Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 31, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002636 (Formerly PL180223)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: H. & S. Ghuman J. Bal
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 66 Marysfield Drive
Municipality: City of Brampton
Approval Authority File No.: B18-005
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002636 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180223 OLT Case Name: Bal v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: H. & S. Ghuman J. Bal
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 270-2004
Property Address/Description: 66 Marysfield Dr.
Municipality: City of Brampton
Municipal File No.: A18-027 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002636 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180223
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002639 Legacy Case No.: PL180225
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: H. & S. Ghuman J. Bal
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 270-2004
Property Address/Description: 66 Marysfield Dr.
Municipality: City of Brampton
Municipal File No.: A18-026 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002636 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180223
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002638
Legacy Lead No.: PL180224
Heard: June 29, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
H. & S. Ghuman J. Bal Neil Davis
City of Brampton Matthew Rea
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON JUNE 29, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1Jagroop Bal, Harjit Ghuman and Swarnjeet Ghuman (together the “Appellants”) own 66 Marysfield Drive in Brampton (“Subject Property”). The Appellants applied to the City of Brampton (“City”) in January of 2018 for a provisional consent to create one new lot and for variances to Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 (“ZBL”). The City’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) refused the applications on February 13, 2018 and the Appellants appealed that decision to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 53(19) and s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
2Prior to the Hearing, the Appellants and the City advised that a settlement, subject to conditions, had been reached in the Appeal and would be presented to the Tribunal.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND EFFECT OF PROPOSAL
3The Subject Property is 0.83 hectares (“ha”) (2.05 acres) in size, it has approximately 57.8 metres (“m”) of frontage on Marysfield Drive and an average depth of approximately 156 m. Currently, there is a single-detached dwelling and detached garage thereon which would be demolished.
4The retained lot would have an area of 0.4 ha, and the severed lot would have an area of 0.43 ha.
5The Subject Property is in the Marysfield Neighbourhood which is a residential subdivision made up of single-detached dwellings on large estate lots around Marysfield Drive which is a loop. Around the exterior of the loop, the lots are mostly rectangular, deep lots, while those in the centre are generally square.
6The Subject Property is:
a. Designated “Estate Residential”, “Unique Communities” and “Open Space” in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”);
b. Zoned “Residential Rural Estate Two (RE2)”; and
c. Adjacent to a valley corridor of the Humber River Watershed, with a portion located within the Regulated Area of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”).
7The Appellants initially sought the following variances from the ZBL:
a minimum lot width of 28.94 m;
a minimum lot area of 0.4 ha.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Legislative Framework for Consent Appeals
8With respect to the Appeal pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Act, in order to determine whether provisional consent should be granted (with such conditions that may be required), the Tribunal must:
a. be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the Town and can proceed by way of application for consent;
b. if the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary, regard must then be given to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, including: that the proposed consent has regard to matters of Provincial interest; whether it is premature or in the public interest; whether there is conformity to applicable Official Plans (in this instance, the Region of Peel Official Plan (“ROP”) and the City’s OP; the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; and the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
c. as with any planning decision, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (the “PPS”) and conforms to any applicable Provincial Plans (which, in this instance, is A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”). The Tribunal must also have regard to the decision of the approval authority relating to the consent application and the information and material that was before it when making that decision;
d. pursuant to s. 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal may consider and impose such conditions as are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed consent; and
e. finally, in general, the Tribunal will decide whether the proposed consent along with any required conditions, is representative of good planning in the public interest.
Legislative Framework for Minor Variance Appeals
9Pursuant to s. 45(1), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the requested minor variances:
i. maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP;
ii. maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
iii. are minor in nature; and
iv. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
10Additionally, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the variances are consistent with the PPS; conform to 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.
EVIDENCE
11The Appellants were represented by Counsel at the hearing and relied upon the testimony of Land Use Planning Consultant Courtney Heron-Monk. The Tribunal qualified Ms. Heron-Monk to provide land use opinion evidence and had the benefit of her oral testimony as well as her sworn Affidavit of Evidence. The City was also represented by Counsel but did not call any land use planning experts.
12The following materials were received and marked as Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of C. Heron-Monk
Exhibit 2 – Schedule A
Exhibit 3 – Minutes of Settlement
13Ms. Heron-Monk explained that before the Applications were heard at the COA, the City enacted Interim Control By-law No. 15-2018 (“ICBL”) in order to conduct the Marysfield Study (“Study”) as a result of an increase in the number of ongoing severances in that neighbourhood. The Study was initiated as part of the City’s Official Plan review process to:
identify and understand how new development should relate to the existing community and fit with the established character of the neighbourhood to … inform and guide the development of specific policy and zoning recommendations…. [The Study] culminated into Official Plan Amendment OP2006-171 (By-law 221- 2019) and Zoning By-law 222-2019, which were adopted by City Council on September 25, 2019.
