Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 27, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003325
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Adam Cooke
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the existing 1-storey, detached secondary dwelling unit with parking space.
Reference Number: HM/A-22:49
Property Address: 51 Raleigh Street
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003325
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003325
OLT Case Name: Cooke v. Hamilton (City)
Heard: July 22, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Adam Cooke | Ronald De Couteau |
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a hearing of the appeal by Adam Cooke (“Applicant/Appellant”) from the decision of the City of Hamilton (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny an application for a Minor Variance (“MV”). The Applicant is seeking a relief from Zoning By-law No. 6593 (“ZBL”), as amended, concerning 51 Raleigh Street (“Subject Property/Subject Lands”) to allow for tandem parking.
2The Subject Lands are designated as “Neighbourhoods” in Schedule E – Urban Structure and in Schedule E-1 – Urban Land Use Designations in Volume – 1 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”) and are zoned "C" (Urban Protected Residential) district, which permits the use of Single-Family dwellings, Secondary Dwelling Units (“SDU”) and accessory structures, in accordance with the applicable provisions.
3The Subject Property has a 1-storey dwelling with two (2) parking spaces as well as an existing 1-storey SDU. Although City planning staff recommended the approval of the MV in the report (“Planning Report”) to the COA, the application was refused.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
4The Applicant is seeking to convert the existing detached garage into a SDU detached with a single parking space. The ZBL requires that the additional parking has sufficient space, shall be provided and maintained on the same lot on which the parking space is located to enable each and every parking space to be unobstructed, free and readily accessible from within the lot, without moving any vehicle on the lot or encroaching on any designated parking or loading space.
5The driveway of the Subject Property is not wide enough to accommodate three parking spaces side by side and, as such, the Appellant applied for a MV seeking relief from the required unobstructed off-street parking. The Appellant is requesting that the parking space for a detached SDU will be in tandem to one of the existing two parking spaces, for a total of three off-street parking spaces.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
6An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the four tests set out under s. 45(1) have been met. The four tests are:
- maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
- maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
- be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
- be minor.
7In addition to the four tests, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of the provincial interests as set out in s. 2 of the Act to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT
8The Appellant disagreed with the COA’s reasons for refusing the application namely, that the requested variance does not meet the four tests. The Appellant has relied on the Planning Report (Exhibit 3), which stated:
Having regard for the matters under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, staff is satisfied that the requested variance maintains the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and minor in nature. Staff recommends that the requested variance, as outlined in the Notice of Hearing, be Approved.
9The Appellant further drew the Tribunal’s attention to the opinion of City’s Planning Staff, that stated that the requested tandem parking can be managed by the property occupants and will not have any impact on increased on-street parking.
10In addition to the above, the Appellant relied on Environment Hamilton Comments on Application (Exhibit 2A) that was in support of the requested MV. The report stated that if the Appellant needed to widen the driveway, in order to be compliant with the ZBL, it would have resulted in the removal of a mature tree from the front lawn, and the Environment Hamilton were not supportive of the tree removal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11Based on a thorough review of the evidence before the Tribunal, including the Planning Report, Environment Hamilton Comments on Application, as well as other exhibits, the Tribunal finds the requested variance meets the four tests; has regard to the matters of the provincial interests and is representative of good planning in the public interest.
12The Environment Hamilton Comments on the Application indicates the consistently emerging challenge with parking for the SDU applications in some city areas. They strongly support creation of SDUs, stating:
We note that the parking requirements imposed for SDUs vary across urban Hamilton based on location, with no parking requirements for downtown zones. While we understand that no parking for SDUs in downtown zones makes sense given the greater level of public transit service and active transportation infrastructure, we believe that parking requirements for SDUs in other areas of the city need to be viewed with an eye to ensuring that SDU proposals in these other areas are ultimately supported and not thwarted by parking requirements.
13As the required number of parking spaces can be accommodated by allowing one space to be in tandem with another (Exhibit 4), the Tribunal is satisfied that the requested MV will not result in any additional on-street parking and will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 6593, as amended, is authorized.
“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.