Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 01, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001347
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Tammy Shannon
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 56 Meadow Crescent
Variance from By-law: 1784
Municipality: Town of Whitby
Municipal File No.: A/64/21 & A/65/21
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001347
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001347
OLT Case Name: Shannon v. Whitby (Town)
Heard: January 11, 2022 by video hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Tammy Shannon
Representative Kim DeNoble
MEMORANDM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N.P. ROBINSON ON JANUARY 11, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is an appeal by Tammy Shannon (“Appellant”) from two decisions of the Town of Whitby (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) granting minor variances to permit the construction of two new residential dwellings on severed and retained parcels, known municipally as 56 Meadow Crescent (“Subject Property”) (the “Original Applications”).
2The Original Applications sought identical relief from Town Zoning By-law No. 1784 to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling on each of the severed lots. Five variances from Zoning By-law No. 1784 were requested, related to lot frontage, permitted lot coverage, lot area, front yard setbacks and building height.
3In two reports, issued on July 2, 2021, the Town Planning and Development Department provided the opinion that all requested variances meet the four tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and recommended that the COA approve all variances, subject to certain conditions (“First Staff Reports”).
4A hearing in respect of the Original Applications was held by the COA on July 9, 2021. Requested variances 1, 3, and 4 and 5 were granted. Variance 2, respecting maximum permitted lot coverage, was deferred pending submission of certain drawings.
5The Tribunal heard that, following further discussions with Town Planning Staff, and in response to public input, the Original Applications were revised to reduce the height of the proposed dwellings, and modify the requested zoning relief (“Revised Applications”). Site Plans and Elevations were filed with the COA in support of the Revised Applications.
6Through the Revised Applications, the following relief was sought:
- To reduce the minimum required lot frontage from 21.5 to 19.0 m;
- To reduce the minimum required front yard setback from 10.5 m to 7.5 m;
- To reduce the minimum required lot area from 925 sq m to 725 sq. m; and
- Increase the permitted lot coverage from 20% to 35%.
7In two subsequent reports, issued on August 13, 2021, the Town Planning Staff provided the opinion that all requested variances meet the four tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and recommended that the COA approve all variances, subject to certain conditions.
8In a hearing held on August 19, 2021, the COA approved Variances 1, 2, and 3, as requested. Notwithstanding the Staff recommendation reports, however, the COA approved Variance 4, as modified to permit an increase in the permitted lot coverage from 20% to 30%. The COA approval was subject to the following conditions:
- All Public Works requirements related to Land Division application LD 072/2021 are complied with;
- The proposed covered front porch be limited to one storey in height and that the main portion of the dwelling maintain a minimum 9.0 m front yard setback;
- The approved variances shall apply to the proposed dwelling typology as illustrated on the applicants submitted site plan/elevation drawings (as presented at this meeting) [emphasis added];
- That the building design be subject to Town in-house architectural control approval; and
- The applicant receive final and binding approval from the Durham Region Land Division Committee.
9A Notice of Appeal was filed by the Applicant in respect of the COA’s two decisions to approve reduced lot coverage variances and impose Condition 3, in respect of the Revised Applications.
10The Tribunal heard the within matter on January 11, 2022. The Appellant was the only party to the proceeding, and the appeal was unopposed. The Appellant was self represented. Vasco Jeronimo, an Architect retained by the Appellant, gave evidence in support of the Application.
The Issues
11The sole issue before the Tribunal on an appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the [Planning