Sahota v. Cambridge (City), 2021 CanLII 83228

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 03, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL210175

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Gurpuneet Sahota

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: Zoning By-law 150-85

Property Address/Description: 19 Plumridge Crescent

Municipality: City of Cambridge

Municipal File No.: A07/21

OLT Case No.: PL210175

OLT File No.: PL210175

OLT Case Name: Sahota v. Cambridge (City)

Heard: August 30, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Gurpuneet Sahota ("Appellant")	Self-represented
City of Cambridge ("City")	Did not attend

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON AUGUST 30, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

BACKGROUND

1This is a hearing of an appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment ("COA"), denying a minor variance request which would facilitate an accessory dwelling unit in the basement of an existing house.

2The subject property is located at 19 Plumridge Crescent in the City of Cambridge. The property is designated as Low/Medium Density in the Official Plan and zoned R6 Residential in the Zoning By-law with a site-specific provision s. 4.1.274 for reduced lot area, reduced lot frontage, and reduced setbacks within the Limerick Subdivision.

3The COA denied the subject minor variance application despite a positive staff report supporting the application.

4For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the appeal, subject to conditions, largely for the same reasons as contained in the City Staff Report.

Parties’ attendance and representation

5Prior to the hearing, the City confirmed that it would not participate in the hearing and, in fact, did not attend. The Appeal was therefore unopposed.

6At the outset of the hearing, George Sedra attended presumptively as the Appellant’s representative. However, it was determined early in the hearing that Mr. Sedra was not a licensed legal practitioner, a professional planner, nor was he otherwise familiar with this type of proceeding or the relevant legislation. It was also determined that Mr. Sedra intended to provide testimony as a professional engineer. Consequently, the Tribunal informed Mr. Sedra that he could not act as the Appellant’s representative. The Appellant, Mr. Gurpuneet Sahota, was then contacted, joined the hearing, and represented himself for the duration.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

7The Appellant is requesting variances from Zoning By-law No. 150-85 as follows:

1. A minimum lot area of approximately 320.10 square metres ("m²") (3,445.5 square feet, ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843 ft²) for a secondary dwelling unit; and
2. A minimum lot frontage of approximately 10.66 m (34.9 ft) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 11 m (36 ft).

Evidence

8The Appellant tendered the following as evidence, which were marked as exhibits:

• Positive Staff Report of the City supporting the Minor Variance Application; and
• A photograph showing the front of the subject house, and parking area in particular.

9It is notable that the Appellant did not summon the City staff person who prepared the Staff Report. However, the Tribunal nevertheless accepted the report as evidence, and the contents therein, upon its discretion to do so pursuant to s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.

10The Appellant also provided the following, which were marked as exhibits:

• COA decision dated February 3, 2021, which denied the subject application; and
• COA decision dated February 5, 2019, which approved a similar Minor Variance application regarding a neighbouring property at 7 Plumridge Crescent.

11It is noteworthy that the approval of the minor variance application for 7 Plumridge Crescent, on the same street as the subject property, involved practically the same minor variance request for a house the same size on the same sized lot as the subject property. The only notable differences are that the 7 Plumridge Crescent minor variance application involved a two-bedroom accessory unit (as opposed to the current application, which involves only one-bedroom) and it required an additional variance for a smaller interior side-yard (the layout of the current application does not require the same interior side-yard minor variance).

12Mr. Sedra was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert evidence regarding the Ontario Building Code as a professional engineer.

13Mr. Sedra confirmed that the Appellant’s plan meets or exceeds all relevant Building Code requirements associated with minimum-sized areas for accessory units. He also confirmed that there is no minimum area for outside amenity areas, but the subject plan includes approximately 80 m² of backyard area just the same.

[Section 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec45subsec1_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

14When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, to determine if the requested variance:

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
4. Is minor in nature.

All four elements must be satisfied.

15The Tribunal accepts the conclusions of the Staff Report and finds that "the provision of accessory residential units is one measure to increase the affordable rental housing stock within the City". The Tribunal finds the need to allow this type of unit is recognized in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, as well as the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and City Official Plans.

16The Tribunal accepts the conclusions of the Staff Report and finds the City’s Official Plan encourages a range and mix of housing types that are affordable and safe. The Tribunal accepts that accessory units may be established where appropriate parking arrangements can be accommodated, is subordinate to the main dwelling unit and that the accessory unit is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant’s proposal is compliant in all of these aspects. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the minor variance request maintains the general intent and purpose of the applicable Official Plan.

17Likewise, the Tribunal accepts the conclusions of the Staff Report and finds that "one of the guiding principles within the Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe supports a range of housing options, including additional residential units to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households". The Tribunal further accepts the conclusions of the City and finds that many metropolitan regions within the Greater Golden Horseshoe are facing issues of housing affordability, which are being driven primarily by sustained population growth and factors such as a lack of housing supply with record low vacancy rates. The A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ("Growth Plan") focuses more particularly to higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and/or other amenities. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the minor variance request maintains the general intent and purpose of the Growth Plan.

18The Tribunal further accepts the conclusions of the Staff Report and finds that the intent of the minimum lot area and frontage requirement of the subject zoning by-law is to ensure that the property has sufficient amenity space, open space landscaping, and parking for both units. The Tribunal also accepts the conclusions of the Staff Report and finds that the subject property meets the minimum landscaped open space for the whole lot as well as the front yard and has sufficient amenity space for both the primary and accessory dwelling units. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the minor variance request maintains the general intent and purpose of the applicable zoning by-law.

19For much of the same reasons as stated above, including the desirability of providing additional housing options to satisfy a variety of housing needs, as well as housing affordability, specifically in the subject area where student housing is in demand to support the needs of Conestoga College students in particular (as described during testimony by the Appellant), the Tribunal finds that the subject development is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the subject land.

20Finally, the Tribunal finds that the requested variance is minor in nature. The requested variance pertaining to the lot frontage was a matter of inches. The Tribunal finds that the variance pertaining to lot area is also minor, in the context of this case. The evidence and testimony of Mr. Sedra showed that an accessory unit can be located on the property while meeting or exceeding all building code requirements. The City Staff Report agreed. The approved two-bedroom accessory unit located at 7 Plumridge Crescent also serves to demonstrate that an accessory unit can fit on the same size property, even if it is a two-bedroom unit. No evidence was provided to indicate that the proposed unit will cause any issues with neighbouring properties. No neighbours appeared to object to the proposal. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the variances sought are minor both individually and cumulatively.

21In summary, the Tribunal finds that the proposed minor variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, conforms with the Growth Plan, are desirable for the appropriate development of the property (to allow an additional dwelling unit), and are minor in nature.

22The Tribunal further finds that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it will add to the range of housing types available in the City, and will more generally permit a development that represents good land use planning. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal has had due regard for the City’s Staff Report.

ORDER

23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 150-85 of the City of Cambridge are authorized subject to the following condition:

1. That the accessory unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application and is limited to one bedroom.

"K.R. Andrews"

K.R. ANDREWS 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.