Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 05, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003012
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Shahzaib Taqi
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To reduce minimum lot area to 370 square metres and rear yard setback to 5.76 metres in order to construct a 2-bedroom basement secondary dwelling unit.
Reference Number: A89/21
Property Address: 100 Chase Crescent
Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003012
OLT Case Name: Taqi v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: July 6, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Shahzaib Taqi
Representative George Sedra
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This decision is related to the Hearing of the appeal filed by Shahzaib Taqi (the “Applicant/Appellant”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act against the City of Cambridge’s (the “City”) Committee of Adjustment (the “COA”) decision to not approve the Minor Variances Requested for relief from the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law No. 108-18 to construct a two (2)-bedroom basement secondary dwelling unit.
2The property address is municipally known as 100 Chase Crescent, Cambridge.
3The Subject Lands are located to the north of Thatcher Street, west of Silverthorne Drive and on the south side of Chase Crescent. The lands are designated as “Low/Medium Density Residential” in the City of Cambridge Official Plan and within the R6 Residential zone with site specific provisions s. 4.1.227. The R6 zoning designation permits a range of housing including single detached residential dwellings with accessory units.
4The Applicant was seeking relief from the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law No. 108-18 to permit:
- A total lot area of 370 square metres whereas 450 square meters is required; and,
- A side yard setback of 0.15 metres whereas 0.7 metres is required.
5The original application was submitted for the COA meeting that occurred on December 16, 2021. Before this meeting, the City of Cambridge Planning staff recommended deferral of the application to allow staff to discuss further options with the Applicant pertaining to the basement access to the purposed secondary dwelling and access to the rear yard.
6The application was deferred to the COA meeting dated February 2, 2022. Planning staff stated in their report that they were satisfied that the application met all the tests for a minor variance. The Application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (the “PPS”) and met the intent of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) (the “GP”).
7The Committee considered the staff’s recommendation and the presentation by the Applicant’s agent. The Committee refused the approval of the application as it felt that two of the four tests of a minor variance and would represent an over-intensification of the R6 zone.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Legislative Framework for Minor Variance Appeals
8Pursuant to s. 45(1), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the requested minor variances:
a) maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan;
b) maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law;
c) are minor in nature; and
d) are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure
9Additionally, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the variances are consistent with the PPS; meets the intent of the GP; have regard to matters of Provincial interest and, in making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the approval authority and the information that was before it when making that decision.
THE HEARING
10Appearing before the Tribunal was the Applicant and his agent George Sedra. The documents that were submitted as exhibits for this hearing were:
Exhibit “A” – Combined Appeal Record
Exhibit “B” – Applicant/Appellant Exhibits 1 to 7
11Mr. Sedra was affirmed by the Tribunal to give factual evidence on the minor variance application. He has appeared before the Tribunal on multiple occasions as an agent for Applicants.
The Minor Variance Application
12The Tribunal was taken through the Application that was presented before the Committee. The Tribunal was shown where the basement apartment and the entrance would be located through the proposed drawings that were submitted as a part of the application. The Tribunal was shown the letters of support that were submitted by neighbours seeking approval of this application. It was presented to the Tribunal that the Planning Staff were in favour of the application. The details of the staff report will be detailed in further detail below.
The Provincial Policy Statement – 2020 (the “PPS”)
13The Tribunal was shown in the planning report where City Staff agreed that the application did not conflict with any policies of the PPS. The report showed that the application was considered a wise use and would help continue to build a strong and healthy community. Because of this, City Staff stated that the application was consistent with the PPS.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe – 2020 (the “GP”)
14The Tribunal was informed that the application met the intent of the GP by allowing for a mix of housing options, including additional residential suites. One of the guiding principles of the GP is to support a wide range of housing options including additional housing units. Once again, City Staff were in agreement that the application met the intent of the GP.
FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
15The Subject Property is designated to be in a “low/medium density” within the City of Cambridge’s Official Plan. This designation does allow for a mix of housing options including dwellings with accessory units. This type of housing will help provide for more affordable housing within the City of Cambridge. Accessory units can be established where there is adequate parking and the Applicant