Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
November 04, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL210327
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Peter Karagiannis
Appellant:
Cheryl Wallace
Applicant:
Cade McMannis
Subject:
Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.:
2585
Property Address/Description:
613 Henry Street
Municipality:
Town of Whitby
Municipal File No.:
A/34/21
LPAT Case No.:
PL210327
LPAT File No.:
PL210327
LPAT Case Name:
Karagiannis v. Whitby (Town)
Heard:
September 28, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Girsh Chandra
Cade McMannis
Cheryl Wallace
Self-Represented
Peter Karagiannis
Self-Represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal was an appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act,(“Act”) by Peter Karagiannis and Cheryl Wallace (“the Appellants”) of the approval by the Town of Whitby (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for an application of minor variance by Girsh Chandra (“Applicant”) to By-law No. 2585, for the property municipally known as 613 Henry Street (“Subject Site”).
2The requested minor variance is to permit the construction of a detached garage located in a portion of the Subject Site backyard. By-law No. 2585 provides that all accessory structures on a residential lot may only have a lot coverage of 50% of the lot coverage of the main building. The proposed detached garage would have a lot coverage of 99.6%.
THE APPELLANTS
3The Subject Site is located in a residential area that is part of the Warden’s Plan Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. The majority of the neighbouring houses in the block have single detached garages. The Appellants expressed that a single detached garage would be more desirable to fit into the neighbourhood.
4The Appellants raised concerns that a garage of this size could be used for business purpose, create undesirable noise, and would not fit within the character of a historic residential neighbourhood.
5The Appellants indicated that the Applicant has already changed the sight lines, altered the grade and water drainage of the lot by a newly installed fence. The Appellants are concerned that a new garage would further exacerbate the grade and sight lines.
6Concerns had also been expressed that the construction of the proposed garage could have a negative impact on the mature trees located at the rear portion of the lot.
THE APPLICANT
7Cade McMannis represented the Applicant during the proceedings. Mr. McMannis directed the Tribunal to the report of the Town staff while answering the concerns of the Appellants.
8While the application for minor variance is 99.6% of the main structure the Applicant submits that given the large lot size and small main dwelling on the Subject Site the size of the garage should be considered appropriate. The proposed double garage would have a coverage of 14% of the entire lot.
9The Applicant has agreed to the conditions of the CoA that included the Heritage Committee recommendations that the roof style, and colour that matches the style of the existing residential dwelling.
10Mr. McMannis also informed the Tribunal that the proposed location of the garage on the lot was chosen in consultation with the Town Staff as the best location that would have the least amount of impact on the mature trees.
DECISION
11For an application of a minor variance to be approved, the application must meet the standards of the four tests.
12After hearing the viva voce testimony of the Parties, and reviewing the staff report to the CoA, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application meets the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 2585, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and regard for matters of provincial interest to ensure compliance with sections 2 and 3(5) of the Act.
13The Applicant has made it clear to both the Tribunal and the CoA that the intension is to use the garage for personal use only and will not be operating a business within the residential zoned neighbourhood.
14Given the large lot size with a smaller sized house the Tribunal is convinced that the proposed double garage, constructed in a manner that respects the heritage character of the existing dwelling and neighbourhood is an appropriate development and that the variance that would permit its construction is minor in nature.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are dismissed and the variance to By-law No. 2585 is authorized, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
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.