Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 15, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002964
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants/Appellants: Ishak and Sharlin Christian
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a minimum lot area of 324.49 square metres and a minimum lot frontage of 9.6 metres in order to construct a one-bedroom basement secondary dwelling unit
Reference Number: A82/21
Property Address: 107 Flockhart Road
Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002964
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002964
OLT Case Name: Christian v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: June 22, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Ishak and Sharlin Christian
Counsel Self-represented
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN AND BITA M. RAJAEE ON JUNE 22, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Ishak and Sharlin Christian (“Appellants”) applied to the City of Cambridge (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 180-18 as amended (“ZBL”) to facilitate the creation of a one-bedroom secondary dwelling unit in the basement of the existing dwelling located at 107 Flockhart Road (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellants seek the following variances (“Application”):
A lot area of 324.49 square metres (sq m2) (0.032 hectares (“ha”)), whereas 450 m2 (0.045 ha) is required; and,
A frontage of 9.6 m (31.49 feet (“ft”)), whereas 11 metres (“m”) (36.08 ft) is required.
3The Subject Property is designated as Low/Medium Density Residential under the City’s Official Plan (the “City’s OP”). It is zoned R6RS1 under the ZBL.
4In its Planning Report to the COA, the City’s planning staff recommended approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions:
- that the development be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application.
5On April 20, 2021, the City’s COA refused the requested variances.
6On January 14, 2022, the Appellants appealed the COA’s decision to the Tribunal.
7On June 22, 2022, the Tribunal heard the appeal by Video Hearing. No one appeared on behalf of the City. Ishak and Sharlin Christian were self-represented, and the Tribunal provided the usual guidance on Tribunal procedures to them as lay persons. The Appellants brought forward one witness, George Sedra, an engineer who was retained by the Appellants to prepare the Application. Mr. Sedra provided evidence as a lay witness.
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 OP?
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 COA and the information considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10The Appellants had their witness, Mr. Sedra, take the Tribunal through his evidence, including referring to the municipal record related to the Subject Property and to the City’s Planning Report (“Planning Report”) entered in as Exhibit 1. The Tribunal takes cognizance of the plans, drawings, documents and municipal records in the appeal. The variances are allowed for the following reasons.
11The 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.
12The proposal provides for appropriate development while protecting public resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The themes of building strong healthy communities, wise use and management of resources, and protecting public health are in alignment with the Application. Therefore, it is consistent with the PPS.
13This 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?
14The Planning Report states that staff are of the opinion that the application meets the intent of the City’s OP.
15According to the Planning Report, the Subject Property is designated “Low/Medium Density Residential” in the City’s OP, which permits a range of housing types including single detached dwellings with accessory units.
16The Planning Report also mentions that in addition to the City’s OP, the need to allow for such accessory units is also recognized in the PPS, as well as the Regional and City policies.
17The 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 OP. The general purpose and intent of the City’s OP is maintained.
Do the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law?
18The purpose of the proposed variances are to recognize the existing deficient lot size and frontage to allow a one-bedroom accessory apartment unit. The intent of the minimum lot area and frontage requirements is to ensure sufficient amenity space, open space landscaping, and parking for both units. City Staff, based on the Planning Report (Exhibit 1), are of the opinion that the Subject Property has sufficient open space landscaping and amenity space, and can meet the parking requirements. In addition, no exterior changes are being proposed that would result in any reductions of exterior amenity space.
Are the proposed variances desirable for the appropriate use of the Subject Property?
19The proposed variances lead to the creation of a one-bedroom accessory apartment unit, which would facilitate desirable and appropriate use of lands given the need for more housing options in the City. Moreover, the secondary dwelling unit is 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, causing minimal impact to the neighbourhood and adjacent properties.
20In addition, the Applicants entered in as Exhibit 2 a recent decision from the COA regarding 155 Norfolk Avenue, a similar application that had received approval in similar circumstances.
21Further, the Applicants presented two letters of support to the Application from the adjacent neighbours of the subject lands supporting the Application, which were entered in as Exhibit 3.
Are the proposed variances minor in nature?
22City Staff 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.
23The 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
24The 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 COA and the information that the COA had before it, inclusive of the Planning Report recommending the authorization of the variances.
ORDER
25The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 180-18, as amended, are authorized subject to the following condition:
- That the development be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application.
“S. Mann”
S. MANN
MEMBER
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
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