Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 25, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001599
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Farieda and Mohammed Gauri
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 521 Cliffview Road
Variance from By-law: By-law 2511
Municipality: City of Pickering
Municipal File No.: P/CA 96/21
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001599
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001599
OLT Case Name: Gauri v. Pickering (City)
Heard: February 9, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Farieda and Mohammed Gauri
Counsel Sarah Hahn
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND P. TOMILIN ON FEBRUARY 9, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Farieda and Mohammed Gauri (“Appellants”) applied to the City of Pickering (“City”) Committee of Adjustment for a variance to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 25-11 as amended (“Zoning By-law”) to facilitate the building of an addition to the existing dwelling located at 521 Cliffview Road (“subject property”).
2The Appellants seek the following variance:
- to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent.
3The subject property is designated as Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas under the City’s Official Plan. It is zoned R4-22 under the Zoning By-law.
4In its Planning Report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 7, 2021, the City’s planning staff recommended approval of the proposed variance subject to the condition that:
- the variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the Applicant’s submitted plans.
5On October 13, 2021, the City’s Committee of Adjustment refused the requested variance.
6On November 2, 2021, the Appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to the Tribunal.
7On February 9, 2022, the Tribunal heard the appeal by video hearing.
ISSUE
8The issue in this appeal is whether or not the proposed variance meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. These tests are:
- does the proposed variance maintain the general purpose and intent of 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?
- is it minor?
The proposed variance must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”). When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and it 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, SUBMISSIONS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9The Tribunal qualified Jonathan Benczkowski to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. He is a land use planner retained by the Appellants.
10No one appeared, gave evidence or made submissions on behalf of the City.
Issue 1 Does the proposed variance maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan?
Evidence
11Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the proposed variance would facilitate the provision of single-grade accessible living space for elderly persons in the existing dwelling. He said that most of the properties in the area allow for the 40 percent lot coverage requested by the Appellants. He said the proposed addition to the dwelling would be compatible with the existing built form in the area, maintain the existing character of the neighbourhood, and would not be visible from the street. He stated that the proposed development would fill-in a corner of the existing dwelling and would not result in overdevelopment.
Analysis and Findings
12Based on Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance would facilitate an addition to the existing dwelling that would be compatible with existing built form in the area, would maintain the existing character of