Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 05, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000983
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Nilesh Patel
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a driveway width of 5.3 m
Reference Number: A-2023-0233
Property Address: Lot 87, Plan M-2078, 9 Banner Elk Street
Municipality/UT: City of Brampton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000983
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000983
OLT Case Name: Patel v. Brampton (City)
Heard: February 27, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Nilesh Patel
Self-Represented
City of Brampton
M. Ng*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Nilesh Patel (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Brampton (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny a minor variance (“MV”) for the property located at 9 Banner Elk Street (“subject property” / “site”).
2The subject property has 7.3 metres (“m”) of street frontage on Banner Elk Street, a lot depth of 33.5 m and a lot area of 244.55 square metres (“m2“). The site is located within Ward 6, southwest of Rivermont Road and Banner Elk Street and is comprised of an existing semi-detached dwelling and a registered additional residential unit. The subject property is zoned R2D-7.3-2434 or Residential Semi-Detached D-7.3 – Special Section 2434 in the City Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 (“ZBL”), as amended, and is designated Low / Medium Density Residential.
3The surrounding land uses include semi-detached homes, a future residential subdivision east of Rivermont Road to the north and east, semi-detached homes to the south, and semi-detached homes and Shri Bhagavad Gita Park to the west.
4The occupancy of the dwelling was granted on December 24, 2020. An Additional Residential Unit (“ARU”) was registered with the City on January 16, 2023.
5The Tribunal did not receive any additional status requests for this matter.
THE APPLICATION
6The MV application results from the construction of a driveway expansion in conjunction with an existing dwelling. The Appellant is seeking to permit the combined width of all hard surfaces to be 5.3 m, whereas the maximum permitted width is 4.9 m for a proposed driveway.
7City Planning Staff reviewed the application and communicated to the Appellant that it would not support the application, as the extension of the driveway would limit permeability on the property. However, the City Planning Staff would be more supportive of the application if the extended portion of the driveway is reduced to approximately 5 m and permeable landscaping is reinstated. The Appellant did not respond to that communication.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
8An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo and the Applicant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in s. 45(1) have been satisfied:
the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is being maintained;
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is being maintained;
the variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
the variance is minor in nature.
HEARING
9The Appellant stated that the purpose of the widening of the driveway was to accommodate parking for the ARU that was approved by the City.
10The Appellant did not tender any planning evidence in support of the MV.
11François Hémon-Morneau appeared on behalf of the City. Mr. Hémon-Morneau is a candidate member of the Professional Standards Board and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute to become a Registered Professional Planner.
12Mr. Hémon-Morneau proffered a detailed planning analysis in support of the City’s position in regard to the MV application.
13Mr. Hémon-Morneau explained that the original driveway design for the subject property was intended for one (1) vehicle to park on the driveway. The requested variance would allow for up to three (3) vehicles to park on the driveway, which is excessive and not in harmony with the site and lot dimensions.
14Mr. Hémon-Morneau explained that the site is designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule “A” in the City Official Plan (“OP”), as amended. Policy 4.2.7 of the OP outlines the objectives of preventing the overuse of front yard driveways for vehicle parking and encouraging a driveway design that harmonizes with the house and lot dimensions.
15In the opinion of Mr. Hémon-Morneau, the requested variance does not conform to OP policies 4.2.7, 4.2.1.14 (iii), 4.2.1.14 (vii) and 4.11.2.1.2. By creating excessive parking in the front yard, the MV deviates from a design that aligns with the house and lot size, emphasizes the importance of vehicular parking on the streetscape in a manner that does not contribute to a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment by blocking access to the front entrance and porch by parked vehicles. Additionally, the excessive driveway width leads to the increased amount of hard surface in the front yard and reduces the area available for water infiltration.
16Mr. Hémon-Morneau stated that he is of the opinion that the requested variance does not maintain the general intent of the OP.
17Mr. Hémon-Morneau reviewed the applicable sections of the ZBL and brought to the Tribunal’s attention s. 15.7.2(l) of the ZBL. It indicates that the driveway width shall not exceed the width of the garage. He further provided that the site is 7.3 m in width; s. 10.9.1(b)(1)(a) allows a maximum driveway width of 4.9 m on lots less than 8.23 m wide. Thus, the maximum permitted driveway width is 4.9 m.
18Mr. Hémon-Morneau provided that s. 10.9.1(2) of the ZBL requires that the portion of the surface area of an interior lot in the front of the dwelling that is not part of a permitted unit, nor a permitted Residential Driveway shall be Residential Landscaping. Additionally, s. 10.9.1(5) prohibits the driving and parking of motor vehicles on the required Residential Landscaping areas.
19Mr. Hémon-Morneau said that the requested variance would exceed the width of the garage, reduce the area available for water infiltration and decrease residential landscaping. It is Mr. Hémon-Morneau’s opinion that the requested MV does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
20Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that the requested variance adversely impacts the streetscape and character of the neighbourhood. He further opined that the proposed driveway width would increase the number of vehicles parked on the driveway from one (1) to up to three (3) vehicles. Additionally, it poses a potential issue for emergency access by impeding the movement of essential equipment, such as a stretcher or wheelchair to access the dwelling.
21In Mr. Hémon-Morneau’s opinion, the proposed variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
22It is Mr. Hémon-Morneau’s opinion that the proposed variance is not minor in nature, as it results in adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties by creating a front yard dominated by hard surfaces and vehicles instead of landscaping.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23The planning evidence was clear. In his testimony, Mr. Hémon-Morneau proffered that the registration of the ARU does not permit any additional parking for lots that contain a single ARU. The general parking provisions for the ARU require one additional parking space for lots that contain two ARU. The Tribunal finds that the requested MV are not minor in nature due to the unacceptable adverse impacts.
CONCLUSION
24The Tribunal has taken into consideration the COA decision and the City Planning Staff recommendation. This hearing was a hearing de novo of the MV application. The Appellant did not tender any land use planning evidence to contradict the evidence provided by the City planner. The Tribunal finds the uncontested evidence of Mr. Hémon-Morneau to be persuasive in demonstrating that the MV application does not comply with the criteria established in s. 45(1) of the Act.
ORDER
25THE 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.