Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001412
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Pramod Gupta
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 150-85
Property Address/Description: 91 Compass Trail
Municipality: City of Cambridge
Municipal File No.: A57/21
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001412
OLT File No.: OLT-21-001412
OLT Case Name: Gupta v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: March 3, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
Pramod Gupta Self-represented
City of Cambridge No one appeared
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN AND T.F. NG ON MARCH 3, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Pramod Gupta (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Cambridge (“City”) Committee of Adjustment for variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 150-85 as amended (“Zoning By-law”) to facilitate the creation of a one-bedroom secondary dwelling unit in the basement of the existing dwelling located at 91 Compass Trail (“subject property”).
2The Appellant seeks the following variances:
A minimum lot area of approximately 366.08 square metres (“m2”) whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a minimum of 450 m2 for a secondary dwelling unit; and
An interior side-yard setback of 0.33 metres (“m”) whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 1.2 m.
3The subject property is designated as Low/Medium Density Residential under the City’s Official Plan. It is zoned R6 S. 4.1.303C Residential under the Zoning By-law.
4In its Planning Report to the Committee of Adjustment, the City’s planning staff recommended approval of the proposed variances subject to the following conditions:
That the accessory unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted;
That a building permit be received for the alteration prior to occupancy of the unit; and
That the secondary dwelling unit is limited to one bedroom.
5On July 28, 2021, the City’s Committee of Adjustment refused the requested variances.
6On August 13, 2021, the Appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to the Tribunal.
7On March 3, 2022, the Tribunal heard the appeal by video hearing. The City communicated that it will not participate in the hearing and no one appeared on behalf of the City. Mr. Gupta was self-represented and the Tribunal provided the usual guidance on Tribunal procedures to him as a lay person.
ISSUE
8The issue in this appeal is whether or not the proposed variances meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. These tests are:
do the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan?
do they maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law?
are they desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property?
are they minor in nature?
9The proposed variances must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, 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.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10Mr. Gupta submitted photographs of the subject property marked as Exhibit 1 to display the location of the intended new side door with landing in order to provide the Tribunal context in relation to the requested variance for interior side-yard setback of 0.33 m.
11Mr. Gupta referred to the municipal record related to the subject property and to the City’s Planning Report (“Planning Report”). The Tribunal takes cognizance of the plans, drawings, documents and municipal records in the appeal. The variances are allowed for the following reasons.
12The proposed variances have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act in particular s. 2(j) on the provision of a range of housing and s. 2(r) on the promotion of built form that is well-designed.
13The proposal is an efficient use of land in an urban area to achieve efficient development and accommodating an affordable range of residential units and housing (Policy 1.1.1(a) and (b) of the PPS 2020).
14This proposal conforms to the intention of the Growth Plan as the Growth Plan supports a range of housing options, including additional residential units to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households. This proposal will achieve a modest increase in a one-bedroom unit of housing.
Do the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan?
15The Planning Report states that staff are of the opinion that the application meets the intent of the City’s Official Plan.
16According to the report, the subject property is designated “Low/Medium Density Residential” in the City’s Official Plan, which permits a range of housing types including single detached dwellings with accessory units.
17The report also mentions that in addition to the City’s Official Plan, the need to allow for such accessory units is also recognized in the Provincial Policy, as well as the Regional and City policies.
18The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances would facilitate the creation of an accessory unit to the existing dwelling that would help provide more affordable forms of housing within the City, which is a goal of the City’s Official Plan. The general purpose and intent of the City Official Plan is maintained.
Do the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law?
19The Planning Report states that the subject property meets minimum landscaped open space required for the front yard, and sufficient amenity space for both primary and secondary dwelling units.
20According to the Planning Report, the intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to interior side yard setbacks is to ensure there is adequate separation between dwellings for maintenance, access to the rear yard, privacy and consistent streetscape appearance, and the minimum lot area to ensure that the subject property has amenity space, open space landscaping and parking for both units. The subject property meets the minimum landscaped open space for the whole lot and the front yard has sufficient amenity space for both primary and accessory dwelling units.
21The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances would facilitate a development that maintains sufficient amenity space for both primary and secondary dwelling as well as sufficient parking. The proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law.
Are the proposed variances desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property?
22The Planning Report reference the City’s Official Plan, which encourages a range and mix of housing types that are affordable and safe. The need to allow secondary dwellings is recognized in not only the City’s Official Plan, but also the Provincial Policy and Regional Official Plan.
23Based on City staff comments in the Planning Report, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variances would facilitate a range and mix of housing types that are affordable and safe and therefore are desirable and appropriate for the use of the subject property.
Are the proposed variances minor in nature?
24Staff comments from the Planning report indicate that the proposed variances will be able to maintain amenity space, open space landscaping and parking for both the primary and secondary dwelling.
25The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances are minor in nature. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variances, would not have undue adverse impacts on neighbours and are of an appropriate scale for the subject property.
Conclusions
26The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances satisfy the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, and constitute good planning. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the decision of the City’s Committee of Adjustment and the information that the Committee had before it.
ORDER
27The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City’s By-law No. 150-85, as amended, are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“S. Mann”
S. MANN
MEMBER
“T.F. Ng”
T.F. NG
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
OLT-21-001412 – Attachment 1
Conditions of Approval for Minor Variance Application
That the accessory unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted;
That a building permit be received for the alteration prior to occupancy of the unit; and
That the secondary dwelling unit is limited to one bedroom.