Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000768
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Stephen Craig Wigley
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of a secondary driveway at the rear side of the lot.
Reference Number: A42/24
Property Address: 3 Melran Drive
Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000768
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000768
OLT Case Name: Wigley v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: October 18, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Stephen Craig Wigley
M. Fisher
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is an Appeal filed by Stephen Craig Wigley (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Cambridge (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny minor variance (“MV”) for the property located at 3 Melran Drive (“subject property”/ “site”).
2The Appellant is seeking to permit the development of a secondary driveway at the rear of the site.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
3Prior to the Hearing, the City informed the Tribunal that it will not be participating.
4There were no status requests for this matter.
5In the original Application submitted to the COA, the Appellant was seeking three MVs to permit the following:
a turnaround stall located on the existing driveway;
moving a storage shed in the back yard; and
the construction of a secondary driveway.
6The City Planning Report (“Report”) was not in support of the proposal and the COA refused the requested MVs.
7In its Appeal, the Appellant abandoned two out of three MVs and is now seeking a single variance related to the construction of a secondary driveway.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
8The Appellant is seeking relief from Zoning By-law No. 150-82, that only permits a single driveway, in order to construct a secondary driveway to access the site through the existing rear gate.
Legislative Framework
9An appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo. The Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the COA and the information it considered in the course of making its decision.
10The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in ss. 45(12) of the Act have been met. These tests are:
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, building or structure; and
Is minor.
HEARING
11The Appellant explained that the reasoning behind the construction of the secondary driveway is primarily safety related. The subject property is located within a short distance of a T-intersection of River Road and Melran Drive, in close proximity to the bus stop, and street parking is permitted on Melran Drive. The Appellant explained that a combination of factors, such as that vehicles turning onto Melran Drive are traveling at a high rate of speed, pedestrians using the bus stop, and vehicles parked on the street, obstructing the view of the roadway, make usage of the existing driveway dangerous.
12The Appellant summoned Kayla Colasurdo (his daughter) who often visits the subject property with her three children. Ms. Colasurdo testified that she has experienced the same safety concerns when using the existing driveway, whether she was parking, backing up, or when she was street parked and loading/unloading her children.
13The City staff refused the requested MV, citing safety concerns related to the location of the proposed driveway in close proximity to the intersection of Melran Drive and River Road. The River Road Secondary Plan includes policies that specifically discourage the addition of a secondary driveway. Chapter 8.4.5.7.2 of the River Road Secondary Plan states that driveways accessed off River Road should use gravel as a material in order to maintain the rural character, and encourages use of permeable and semi-permeable materials. Transportation Engineering staff expressed concerns related to the increase to the number of driveways and the location of the existing driveway, and recommended a single driveway.
14The Report gave the following reasons for the refusal of the MV:
“A lack of support for the second driveway from Transportation Engineering Staff;
The owner has the option to remove the existing driveway from Melran Drive which is inappropriately located and unsafe. Under this scenario, a new driveway could be created from River Road as of right and without a variance;
The River Road Secondary Plans includes polices which outright discourage second driveways;
Site Specific Section 4.1.415 of the Zoning By-law, which applies to the subject property, contains the following regulation: A maximum of one driveway with one access point from a street or lane shall be permitted on a lot.”
15The Appellant testified that he does not want to remove the existing driveway, as it would decrease the curb appeal of the subject property.
Analysis and findings
16The Tribunal has taken into the consideration the COA decision and the Report. This Hearing was a hearing de novo of the MV application. The Applicant did not tender any land use planning or engineering evidence to counter the evidence provided by the City.
17While the Tribunal sympathises with the Appellant in relation to the stated safety concerns, it notes that the City provided a solution that would resolve the related safety issues.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is dismissed.
“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.