14Ms. Heron-Monk explained that as a result of Zoning By-Law No. 222-2019 (which amended the ZBL) the requirement for the minimum lot size was changed from 0.8 ha (2 acres) to 0.4 ha (1.0 acre). Given this change, the Appellants no longer require the variance for lot size. The Tribunal determined, as provided for in s. 45 (18.1.1) of the Act, that the change to the original application is minor and as such no further notice is required.
15Ms. Heron-Monk noted that the Region was generally satisfied, subject to the approval of the TRCA, who were also satisfied following a site visit.
16It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the proposal has regard for matters of Provincial interest, specifically s. 2: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and (r) built form that is well-designed. She further opined that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the GP and the ROP, and was representative of good planning in the public interest.
17Ms. Heron-Monk testified that the proposed consent did not require a plan of subdivision and had regard for s. 51(24) of the Act, including but not limited to: (c) conforms to the OP; (d) is suitable for the purposes of subdivision; and (f) has appropriate dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.
18It was her opinion that the proposed consent would:
facilitate a low density, low intensity form of residential development that is consistent with the Estate Residential designation. Further, the proposed size and configuration of the lots respects and reinforces the character of the Marysfield Neighbourhood, while contributing to the long-term supply of estate building lots in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding area.
19Ms. Heron-Monk opined that the requested variances relating to lot frontage meet the four tests of a minor variance.
20Regarding the City OP, Ms. Heron-Monk testified that its purpose was to “respect and reinforce the existing public and private realm characteristics of the Marysfield Neighbourhood … [including but not limited to] the scale, height, massing, setbacks, building orientation and building separation distances of dwellings ….” In addition, she stated that the proposal supports the housing policies of the OP through gentle intensification. It was her opinion that the requested variances conform with the OP.
21Ms. Heron-Monk explained that the purpose of the ZBL is to ensure development takes place on a lot pattern compatible with the neighbourhood and ensures a lot size that can accommodate the dwelling with suitable setbacks and outdoor area. She opined that the proposed widths of 28.94 m (deficient by only 1.06 m) are appropriate and sufficient for the proposed single-detached dwellings. It was her opinion that the proposal meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL.
22Ms. Heron-Monk opined that the proposed variances are both numerically minor and minor in terms of impact, as they maintain the existing lot patterns of the neighbourhood, with no adverse impacts on the surrounding area. She further opined that the proposal is desirable and appropriate development of the land as it is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
23Ms. Heron-Monk testified that the City and the Appellant signed Minutes of Settlement (Exhibit 3) in which they jointly requested that the Tribunal impose a number of conditions. The witness reviewed the conditions and noted that they appropriately address the concerns of the City and commenting agencies. She recommended that they be imposed as, she opined, they are appropriate and reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed development.
FINDINGS
24The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning evidence and opinions of Ms. Heron-Monk and finds that the proposal has regard for Provincial interests, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the GP, and conforms to both the Region and City Official Plans. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed consent does not require a plan of subdivision and has regard for the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act, and the minor variances for lot width meet the four tests of s. 45(1). The Tribunal agrees that the proposal is representative of good planning and in the public interest and will apply the conditions which are appropriate and reasonable.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required;
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed in part, and:
a. Provisional consent is given, subject to the following conditions (which must be satisfied within one year of the issuance of this Decision):
i. That arrangements satisfactory to the Region of Peel, Public Works' Department shall be made with respect to the location of the existing services and the installation of new services and any required private service easements;
ii. That prior to the issuance of the final certificate by the Committee's Secretary/Treasurer, the owner shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, confirmation that any existing septic systems proposed to remain are contained entirely within the boundaries of the property they serve and in compliance with the Ontario Building Code; or shall be demolished and replaced by municipally approved services;
iii. That prior to the certification of the consent, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority shall provide a clearance to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services;
iv. A draft reference plan shall be submitted to the City for review and the deposited reference plan(s) shall be provided to the City;
v. A Certificate from the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment shall be obtained following clearance of these conditions and the applicable certificate fee be paid; and
b. The requested minor variances to Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 are authorized, subject to the following conditions (which must be satisfied within one year of the issuance of this Decision):
i. That the extent and location of the variances shall be consistent with the sketch attached to the public notice and included in Appendix 1 to this Order; and
ii. That the proposed minor variances are conditional upon the consent coming into force and effect.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA 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.