Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 30, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004361

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicants/Appellants: Shamaila Khan, Ali Mian

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To demolish an existing dwelling and construct a two-storey detached dwelling with attached garage

Reference Number: A/066/22

Property Address: 26 Honeybourne Crescent

Municipality: City of Markham/ York Region

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004361

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004361

Heard: January 12, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Ali Mian, Shamaila Khan	Self-represented

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 12, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a Hearing in the matter of the Appeal filed by Ali Mian and Shamaila Khan (“Applicants” / “Appellants”) arising from the decision of the City of Markham Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny an application for Minor Variances (“MV”) from Zoning By-law No.1229/99-90, as amended (“ZBL”), concerning 26 Honeybourne Crescent (“subject property” / “subject site”).

LOCATION SITE AND CONTEXT

2The subject property is located within the City of Markham (“City”) and is developed with a detached bungalow built in the 1950’s, with a gross floor area (“GFA”) of approximately 153 square metres (“m²”). Honeybourne Crescent has north/south and east/west orientations that connect to Galsworthy Drive, north of Highway 7 and west of Main Street Markham North. The subject site is irregular in shape and has 19.36 metres (“m”) of street frontage on the east side of Honeybourne Crescent. The subject property widens to 22.04 m at the rear lot line, and has a depth of 38.41 m along the north lot line and 45.92 m along the south lot line, a lot area of 762.96 m² and is zoned Residential One – (R1).

3Dwellings on Honeybourne Crescent are currently comprised of a combination of one-storey single detached dwellings constructed in the 1950’s and several recently constructed two-storey single detached dwellings. The neighbourhood is undergoing a transition with the construction of noticeably larger single detached dwellings.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4The Applicants are proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and to replace it with a two-storey single detached dwelling with an attached garage. The total GFA of the proposed dwelling is 363.70 m², with 198.37 m² on the ground floor.

5The Appellants submitted an MV application seeking approval for the following:

1. To permit a depth of 18.04 m, whereas a maximum of 16.8 m is permitted;
2. To permit a height of 10.11 m, whereas a maximum of 9.8 m is permitted;
3. To permit a maximum floor area ratio of 52.9%, whereas 45% is permitted.

6City’s Planning Staff reviewed the application and recommended that it be approved, but the COA denied the application. The decision of the COA was subsequently appealed to the Tribunal.

7The City advised the Tribunal that it would not be participating in the hearing, and no other Party or Participant Status Requests were filed with the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

8An appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), is a hearing de novo and the Applicants bear the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in s. 45(1) has been satisfied:

1. the intent and purpose of the official plan is being maintained;
2. the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is being maintained;
3. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
4. the variance(s) is minor in nature.

9In 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, and the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act.

HEARING

10Jim Kotsopoulos was retained by the Appellants in October of 2022. Mr. Kotsopoulos, a Registered Professional Planner, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal. Mr. Kotsopoulos delivered a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale in support of the application.

11Mr. Kotsopoulos stated that the development is consistent with, or conforms to the provincial and local policies. In his expert opinion, the proposed development represents good planning and should be approved.

12Mr. Kotsopoulos opined that the neighbourhood, while generally stable in nature, is experiencing a significant revitalization - the existing dwellings are either subject to renovation or being replaced entirely. This noticeable reinvestment results in dwellings with increased size/massing occupying more space on the lot and generally built to continue and maintain the varied typology of the street. Thus, the proposed development is complementary and compatible in form to a neighbourhood that is experiencing a significant revitalization.

PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (2020)

13The Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) in Policies 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, and 1.4.3 encourages efficient land use patterns with an appropriate range and mix of residential housing and directs development to the established settlement areas where infrastructure exists.

GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE (2020)

14Mr. Kotsopoulos has explained that the Growth Plan (“GP”) sets out broad policies to direct development towards compact urban form through the intensification of existing urban areas. The intent of the GP’s policies is to promote better use of land and existing infrastructure while preserving green belt areas and environmentally sensitive lands. In his opinion, the redevelopment of the subject property contributes towards regeneration of homes in the neighbourhood, conforms to, and does not conflict with the GP.

CITY OFFICIAL PLAN

15Mr. Kotsopoulos stated that the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) is not fully in force, as some of its portions are still under Appeal. The OP under s. 8.2.3 designates the subject site as Residential Low Rise, and under s. 8.2.3.3 detached dwellings are permitted.

16The infill compatibility criteria in s. 8.2.3.5 contains direction to ensure that development within the area is compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed development is compatible in height, size, and design with the recently constructed and renovated dwellings in the area.

MINOR VARIANCES

17Mr. Kotsopoulos brought the Tribunal’s attention to the Planning Staff report from July 5, 2022. The report did not raise any concerns with the requested MVs. The staff was of the opinion that the requested MVs were appropriate and meet the four tests of the Act.

18Regarding the building depth MV, Staff acknowledged that measured between the front and rear wall, excluding the front covered porch, the depth of the dwelling is 16.36 m, and meets the requirement of the ZBL.

19For the height MV, Staff noted the centreline (crown) of the street is approximately 0.6 m lower than the proposed grade of the lot at the front of the proposed dwelling. The building height, when measured from the average grade of the lot to the top of the roof is 9.51 m, and is compatible with the ZBL.

20Regarding the maximum floor area ratio, Staff acknowledged that the proposed development does not significantly impact the streetscape along Honeybourne Crescent and is similar in size to numerous other homes located on the street and in the immediate neighbourhood. The Planning Staff report pointed out:

The site layout meets all setback requirements, which assist in ensuring adequate separation between dwellings and retention of soft landscape areas, are maintained. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling is within the maximum lot coverage requirement which ensures the resultant built form will be in keeping with the intended scale of development for the neighbourhood. Considering the overall design of the proposed dwelling and its relationship with the adjacent homes, staff are of the opinion that the proposed increase in Floor Area Ratio will not result in any significant impact on the character of the neighbourhood.

21The Tribunal is satisfied that the application meets the criteria of the tests set out at s. 45(1) of the Act.

22The MV can be implemented without any adverse impact on the neighbouring residential lots and the surrounding community due to the sufficient side and rear yard setbacks. The development proposal does not have any elevated decks at the rear and the existent extensive vegetation will be preserved at the rear of the property. Thus, the new dwelling will have a minimum impact on privacy and overlook to the surrounding properties.

CONCLUSION

23In its Decision, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the Municipal records, the supporting evidence in the City’s Staff Planning report and the support of the neighbours of the proposed development, and accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence of Mr. Kotsopoulos. Based on the planning evidence presented by Mr. Kotsopoulos, the Tribunal finds that the variances are appropriate, are minor in nature and will not have undue impacts on the surrounding properties and meet all four of the tests under s. 45(1) of the Act.

ORDER

24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 1229/99-90, as amended, are authorized subject to the following conditions:

a) That the variances apply only to the proposed development for as long as it remains;

b) That the variances apply only to the proposed development, in substantial conformity with the plans attached as Appendix “B” to the Staff Report dated July 5, 2022, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate, that this condition has been fulfilled to their satisfaction.

“P. Tomilin”

P. tomilin

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.