Hallman v. Woodstock (City), 2024 CanLII 51675

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 27, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000175

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

Applicant and Appellant: Drew Hallman

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: MV - to Build a Trailer parking pad on side yard

Reference Number: MV01-24

Property Address: 124 Juno Crescent (Lot 28, Plan 41 M-287)

Municipality/UT: Woodstock/Oxford

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000175

OLT Case Name: Hallman v. Woodstock (City)

Heard: May 3, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Drew Hallman	Self-Represented
City of Woodstock	D. Truelove*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON MAY 3, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1The matter before the Tribunal is an Appeal filed by Drew Hallman (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Woodstock (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny minor variances (“MV”) for the property located at 124 Juno Crescent (“subject property” / “site”).

2The site is described as Lot 28, Plan 41 M-287 and is located on southeast corner of Juno Crescent, between Munnoch Boulevard and Lansdowne Avenue. The subject property is approximately 391.4 square metres (“m2”) in area and contains a single detached dwelling.

3The site is designated ‘Residential’ by Schedule W-1, & ‘Low Density Residential’ by Schedule ‘W-3’ in the City Residential Density Plan. The subject property is zoned ‘Residential Zone 1 (R1)’ in the City Zoning By-Law No. 8626-10 (“ZBL”).

STATUS REQUEST

4Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received one Participant status request from the owners of a nearby property. The Tribunal granted Brian and Katharine McFadden Participant status and will consider the issues and concerns raised by them, particularly parking an oversized trailer in the exterior yard of the subject property, when making a decision.

THE APPLICATION

5The MV application (“Application”) results from the Appellant constructing a parking pad for a travel trailer (“trailer”) within an exterior side yard of his property.

6The Appellant is seeking permission for a trailer to be parked on a gravelled area, north of the existing dwelling, within the exterior side yard.

7The Planning Report recommended the refusal of the Application.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

8An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo and the Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely that the requested variances:

1. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
2. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
3. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
4. are minor in nature.

REQUESTED VARIANCES

9The Appellant is seeking relief from the following sections of the ZBL:

1. 5.2.6.2.1 – Commercial Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles and Utility Vehicles; to permit a trailer to be parked in a Residential Zone in an Exterior Side Yard;
2. 5.2.6.2.2 – Commercial Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles and Utility Vehicles; to permit a trailer that exceeds 7.5 metres (“m”) (24.6 feet (“ft”)) in length and 2.7 m (8.9 ft) in height, a trailer with a length of 9.8 m (32.1 ft) and exceeding 2.7 m in height to be parked in a residential zone;
3. 5.4.1.7 – Access to Parking Space; to permit a parking space without unobstructed access from a public street either by a driveway or an aisle leading to a driveway;
4. 5.4.1.11.6 – Distance from an Intersection; to reduce the minimum distance between a driveway and an intersection of street lines from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 0 m; and,
5. Section 5.4.4.1, Table 7 – Yards Where Parking Areas are Permitted; to increase the maximum percentage of a front yard that may be used for a parking area from 50% to 61%.

HEARING

10The Appellant did not tender any planning evidence in support of the requested MV and did not call any witnesses. The Appellant explained that the reasoning of parking a trailer on his property, rather than elsewhere, is the high rate of homelessness around the City and that the storage facilities do not accept responsibility for any of the break-ins.

11The City wanted to call three witnesses. However, on the date of the Hearing, one of the witnesses was on a sick leave. The City wanted to call a substitute witness whose witness statement was not provided to the Tribunal or the Appellant prior to the Hearing. Given that the Appellant was self-represented and not familiar with the process, the Tribunal precluded the City from calling that witness, in order not to cause any prejudice to the Appellant.

12Mr. Truelove wanted to put on the record that the Appellant also did not submit any witness statement.

13Giacomo Negro, who resides in the neighbourhood, appeared as a lay witness. The second witness, who appeared on behalf of the City was Eric Gilbert, a Registered Professional Planner. After careful review of his qualifications, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Gilbert to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.

14Mr. Negro testified that he considers the neighbourhood where both he and the Appellant reside, to be well maintained. He stated that he drove around the neighbouring streets and the only trailers that he observed were smaller trailers, most of them being of the utility type. Mr. Negro considers the Appellant’s large trailer an eye sore and feels like it does not belong in the neighbourhood.

15Mr. Gilbert proffered a detailed planning analysis in support of the City’s position in regard to the Application. He went through the four tests for each of the requested MV.

16Mr. Gilbert explained that the parking of the oversized trailer is prohibited in the front and exterior side yard. If the trailer was of the smaller size (under 7.5 m in length and under 2.5 m in height), there would be a possibility to park it in the rear yard.

17It is Mr. Gilbert’s opinion, that as of right, the approval of this variance will contradict the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) by creating an undesirable precedent. In analyzing this variance, among other criteria of the OP, Mr. Gilbert considered concerns of the adjacent owners and residents, and community in general. In his view, given the number of complaints from the neighbours, the requested variance does not maintain the intent and purpose of the OP.

18Additionally, Mr. Gilbert stated that ss. 5.2.6.2 of the City’s ZBL and its applicable subsections restrict parking of trailers on residential lots, if it exceeds 7.5 m in length and 2.7 m in height. He explained that the reasoning for the restrictions is to ensure that the driveway of the dwelling remains available for parking, as in some instances, the exterior side yard is where the driveway and parking area are located, due to the requirement for each single detached dwelling to provide two parking spaces.

19Mr. Gilbert testified that the parking space created for the trailer does not have access to a driveway or an aisle leading to a driveway.

20In order to park the trailer, it needs to be driven across the curb, grassed boulevard, and sidewalk. Over time, driving on the grassed area is likely to damage and cause compaction of the sod between the sidewalk and paved portion. In addition, it might result in the tracking of mud, dirt, and other debris onto the roadway.

21Mr. Gilbert is of the opinion that parking of a trailer in the side yard is not desirable and is out of character with the residential neighbourhood.

22In Mr. Gilbert’s view, parking of the oversized trailer in the exterior side yard on a corner lot within a residential development, where it is prohibited, is not considered to be minor.

23When it comes to the lot coverage, Mr. Gilbert pointed out that the proposed relief by itself could be considered minor in nature, if it were to apply to the additional residential unit. The City allows a maximum of 65% of a front yard or exterior side yard to be used for parking.

24Mr. Gilbert is of the opinion that parking of a trailer in the side yard is not desirable and is out of character with the residential neighbourhood.

25In summary, Mr. Gilbert proffered that, in his professional opinion, the requested variances are not considered to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

26Mr. Gilbert’s opinion evidence was not seriously challenged under cross-examination by the Appellant.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

27In his testimony, Mr. Gilbert proffered that the requested variances do not meet the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL, they are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and they are not minor in nature due to the adverse impact on the character of the residential neighbourhood.

28While the Tribunal sympathizes with the Appellant’s desire to protect his trailer from break-ins, the Tribunal finds that the planning evidence was clear.

CONCLUSION

29The Tribunal has taken into consideration the decision of the COA and the Planning Report. This Hearing was a hearing de novo of the Application. The Appellant did not tender any land use planning evidence to counter the evidence provided by the City’s expert planner. The Tribunal finds the uncontested evidence of the City’s’ planner to be persuasive in demonstrating that the Application does not comply with the criteria established in s. 45(1) of the Act.

ORDER

30THE 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.