Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 15, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210120
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Nirajkumar and Shefali Thakkar
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 150-85
Property Address/Description: 55 Ridge Road
Municipality: City of Cambridge
Municipal File No.: A78/20
OLT Lead Case No.: PL210120
OLT Case No.: PL210120
OLT Case Name: Thakkar v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: November 3, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Nirajkumar and Shefali
Hasan Robah
Thakkar (collectively “Appellant” or
“Applicant”)
City of Cambridge (“City”)
Did not appear
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CORNACCHIA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This is an appeal by the Appellant, the owner of the property located at 55 Ridge Road, Cambridge, Ontario (“Subject Property”), of the City’s Committee of Adjustment decision to dismiss a minor variance application.
2The Appellant applied for two minor variances to City’s Zoning By-law No. 150-85 (“ZBL”) to permit the construction of a one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit in the basement of the existing house (“Basement Apartment”) on the Subject Property. The construction of the Basement Apartment will result in the renovation of the basement in the dwelling with no changes to the exterior structure of the building and parking will be accommodated in the building’s garage for the current residents and the driveway for the Basement Apartment residents. (“Proposed Development”)
3The ZBL only permits accessory dwelling units in houses located on lots having:
a minimum lot area of 450 square metres (“sq m”) (4,843.76 square feet (“sq. ft.”); and,
a minimum frontage of 11 metres (“m”) (36 feet (“ft.”).
4The Appellant requested the following minor variances from ZBL to permit the construction of a Basement Apartment on the Subject Property:
a minimum lot area of 329.4 sq m (3,545.6 sq. ft.); and,
a frontage of 9.5 m (31.1 ft.) (collectively the “Variances”).
5These Variances for the Subject Property simply reflect the current site-specific provision 4.1.303C – Hunt Club Estates which reduces the minimum lot area and minimum frontage normally required by the ZBL
6The City’s Community Development Department reviewed the application for the Variances and delivered a planning report, to the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“City Planning Report”). The City Planning Report recommended the approval of the Minor Variance Application, subject to the condition that the Basement Apartment be limited to one bedroom and substantially conforms to the plans submitted with the Minor Variance Application. (“Recommended Condition”)
7Despite the recommendation from City staff, the Committee of Adjustment refused the Minor Variance Application since it was of the view that the lot area deficiency was not minor.
8The Applicant filed an appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision with the Tribunal on January 5, 2021. The first hearing on this matter on August 30, 2021 was adjourned to permit the Appellant’s Representative, Hasan Robah (“Mr. Robah”) to bring appropriate evidence to the Tribunal in support of the Appeal.
9The current hearing is the second hearing event for this matter. Mr. Robah appeared again for the Appellant and the City did not appear.
1. Evidence
10Mr. Robah presented the only oral evidence received at the hearing. He confirmed that the City Planning Report was authored by Maria Skara, a Registered Professional Planner who works at the City and was reviewed by a Senior Planner at the City, Rachel Greene, a Registered Professional Planner. Ms. Greene presented the City Planning Report to the Committee of Adjustment.
11Mr. Robah did not arrange to issue a summons to Ms. Skara or Ms. Greene on a timely basis. He sent an email to the Case Coordinator the day before this hearing requesting that a summons be issued.
12As a courtesy, the Tribunal stood down the hearing to give Mr. Robah an opportunity to call the City Planning department to determine whether Ms. Skara or Ms. Greene were available to give evidence at the hearing. Unfortunately, both the City planners were unavailable and the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing without their oral testimony.
13The following relevant documentary evidence was presented by Mr. Robah in support of the Appeal:
the City Planning Report,
the Committee of Adjustment decision, and
Rationale Report. (collectively “Documentary Evidence”)
For the purposes of this decision, both the oral evidence and Documentary Evidence presented at the hearing are identified as the Evidence. (“Evidence”)
2. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
14As required by the Act, the Tribunal had regard to the Committee of Adjustment decision. Unfortunately, the decision is unhelpful since it does not provide fulsome reasons. The City Planning Report is more comprehensive and helpful to the Tribunal.
15The appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision is a hearing de novo of the Minor Variance Application. At this appeal, the Tribunal must decide whether the Minor Variance Application should be authorized under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”). If the Tribunal allows the application, it must also decide if any conditions should be imposed.
3. MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION
16Section 45(1) of the Act sets out the four tests that the Tribunal must follow for assessing each of the Variances.
A. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan (“OP”)?
17The need for accessory residential units is recognized by both the Regional OP and City OP since they will increase the affordable, rental housing stock in the City. The Evidence confirms that each of the Variances maintains OP’s intent and purpose by facilitating another Basement Apartment.
B. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law?
18The Subject Property meets the minimum landscaped open space for the whole lot as well as the front yard under the ZBL. The minimum rear yard setback in all R-class zones is 7.5 m (24 ft.) and the Subject Property has an approximate 14.9 m (48.8 ft.) rear yard setback providing sufficient amenity space for both units.
19The Evidence presented confirms that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law provisions relating to minimum frontage and lot area are maintained if each of the Variances are allowed. The Subject Property will have sufficient amenity space, open space landscaping, and parking for the two units in the house structure.
C. Is the variance minor?
20The Evidence identified that the exterior built form of the house structure and the driveway on the Subject Property will be unchanged by the Proposed Development. The Proposed Development will only result in changes to the interior of the building due to the construction of a secondary unit in the basement.
21The Variances are not expected to have any impact on the occupants of the two units in the house, the neighbourhood and the abutting properties since the occupants will have adequate recreation space. Based on the minimal impact of the proposed Variances, the Tribunal finds them to be minor.
D. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
22The Evidence presented identifies that the Variances are appropriate for the development of the property since an additional accessory rental unit will be created by the proposed development.
23The Tribunal finds that the Minor Variance Application should be allowed subject to the City’s Recommended Condition. The Minor Variance Application complies with s. 45(1) of the Act, constitutes good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe which encourage the development of more intense residential development and secondary units specifically.
4. ORDER
24The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 150-85 for the Subject Property are hereby authorized subject to the following condition:
- That the accessory unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application and is limited to one bedroom.
“A. Cornacchia”
A. CORNACCHIA
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.