Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 18, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003900
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Randy Watts
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To increase maximum lot coverage in order to construct a detached garage.
Reference Number: A05/2022
Property Address: 35 Balmoral Drive N3R 5B6
Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003900
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003900
OLT Case Name: Watts v. Brantford (City)
Heard: December 1, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Randy Watts (“Appellant/Applicant”) | Self-Represented* |
| City of Brantford | Geoff Daley |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN ON DECEMBER 1, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
BACKGROUND
1Randy Watts (“Applicant/Appellant”) applied to the City of Brantford (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for a minor variance from Zoning By-law No 160-90 (“ZBL”) in order to construct a detached garage approximately 83.6 square meters (“m2”) and 4.48 metres (“m”) in height at the southeast corner of 35 Balmoral Drive (“subject property”).
2The subject property is located south of Balmoral Drive, west of Kent Road and east of Somerset Road. A single detached dwelling occupies the property which fronts onto Balmoral Drive. The subject property is surrounded by single detached dwellings in all directions.
3The minor variance requested is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 14.5% for an accessory building, whereas a maximum lot coverage of 10% is permitted.
4The CoA refused the application on the grounds that the proposed variance is not in keeping with the general intent of the City of Brantford Official Plan (“OP”) and ZBL as well did not consider the proposed variance minor in nature or desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands. The Appellant appealed the decision of the CoA, stating that the proposed variance met the statutory tests for minor variance under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”),has received support from City staff and there is precedence of similar accessory buildings in the neighbourhood.
Parties and evidence
5The Appellant attended the hearing representing himself. Marcie Watts, the spouse to the Appellant attended as well.
6The City confirmed in advance of the hearing that they would not be taking a position on the appeal or participate.
7There were no additional party or participant status requests.
8The Appellant submitted a book of documents, which was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1, the sole exhibit to this matter.
9It is notable that the Appellant did not summon the City staff person who prepared the Staff Report. However, the Tribunal nevertheless accepted the report as evidence, and the contents therein, upon its discretion to do so pursuant to s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.
Appellant’s position and [Section 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec45subsec1_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
10When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:
- Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
- Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
- Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- Is minor in nature.
All four elements must be satisfied.
11The Appellant relied on the City Staff Report in order to present its case. The Tribunal reviewed the Staff Report, agrees with the contents in its entirety, and accordingly adopts its analysis and conclusions as part of this decision.
ANALYSIS
12The following analysis is on the basis of review of the City Staff Report.
13In the context of Provincial Policy, including the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshow (“GP”). These policies set the standard for which policies and goals are implemented. The PPS encourages managing change and promoting efficient land use and development patterns. The GP outlines principals that provides the basis of how land in the Greater Golden Horseshoe is developed. City Planning Staff concluded in their report that the proposed variance is consistent with the direction of the PPS and conforms to the GP.
14In regards to the OP, the subject property is designated Residential. This designation permits a full range of residential dwelling types and accessory buildings, including the existing single detached dwelling on the subject property as well as the proposed garage. The City Staff Report indicates that the proposed variance maintains the general intent of the OP.
15The subject property is zoned Residential Type 1B (15 metres) Zone (R1B) in the ZBL. The R1B Zone permits single detached dwellings as well accessory uses, buildings and structures. The Appellant application’s only issue in regards to the ZBL relates to the maximum lot coverage. City Staff concluded in their report that the proposed development will continue to satisfy all zoning requirements of the R1B Zone of the ZBL.
16City Staff continued in their report to state that the proposed increase in maximum lot coverage of accessory buildings and structures is considered minor in nature as it is not expected to have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. The ZBL permits accessory structures up to 4.5 metres in height, which the proposed accessory structure conforms to.
17Regarding the key issue of this matter, lot coverage, the ZBL permits accessory structures to have a maximum lot coverage of 10%, amounting to 58.8 m2 for the subject property, whereas the Appellant’s proposed structure is 83.6 m2.
18In their report, City Staff provided the opinion that there is negligible impact on neighbouring views and site drainage. The City Staff Report goes on to comment that in the event the application is approved, a Site Alteration Permit will be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. This requirement will ensure there are no concerns regarding grading and drainage of the subject property prior to issuance of a permit.
19The City Staff Report also notes that the ZBL permits a total maximum lot coverage of 35% for all structures on the lot and the proposed structure will result in a total lot coverage of 30%, which conforms to the zoning provisions and is similar to or less than the total coverage of some of the other lots in the neighbourhood.
20City Staff in their report go on to note that the proposed minor variance is desirable for the appropriate use and development of lands as there are similar accessory structures throughout the neighbourhood, including several properties south of the subject property on Pembroke Avenue. Another consideration here is that the proposed structure, which will provide indoor space for storage, garbage and hobby work, which is more desirable than having such uses occurring outside on the subject property.
CONCLUSION
21The Tribunal, having relied solely on the City Staff Report prepared in regards to the application, find that the proposed variance meets the statutory tests for minor variance as outlined in s. 45(1) of the Act. The OP designation allows for residential use, which the proposed accessory structure does not interfere with, the ZBL permits accessory structures and the increase in lot coverage does not constitute a significant departure from what is permitted, in fact the total lot coverage of proposed accessory structure and existing dwelling would be well within the total permitted lot coverage of the ZBL. Further the proposed variance appears to be minor in nature as it will not cause significant drainage or grading issues and is desirable as there a number of similar accessory structures in the neighbourhood.
ORDER
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to Zoning By-law No. 160-90 is authorized.
“S. Mann”
S. MANN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.