Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 10, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000783
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Daniel Rosu and Adreea Chiorean Subject: Minor Variance Description: Relief from the min lot front yard and area required by Zoning By-law 15-85 Reference Number: B32/23, A48/23 Property Address: 731 Dolph St N Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000784 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000783
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Daniel Rosu and Adreea Chiorean Subject: Consent Description: To sever one lot resulting in three residential lots Reference Number: B32/23, A48/23 Property Address: 731 Dolph St N Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000783 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000783 OLT Case Name: Chiorean v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: October 20, 2023 by video
APPEARANCES:
Parties Daniel Rosu & Andrea Chiorean
Counsel/Representative Chris Manning
DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matters before the Tribunal are two appeals filed by Daniel Rosu and Andrea Chiorean (the “Appellant”) under s. 45(12) and s. 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (“Act”) against two decisions of the City of Cambridge (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”). The COA refused an Application for Minor Variance and a Consent Application (“Applications”). The Applications affect the lands known as 791 Dolph St. North (“Subject Property”).
2The COA considered the Applications on July 5, 2023, and indicated in their written decisions for both Applications that they were “not desirable and did not meet the intent for the R4 zone”. The Planning Staff for the City recommended approval of the Applications and their report is included in the Appellant’s Document Book (Exhibit 1) at Tab 11.
3For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the Appeal.
PROPOSAL
4The Minor Variance Application sought relief from Zoning By-law 150-85 (“ZBL”) to permit lot sizes with a minimum lot area of 408.8 square metres (“m2”) whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 450 m2. It would also permit a minimum lot frontage of 11.8 metres (“m”) whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot frontage of 15m. The Consent application sought to sever one residential lot in the middle of the property which would create three parcels of the same size.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
5The Subject Property is rectangular with a lot area of 1,226 m2 and a lot frontage of 33.53 m. It is in an R4 zone, and the Official Plan (“OP”) designates the area as low/medium density residential. The Subject Property’s current use is residential, and the proposed use is residential.
6The Subject Property currently has a single detached dwelling and a detached accessory garage and shed which would be removed if the proposal is approved. The lot is well treed primarily toward the rear of the property and along the northern interior side yard lot line.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
7Concerning a consent application, the Planning Act (the “Act”) gives authority to grant consent to sever land under s. 53 (1) of the Act, when a plan of subdivision is not required for the orderly development of the lands