Document entitled ‘0 metre Setback North Property Line Driveway’ dated September 22, 2021, comprising one page; and,
(h) Municipal Record from the City relating to the Application and Appeal, comprising 143 pages.
5Items (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) noted in paragraph [4] above, were filed by the Appellant and her witness Mr. Moss subsequent to the VH at the Tribunal’s request.
Evidence and Analysis
6As noted, the City did not oppose the Variances and no City representative appeared at the VH. The Participant Ms. Turney did not file a written statement, but, at the invitation of the Tribunal, pursuant to the exercise of its discretion under the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure, gave brief oral comments in answer to a few questions from the Tribunal.
7One expert witness was called by the Appellant, Mr. Moss, who is a Registered Professional Planner. Mr. Moss has over 20 years of professional planning experience, including consulting for public and private-sector clients, and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence on land use planning matters.
8The Tribunal accepted Mr. Moss’s unchallenged planning evidence as set out in paragraph [9] below. The Tribunal further notes from the municipal record referred to in paragraph [4] (h) that the City’s planning staff also supported the Appellant’s application for the Variances and recommended it for approval based on essentially the same conclusions reached by Mr. Moss.
9Mr. Moss’s opinion was that the Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and of the ZB; are minor in nature; and are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, in that:
(a) A single detached dwelling has been on the subject property since 1937. The revised single detached dwelling will cover the same footprint as the 1937 footprint. The structure will be two to three storeys in height, in keeping with the overall neighbourhood transition from one and two storey homes to two and three storey homes, all under 9 m in height (the relevant City ZB requirement);
(b) Most of the Variances recognize existing conditions and the application is minor in nature;
(c) This area of Pickering is unique as most of the original waterfront cottages are removed or upgraded to large homes during a period of significant new investment in the last 10 to 20 years. This is a new home proposal using the same footprint as the existing home and is two to three storeys in height and within the ZB height limit of 9 m. The details of the elevations have been fine-tuned to be sensitive to the immediate neighbours to the west and north, eliminating windows and revising roof details and private (roof top) amenity areas;
(d) Shadows (separate submission) show very limited impact on neighbouring homes. The application is desirable and appropriate for the use of the Subject Property;
(e) The existing dwelling predates all of the zoning by-laws for the neighbourhood, having been built in 1937. The dwelling maximizes coverage on a very small lot at 52.5 percent coverage, but has ample front and exterior side yards in terms of perception, using the municipal right-of-way for landscape purposes;
(f) The Variances are required to recognize existing conditions as well as the application for a replacement home. The Variances are reasonable and minor, relative to the built form on the small lot and the practical realities of situating a viable footprint on the lot, along with the roof top private amenity area, providing more amenity area than provided at grade;
(g) The ZB allows for single detached housing with a 9 m height limit, to which the application conforms. The Variances meet the general intent and purposes of the ZB; and,
(h) The City’s OP designates the lands for low density residential. The proposal is for one replacement single detached dwelling. The Appellant’s proposal conforms to the intent and purpose of the City’s OP; and,
(i) The Variances are desirable for appropriate development and use of the Subject Property because they will accommodate a modest amount of intensification in a manner that will be compatible to the existing context in an area where such intensification is supported, encouraged and actively underway.
Conclusions and Orders
10As noted above, the Tribunal accepted the unchallenged land use planning evidence of Mr. Moss and also took notice of the approval of the City’s planning staff as described in paragraph [8] above.
11The Tribunal is persuaded that the application for the Variances satisfies the four-part test in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and the other requirements as described in paragraph [9] above based on the evidence of Mr. Moss and accepted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal allows the appeal concerning the requested Variances.
12The Tribunal therefore Orders as follows:
- The Variances to Zoning By-law 7610/18 for 606 Annland Street described in paragraph [3] above and as depicted in Attachment 1 hereto (as described in paragraph 4 above) are hereby authorized.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
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.
ATTACHMENT 1