Zakiuddin v. Cambridge (City), 2022 CanLII 28177

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 04, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001383

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

Applicant and Appellant: Akram Zakiuddin

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: 150-85

Property Address/Description: 328 Freure Drive

Municipality: City of Cambridge

Municipal File No.: A41/21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001383

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001383

OLT Case Name: Zakiuddin v. Cambridge (City)

Heard: January 31, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Akram Zakiuddin

Self-represented

MEMORADUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N.P. ROBINSON AND P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 31, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

OVERVIEW

1Akram Zakiuddin (the “Appellant”) seeks several minor variances from Zoning By-law No. 150-85 (the “ZBLA”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act in order to construct an accessory unit at 328 Freure Drive (“Subject Property”) in the City of Cambridge (“City”). The minor variances sought (the “Application”) include:

1. A minimum lot area of approximately 400.5 square metres (“m²”) (4,311.2 square feet (“ft²”)) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843.00 ft²) for an accessory dwelling unit;

2. A lot frontage of approximately 10.7 metres (“m”) (35.1 feet (“ft.”)) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 11m (36 ft.) for accessory dwelling unit;

3. Front yard landscaping of 35% whereas the by-law requires a minimum 45% for front yard landscaping;

4. An interior side yard setback of 0.68 m (2.23 ft.) whereas the by-law requires a minimum 1.2 m (3.93 ft.);

5. A maximum driveway width of 7.10 m (23.2 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 7 m (22.9 ft.)

2Lisa Chominiec prepared the City planning report on the Application and appeared before the Tribunal under summons by the Appellant. Ms. Chominiec is a Member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and is currently employed as a Planner at the City. Ms. Chominiec is also the Secretary and Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustments (“COA”) for the City.

3On May 19, 2021, the planning staff of the City recommended approval of the Application subject to four conditions:

1. That the accessory unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted and be limited to two bedrooms;

2. That a building permit be received for the alteration prior to occupancy of the unit;

3. An access permit through Transportation Engineering will be required prior to any alterations to the portion of the driveway within the municipal boulevard; and,

4. That the Applicant confirms to the satisfaction of Development Engineering that the landing does not impede or negatively affect the side yard swale prior to receipt of a building permit.

4The Appellant informed the Tribunal at the outset of the hearing that an existing landing step would be removed, bringing the interior side yard into conformity with the setback requirement of 1.2 m (or 3.93 ft). This concession occurred as a result of discussions between the Appellant and the City’s Planning Department.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

1) Does the proposal maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

5The Subject Property is designated “Low/Medium Density Residential” in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). The Low/Medium Density Residential land use designation applicable in this matter permits a range of housing types including single detached residential dwellings with accessory units.

6The Appellant submits that the provision of accessory residential units is one of many measures that advance the goal of providing more affordable forms of housing within the City. This is consistent with Provincial Policy goals regarding affordable housing and conforms to the Regional and City OPs.

7The OP encourages a range and mix of housing types that are affordable and safe.

8The construction of legal secondary apartments within existing structures are encouraged in the following sections of the 2018 City OP:

1. The City will encourage development of a wide range of housing unit types to accommodate the needs, preferences and economic resources of the City’s households (Section 2.8 (a))

2. The City will promote and maintain adequate supply of both ownership and rental housing stock (Section 2.8 (b))

3. The City will provide opportunities for affordable housing (Section 2.8 (i))

4. The City will support mixed use and multi-unit residential developments (Section 2.8 (j))

5. The City will encourage individual lot intensification, through the creation of a secondary residential unit in a dwelling (Section 2.8.2.7).

9The Tribunal is satisfied that the Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP.

2) Does the proposal maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law?

10The intent of the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirement is to ensure the property has sufficient open space landscaping, parking and to maintain residential compatibility within the existing neighbourhood. There is sufficient parking, amenity space and minimal changes are being proposed from the street thus maintaining the intent of these provisions.

11The intent of the front yard landscaping and driveway requirement is to maintain a consistent streetscape. The driveway is proposed to be widened by 0.10 m and there is thus minimal impact to the streetscape. The Subject Property is able to maintain the streetscape appearance and the City Engineering Division has no concerns regarding the drainage on the Subject Property as confirmed in the Staff Recommendation Report.

3) Is the proposal desirable for the development and use of the lands?

12The proposed minor variances are intended to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit within an existing residential dwelling on a lot designated and zoned for residential purposes. There will be no changes to the exterior of the home from the street thus causing minimal impact to the neighbourhood and adjacent properties.

13The proposal advances the policy goals focused on affordable housing and is consistent with the residential character of the neighbourhood. The Tribunal finds the proposed Application desirable for the development and use of the lands.

4) Is the proposal minor in nature?

14The Application meets all amenities and parking requirements for a two-bedroom secondary dwelling unit, enables efficient use of otherwise unused space in a finished basement and meets 10 out of the 12 requirements from the Secondary Dwelling Unit By-law No. 108-18 while adhering to all other Zoning by-law regulations.

15The 10% deficiency on front yard landscaping will have minimal impact on streetscape appearance and the driveway width exceeds this requirement by approximately 1.4%.

16The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances are minor in nature.

Conclusions

17The Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced by the Appellant at the hearing, planning report, the decision of the COA and the information and material before the COA in accordance with s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.

18The Tribunal is satisfied that that the criteria established in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act is met by the within Application.

19The proposal is consistent with the directives of the Provincial planning policy regime and implements the housing supply and affordability policies in the OP. The relief being sought by the variances is minor in nature and will not result in the creation of unacceptable adverse impacts.

ORDER

20The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances set out in paragraph [1] of this decision are authorized subject to the removal of the landing, the conditions set out in the staff report as detailed at paragraph [3] of this decision and subject to the accessory unit being substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application.

“N.P. Robinson”

N.P. Robinson

VICE-CHAIR

“P. Tomilin”

P. tomilin

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.