Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT 21-001433
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicants: Ryan, Ken, Lynne, Danielle Benson Appellant: Kevin and Teresa General Subject: Consent Property Address/Description: 11 Milton Street Municipality: City of Brantford Municipal File No.: B18/2021 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001433 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001433 OLT Case Name: General v. Brantford (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicants: Ryan, Ken, Lynne, Danielle Benson Appellant: Kevin and Teresa General Subject: Minor Variance Property Address/Description: 11 Milton Street Variance from By-law: 160-90 Municipality: City of Brantford Municipal File No.: A29/2021 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001433 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001434 OLT Case Name: General v. Brantford (City)
Heard: February 23, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel*/Representative |
|---|---|
| Kevin General | Self-represented |
| Ken and Danielle Benson | Self-represented |
| City of Brantford | Geoff Daly* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY G. BURTON AND D.S. COLBOURNE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This matter relates to the severance of a narrow rectangular lot situate at the southeast corner of the intersection of Milton and Charles Streets in the City of Brantford (“City”). Its current municipal address is 11 Milton Street. The remainder lot would front on Milton Street and would retain the existing dwelling. The severed lot (the present rear yard) will front on Charles Street, between the Applicants and the Appellant.
2The severance and necessary variances were supported by Planning Staff and approved by the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”). That decision was appealed by Kevin General, the adjacent owner to the east at 40 Charles Street. Mr. General had presented a petition to the Committee opposed to the proposal. There were also many letters to the Committee opposing the applications, part of the record. The evidence presented to the Tribunal was from the Applicant Mr. Benson, and the Appellant Mr. General.
3Both lots will be deficient in lot area , as 450 square metres (“m2”) is required. The retained will be 416 m2 and the severed 365 m2. The front yard setback of the severed parcel will be 5.7 metres (“m”) as against the required 6 m. The rear yard setback for the severed parcel is proposed to be 3 m as against the required 7.5 m.
4The Appellant Mr. General points to the percentage deficiencies of the variances, which for him are not minor and will result in a loss of light and privacy from a two-storey dwelling rather than a backyard. He suggests that the rear yard reduction to 3 m results in a loss of amenity space for the severed lot and for the area. He also says loss of parking space on the street will aggravate an existing deficiency. He points to the multiple-occupancy dwellings on the opposite side of Charles Street. Vehicles constantly occupy street parking, and present conflicts with traffic, especially when buses are passing this area.
5He suggests that the proposal is not in keeping with the Official Plan, in that the lands are in a designated low density area.
6The Tribunal has had reference to the Planning Staff report to the Committee, part of the record, to assist in determining the applicable planning documents.
7That report describes the surrounding area as a mix of low and medium density residential dwellings, including single detached, semi-detached, triplex and fourplex dwellings.
8The report dealt with the consent in this way:
The consent application is for the purpose of creating a new residential lot within an existing residential neighbourhood. Both the severed and the retained parcels will have frontage on a municipal roadway. ……both lots can accommodate a dwelling while still providing space for the required parking, and amenity space. The proposed severance will result in one new lot, and Staff is of the opinion that it maintains the character of the established residential neighbourhood. Multiple lots within the surrounding neighbourhood have been either severed to create infill development lots, or rezoned in order to permit higher density development, specifically to the north, south and west of the subject land. The creation of this new lot will not restrict the development of any adjacent property.
9The minor variances sought and granted were:
- Reduction in lot area from 450 m2 to 365 m2
- Reduction in frontage from 6.0 m to 5.7 m
- Reduction in rear yard from 7.5 m to 3.0 m.
10The Committee granted all three minor variances.
11The staff report said this of the variances:
The variances requested for reduced lot areas are minor in nature, and appropriate for the development of the lands as the new lot will be able to accommodate an adequate building width and area, and the retained lot accommodates the existing dwelling as well as appropriate yards. Both lots also provide adequate outdoor amenity space, vehicle access, parking, landscaping and snow storage while contributing to a mix of housing options within the neighbourhood.
12Respecting the minimally reduced front yard, staff pointed out that similar and smaller front yards exist within the immediate neighbourhood, specifically along the north side of Charles Street. The proposed front yard is in keeping with the existing character of the area, and can accommodate the proposed driveway. This, along with the garage, will provide additional parking spaces, and also have adequate area for landscaping.
13On the issue of reduced rear yards, staff stated that the retained lot would resemble the many examples of 6.5 m rear yards within the City that are appropriate and provide for sufficient amenity space.
14Respecting the severed parcel, “a rear yard of 3.0 m is proposed. In the current proposal, adequate amenity space can be provided within a side yard. Planning Staff recommend amending the minor variance for the 3.0 m rear yard to include a requirement of a 6.6 m side yard to ensure that an adequate area for amenity space is maintained”.
15The Appellant had objected to what was seen as a loss of privacy . The Staff report said that the proposed rear yard between the proposed severed lot (next to the Appellant) and the property to the south (at 9 Milton Street), will not impact privacy or create overlook concerns, as the property at 9 Milton Street has a deep lot with the single detached dwelling located towards the front lot line”
16In conclusion, “The minor variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law No. 160-90 and the Official Plan by resulting in a lot that will appropriately accommodate a single detached dwelling which is consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood.”
17Another safeguard was that the severed lot is subject to Site Plan Control. Staff point out that this will provide the City and Councillors the opportunity to review the functionality of the site, placement of the building(s), driveway location and overall design of the new dwelling to ensure its compatibility and integration within the neighbourhood. . “There is a variety of lot shapes and sizes in this neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is diverse due to the differing zoning categories which results in a varied streetscape and built form. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed minor variances meet the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.”
18The Committee documents do not make any reference to the issue of traffic, except for the requirement of a daylight triangle dedication at the corner.
19The evidence of the Applicants was essentially that the proposal fits with the existing character of the neighbourhood, as confirmed by the Staff comments.
20The Tribunal’s review of the planning documents and maps of the area leads it to a similar conclusion. The area is one of mixed development, and the proposal is not out of line with the existing character. Mr. General, the Appellant will be the most affected, with the adjoining area changing from an open yard area to a new building. However, this will not be as negative as he fears, on the conclusions of the Staff. The new dwelling would only have one-third of its depth beside Mr. General’s. Mr. Benson also delineated existing issues created by the Appellant himself, such as a 2.2 m fence along the property line affecting light and privacy.
21The Tribunal’s decision is that the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is confirmed.
“G. Burton”
G. BURTON
MEMBER
“D.S. Colbourne”
D.S. COLBOURNE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.