Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
April 27, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004718
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
NRB Holdings Limited
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
Construction of a garden suite
Reference Number:
A-2022-0348
Property Address:
37 West Street
Municipality/Upper Tier:
City of Brampton/Region of Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004718
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004718
OLT Case Name:
NRB Holdings Limited v. Brampton (City)
Heard:
March 27, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
NRB Holdings Ltd.
Gurpreet Singh Rai
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
Background
1This Decision arises from a hearing on the merits of an appeal filed by NRB Holdings Ltd. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act in respect of minor variance application A-2022-0348 (“Application”) in the City of Brampton (“City”) for the lands known municipally as 37 West Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The Appellant wishes to convert an existing detached garage on the Subject Lands into a residential unit (“Garden Suite”) and to build an extension onto the existing dwelling to accommodate an additional two-bedroom unit (“Second Unit”).
3To facilitate the Garden Suite and Second Unit, the Appellant initially requested three variances to City Zoning By-law 270-2004 (“ZBL”). The first two variances pertain to the side and rear yard setbacks for the proposed Garden Suite. The third variance pertains to the total lot coverage of all residential buildings on the Subject Lands. After filing the Application, the Appellant submitted a fourth variance request to facilitate a second driveway on the Subject Lands leading to the proposed Second Unit (“Driveway Variance”).
4City Planning Staff recommended approval of the first three variances and recommended that the Driveway Variance be refused. The Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) refused all four variances.
Driveway Variance Withdrawal
5Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received communications from the Parties advising that the Appellant wished to withdraw the Driveway Variance. The Appellant confirmed this request at the outset of the hearing and the request was granted by the Tribunal.
Remaining Variances
6The three remaining variances before the Tribunal (“Remaining Variances”) are requested to facilitate the proposed development by permitting:
A 0.4 metre interior side yard setback to a proposed garden suite, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
A 1.8 metre rear yard setback to a proposed garden suite, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard setback of 2.5 metres; and
A maximum lot coverage of 30.1 per cent whereas the ZBL permits a maximum lot coverage of 30 per cent.
City Participation and Conditions of Approval
7Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received communication from the City advising that, in light of the Appellant’s wish to withdraw the Driveway Variance, the City would not be attending the hearing provided that the Appellant agree to the City’s following recommended conditions of approval:
That the extent of the variances be limited to that shown on the site plan drawing attached to the COA Notice of Decision; and
That failure to comply with and maintain the above condition shall render the approval null and void.
8The Appellant confirmed with the Tribunal that they do not object to the conditions being imposed as a condition of approval.
9The site plan drawing attached to the COA Notice of Decision was marked as Exhibit 1 to these proceedings and is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision and Order.
Witnesses
10No witnesses were called by the Appellant. Gurpreet Rai, counsel for the Appellant, referred the Tribunal to the City planning staff report and provided a summary of staff’s analysis and recommendations in support of the Remaining Variances.
11Simran Sandhu, a planner with the City and the author and signatory of the staff report, attended the hearing and was called upon as a friend of the Tribunal to provide additional context to the recommendations in her staff report. Ms. Sandhu provided an overview of her educational background and professional experience and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence on matters pertaining to land use planning.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Site and Area Context
12The Subject Lands are located on West Street in a residential neighbourhood within Downtown Brampton, as delineated by the Downtown Brampton Secondary Plan (“Downtown SP”). West Street is characterized primarily by single detached houses of varying sizes and styles, interspersed with the occasional semi-detached dwelling. Many of the lots contain detached garages to the rear of the properties.
13A cluster of higher density residential uses, including townhomes and several apartment buildings, are located to the west of the Subject Lands. Two convenience commercial plazas are located to the south along McMurchy Avenue North. To the northeast, a mix of low density residential and commercial uses transition towards a mix of residential, office, retail, commercial, and institutional uses of varying densities at the central downtown intersection of Queen Street East and Main Street North, approximately 600 metres from the Subject Lands.
14The Brampton GO Station and Bus Terminal are approximately 600 metres (an 8-minute walk) to the northeast of the Subject Lands.
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
15The Subject Lands are located within an Anchor Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area on Schedule 1 – City Concept and are within the “Central Area” designation on Schedule A – General Land Use Designations in the City’s Official Plan.
16Section 4.1 of the Official Plan provides guidance for the Central Area, including direction to increase the number of dwelling units to provide people with the opportunity to live and work in the same area. Policy 4.1.2 of the Official Plan permits a range of uses in the Central Area designation, including “a variety of residential uses”.
17The Downtown SP designates the Subject Lands as “Medium Density”. Policy 5.2.3.2 of the Downtown SP states that the intention of the Medium Density designation “is to encourage infill residential development of a sympathetic scale to existing building stock” and that “the retention and conversion of existing homes is to be encouraged.”
