Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2022
CASE NO(S): OLT-21-003150
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Alicia Morey
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To reduce parking space width of secondary unit to 2.4 metres in order to add a secondary unit.
Reference Number: A-449/21
Property Address: 275 Huxley Avenue South
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003150
OLT Case Name: Morey v. Hamilton (City)
Heard: July 7, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Alicia Morey
Representative Self-Represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY M. ARPINO AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1Alicia Morey (“Applicant”) is the owner of land municipally known as 275 Huxley Avenue South (“Property”). The Property is situated in the City of Hamilton (“City”).
2The Applicant seeks to create a secondary dwelling unit in the existing single detached dwelling. The Property is zoned Urban Protected Residential under Zoning By-law No. 6593, as amended (“ZBL”) which permits a single-family dwelling and secondary dwelling.
3The Applicant applied for a variance from the ZBL to allow a minimum parking space size of 2.4 metres wide by 6.0 metres long (“Variance”). The current minimum required parking space size is of 2.7 metres wide and 6.0 metres long.
4On February 24th, 2022, the Committee of Adjustments for the City (“Committee”) denied the requested Variance.
5The Applicant appealed the decision (“Appeal”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
6In making a decision with respect to a minor variance, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act. The decision must be consistent with the applicable Provincial Policy Statements and conform to Provincial Plans.
7The Tribunal must consider the four-part test set out in s. 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The variance must:
- Maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
- Maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
- Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- be minor in nature.
8All four elements must be satisfied.
EVIDENCE
9The Applicant submitted 2 decisions Exhibit 1 and 2 in which the Committee granted minor variances from parking regulations. The Applicant stated that the facts of those cases were like the matter before the Tribunal, she asserted that she should have been given the same relief.
10The Applicant submitted that the Committee may have based its’ decision on matters that were unrelated to her application for a minor variance. She stated that some members of the Committee might have been biased.
11The Applicant stated that she sought the Variance to regularize the parking spaces that have been established and used on the Property since at least 2014. she also provided an image of the existing parking conditions (Exhibit 1). She asserted that the Variance should be approved because the current parking arrangements have been suitable for many years.
12The Applicant informed the Tribunal that the City is in the process of amending the parking provisions of the ZBL. She submitted a draft of the new Zoning By-law (Exhibit 3). She asserted that if the ZBL is amended by Council she may not require the Variance.
13The Tribunal received the Municipal Record which included minutes of the Committee meeting, and various written submissions from interested third parties.
14The Municipal Record also included the City Staff Report dated February 24, 2022 (“Report”). Staff stated that the Variance maintains the general intent of the By-law as the proposed parking space will be sufficient for a vehicle to park and maneuver.
15Staff stated that the Variance is minor in nature and desirable for the development as no negative impacts are anticipated.
16City Staff recommended approval of the Variance without conditions.
ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION
17The Tribunal accepts the evidence of City Staff that the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are being maintained, and that the Variance is minor in nature and desirable for the use of the Property.
18It is the finding of the Tribunal, that the Variance has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and meets the four tests of a Minor Variance.
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 6593 is authorized.
“M. Arpino”
M. Arpino
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.