Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 22, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-21-001500
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Rajanikanth Ruthiran
Subject:
Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.:
150-85
Property Address/Description:
527 Equestrian Way
Municipality:
City of Cambridge
Municipal File No.:
A66/21
OLT Case No.:
OLT-21-001500
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-21-001500
OLT Case Name:
Ruthiran v. Cambridge (City)
Heard:
March 14, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Rajanikanth Ruthiran and Gayathri
Self-represented
Loganathan (collectively “Applicant” or
“Appellant”)
City of Cambridge (“City”)
No one appeared
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CORNACCHIA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This is an appeal of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) denying a minor variance application that would facilitate the construction of a one-bedroom secondary dwelling unit in the basement (“Basement Apartment”) of the existing house on the property municipally known as 527 Equestrian Way (“Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property is located in the City and is designated as “Low/Medium Density Residential” in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). It is zoned “R6 s 4.1.303C” in the City’s Zoning By-law No.150-95, as amended (“ZB”).
3The Applicant submitted a minor variance application on August 4, 2021 to permit the construction of the Basement Apartment in the current dwelling on the Subject Property, which does not meet the minimum lot area requirements of the ZB (“Proposed Accessory Unit”). Under the ZB, the minimum lot area required for a secondary dwelling is 450 square metres (“m2”), while the Subject Property only has a lot area of 363 m2.
4After reviewing the Minor Variance Application, the Community Development Department prepared a report for the Committee meeting on September 1, 2021 recommending the approval of the Minor Variance (“City Planning Report”) since in the planner’s view, it complied with the tests for a minor variance stipulated by s. 45(2) of the Planning Act. Despite the recommendations in this report, the Committee denied the Minor Variance on September 1, 2021.
5On September 21, 2021, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Committee’s decision with the Ontario Land Tribunal.
6The Appellant was self-represented and unfamiliar with the Tribunal and general guidance was provided to facilitate the proceedings before the Tribunal.
EVIDENCE
7Mr. Ruthiran presented the only oral evidence received at the hearing. He confirmed that the City Planning Report was authored by Lisa Chomiec who works at the City as a planner. Ms. Chomiec presented the City Planning Report to the Committee.
8Mr. Ruthiran did not arrange to issue a summons to Ms. Chomiec. As a courtesy, the Tribunal granted a short adjournment at the beginning of the hearing to give Mr. Ruthiran an opportunity to call the City Planning department to determine whether Ms. Chomiec was available to give evidence at the hearing. She was unable to attend due to the short notice. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing without any oral evidence from Ms. Chomiec.
9The following relevant documentary evidence was presented by Mr. Ruthiran in support of the Appeal:
the City Planning Report,
the Committee’s decision, and
the Committee’s presentation.
Mr. Ruthiran went through the City Planning Report identifying the evidence presented to the Committee.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
10As required by the Planning Act, the Tribunal had regard to the Committee 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.
11The appeal of the Committee 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. If the Tribunal allows the Application, it must also decide if any conditions should be imposed.
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION
12Section 45(1) of the Planning Act sets out the four tests that the Tribunal must follow for assessing the variance.
- Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan?
13The need for accessory residential units is recognized by both the Waterloo Regional OP and City OP since they will increase the affordable, rental housing stock in the City. An accessory unit may be established where appropriate parking arrangements can be accommodated, it is subordinate to the main dwelling unit and the accessory unit is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. The evidence confirms that the variance maintains the OP’s intent and purpose by facilitating another Basement Apartment, with appropriate parking arrangements.
- Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law?
14The Basement Apartment meets all the site specifications for secondary units stipulated by the Secondary Dwelling Unit By-law No. 108-18 (“Secondary Unit By-law”) except for the minimum lot area. The purpose of the minimum lot area requirement is to ensure that the property has sufficient open space landscaping, and to provide parking and sufficient amenity space. The Subject Property is in a special class of zoning in the R6 category which allows for increased maximum lot coverage. In a typical R6 zoning, the minimum lot area for a corner lot is 450 m2 while it is 225 m2 in the R6 s 4.1.303C zone for both a corner lot and other lots. The Subject Property has a minimum lot area which exceeds the minimum for the R6 s 4.1.303C zone.
15The evidence presented confirms that the general intent and purpose of the ZB provisions relating to minimum lot area is met by the proposed Basement Apartment. The Subject Property will have sufficient amenity space, open space landscaping, and parking for the main unit and the Basement Apartment.
- Is the variance minor?
16The 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.
17The variance is 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 and parking. Based on the minimal impact of the proposed variance, the Tribunal finds it to be minor.
- Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
18The evidence presented identifies that the variance is appropriate for the development of the property since an additional accessory rental unit will be created, thereby increasing the affordable housing stock.
CONCLUSION
19The 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 Planning 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.
ORDER
20The 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 one-bedroom accessory unit be substantially in keeping with the sketch submitted with the Minor Variance Application.
“A. Cornacchia”
A. cornacchia
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.