18The Application proposes to retain the existing home and facilitate residential development through the conversion of an existing accessory structure. The proposed extension to the existing dwelling to facilitate the Second Unit will further contribute to the provision of a variety of residential uses that, in the Tribunal’s view, represents modest infill that is sympathetic to the scale of the existing building.
19Ms. Sandhu confirmed the opinion in her report that the nature and extent of the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The Tribunal agrees.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
20The Subject Lands are zoned “Residential Extended One Zone (R2B-1)” in the ZBL. The R2B-1 zone permits a range of residential uses including but not limited to single detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex and multi-unit dwellings.
21Section 10.16 of the ZBL permits additional residential units on the same lot as a single detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwelling, including a maximum of one second unit and one garden suite per residential lot.
22Section 10.16.2 of the ZBL establishes provisions applying to garden suites. Garden suites are only permitted in the rear or interior side yard of a lot containing a single detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwelling. The existing accessory garage that is proposed to be converted to the Garden Suite is located in the rear yard of the Subject Lands and meets the intent of this ZBL provision. However, the location of the existing garage does not meet the interior side yard and rear yard setbacks established in the ZBL for garden suites.
23Ms. Sandhu opines that the intent of the ZBL requirement for minimum rear yard and interior side yard setbacks is to ensure that sufficient space is maintained for drainage and that adequate room is available to access the Garden Suite. Since the proposed Garden Suite utilizes an existing structure on the Subject Lands, Ms. Sandhu is of the opinion that the reduced setbacks should not have an impact on drainage, nor impact the access to or amount of amenity space around the proposed garden suite. The Tribunal agrees.
24Garden suites and second units are subject to the lot coverage requirements of the ZBL, being a maximum total lot coverage of 30 per cent for the Subject Lands. The intent of this provision, according to Ms. Sandhu, is to ensure that the size of dwellings relative to the size of the property on which they are situated does not detract from the provision of outdoor amenity space on the property, nor contribute to a sense that the lands have been overdeveloped.
25The Application seeks to permit a maximum total lot coverage of 30.1 per cent. The Tribunal agrees with the opinion of Ms. Sandhu that a 0.1 per cent increase in permitted lot coverage will not negatively impact the character of the dwelling or the lot, detract from the provision of outdoor amenity space on the property, or contribute to a sense that the Subject Lands are overdeveloped.
26For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Requested Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Minor in Nature
27From the above analysis the Tribunal gathers that, without the proposed Garden Suite, the Second Unit would be permitted by the Official Plan and ZBL without the need for relief from the policies and standards of either instrument. In other words, the third variance pertaining to total lot coverage would not be required.
28Accordingly, the use of the existing garage for the proposed Garden Suite results in the need for the Remaining Variances. By virtue of the fact that the structure already exists, the side and rear yard setbacks established in the ZBL cannot be met, and a fractional increase to the total lot coverage than is otherwise permitted as of right is required.
29Ms. Sandhu opines that the conversion of the existing detached garage to the Garden Suite should not result in negative visual impacts to the streetscape. The Tribunal agrees. Both the Garden Suite and Second Unit are set back from the street, with amenity space maintained at the front and rear of the Subject Lands in a manner that is compatible with the neighbourhood.
30For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Remaining Variances are minor in nature.
Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building or Structure
31Ultimately, the intent of the Application is to facilitate the use of an existing structure and the extension of an existing dwelling to support the provision of additional housing in an area that is well served by higher-order transit and a range of uses that contribute to a complete community. The Tribunal finds that this is a desirable and appropriate use of the Subject Lands.
Proposed Conditions
32The Tribunal has considered the proposed conditions being requested by the Parties and notes that with respect to the first condition, the reference to “the extent of the variances” is only limited to the setbacks and lot coverage detailed in Paragraph [6], above.
33For greater clarity, Schedule 1 to this Decision and Order references a proposed second driveway. That driveway is no longer part of the Application given the Driveway Variance withdrawal and as such is not approved.
34Schedule 1 also includes a note that the proposed dwelling extension is not intended to be used as a second unit. This conflicts with the Appellant’s stated purpose for the Second Unit referenced in the appeal materials filed with the Tribunal and confirmed at the hearing. However, the use permissions for the Second Unit are not before the Tribunal and no decision is being issued with respect to same.
Summary
35The Tribunal accepts the written and oral testimony of Ms. Sandhu that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law, are minor in nature, are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Lands, and represent good planning.
36The Tribunal has considered the COA decision to refuse the amendments, the submissions made at the COA, and the oral and written evidence before the Tribunal in this hearing. Taken together, the Tribunal is satisfied that it has had regard for the decision of the approval authority, as required by s.2.1 of the Planning Act.
Order
37THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law 270-2004 are authorized subject to the following conditions:
That the extent of the approved variances be limited to those shown on the site plan drawing set out in Schedule 1 to this Order; and
That failure to comply with and maintain the above condition shall render the approval null and void.
“S. Dixon”
S. dixon
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.
SCHEDULE 1