Sean O'Neill v. City of Cambridge, 2024 CanLII 53873

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

June 03, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000927

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Consent

Description:

To sever the property with the intent of creating a total of six lots

Reference Number:

B22/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

OLT Case Name:

O'Neill v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Consent

Description:

To sever the property with the intent of creating a total of six lots

Reference Number:

B23/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000928

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Consent

Description:

To sever the property with the intent of creating a total of six lots

Reference Number:

B24/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000929

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Consent

Description:

To sever the property with the intent of creating a total of six lots

Reference Number:

B26/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000930

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

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

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To retain a total lot area of 324.8 square metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres

Reference Number:

A44/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000931

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

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

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To convey a total lot area of 323 square metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres

Reference Number:

A49/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000932

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

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

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To retain a total lot area of 322.3 sq m whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres

Reference Number:

A50/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000933

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

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

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To retain a total lot area of 248.9 sq m whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres

Reference Number:

A51/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000934

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

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

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To convey a total lot area of 251.7 square metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres

Reference Number:

A52/23

Property Address:

364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000935

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

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

Applicant / Appellant:

Sean O’Neill

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To retain a total lot area of 251.1 square metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres

Reference Number:

A53/23

Property Address:

359 and 381 Middle Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000936

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000927

Heard:

December 13, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Sean O’Neill

D. Baker

decision DELIVERED BY S. GOPIKRISHNA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Appeal results from the refusal of an Application submitted by Sean O’Neill (“Appellant”), to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of the City of Cambridge (“City”), under section 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the creation of six lots, from the existing four lots, spanning the municipal addresses 359 and 381 Middle Street (“359 and 381 Middle Street”), 364 and 368 Melrose Street (“364 and 368 Melrose Street”) (collectively referred to as the “Subject Lands”), in the City. The Applicant also requested that the COA approve minor variances, under section 45(1) of the Act to permit the construction of a single family detached home on each of the six resulting lots. Collectively, the minor variance and consent applications will be referred to as “the Applications”. The COA heard the matter on August 23, 2023, and refused the Applications.

2The Appellant appealed the COA’s refusal of the Applications to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on September 26, 2023. On October 16, 2023, the City emailed the Tribunal to state that it would not participate in the Appeal. There were no requests for Party status. Melissa McCabe, a nearby resident, requested, and was granted Participant status. Ms. McCabe raised concerns that the proposed houses were out of character with the surrounding community, and that there would be a significant increase in traffic.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

3The Tribunal must be satisfied that the requested variances meet the four tests in section 45(1) of the Act. These four tests require an applicant to demonstrate 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.

4In order for provisional consent to be given, the Tribunal must be satisfied a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and must then consider the matters set out in section 51(24) of the Act.

5Section 51(24) states:

In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

6In accordance with section 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal may consider and impose conditions that are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed consent.

7The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the requested variances and proposed consent have regard for matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and represent good planning in the public interest.

EVIDENCE

8The Appellant retained Scott Patterson, a Registered Professional Planner, to provide evidence in support of the proposal. Mr. Patterson was sworn in, and recognized as an Expert in the discipline of land use planning.

9Mr. Patterson described the physical location of the Subject Lands to contextualize the proposal. He said that the lots facing Middle Street are located on its east side, between Lawrence Avenue, and North Street in the City. The property municipally known as 359 Middle Street (“359 Middle Street”) is approximately 483.6 square metres (“sq. m”) in size, and has 18.34 metres (“m”) of frontage onto Middle Street, while the property municipally known as 381 Middle Street (“381 Middle Street”), which also has a frontage of 18.34 m, is 486.5 m in size. The properties facing Melrose Street, 364 and 368 Melrose Street are located on the west side of Melrose Street, south of North Street. While the property municipally known as 364 Melrose Street is approximately 376.1 sq. m in size and has 18.22 m of frontage onto Melrose Street, the property municipally known as 368 Melrose Street is approximately 375.6 sq. m in size, with 18.22 m of frontage onto Melrose Street, which terminates as a dead end in front of 368 Melrose Street. Mr. Patterson pointed out that both Middle Street and Melrose Street are local streets, and added that the surrounding lands are composed of low-density residential land uses, primarily single detached dwelling. By way of an editorial comment, the layout of the lots is reproduced from a diagram provided by the Appellant in their Witness Statement.

DIAGRAM 1- AIR PHOTO OF THE LOTS REPRODUCED FROM APPELLANTS WITNESS STATEMENT

10Mr. Patterson described the property municipally known as 381 Middle Street as the only lot from the Subject Lands that has an existing single detached dwelling, while the remainder of the lots constituting the Subject Lands are vacant.

11Mr. Patterson identified the Subject Lands as being designated “Low/ Medium Density” in the City’s Official Plan (the “OP”), which identifies lots where municipal water supply and municipal wastewater system are currently available, such that the lands may be used to construct single detached dwellings, townhouses and/or walk-up apartments. He added that the Subject Lands are zoned “R5” in City Zoning By-law No. 150-85 (“Zoning By-law”), which permits the use of the severed and retained lands for the proposed one family dwellings, and that the adjacent areas also primarily zoned “R5”, though some lands have an “M3”, “RS1”, and “RM4” zoning in the general area.

12Describing the history of the lots, Mr. Patterson said that 381 Middle Street consists of two full lots, Lots 39 and 40 on Registered Plan No 528, both of which extend from Middle Street to Melrose Street. He recounted that in 2021, the landowner successfully applied for a Consent to Sever to split these lots, resulting in a total of four lots from the previous two lots, with the following municipal addresses- 359 and 381 Middle Street, and 364 and 368 Melrose Street. He emphasized that the lots fully complied with the “R5” zoning regulations, and provided the municipal file numbers associated with these previous Consent applications, which are B33/21 and B34/21 respectively.

THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

13Mr. Patterson said that the Proposal seeks to remove the existing dwelling on 381 Middle Street, and create two additional lots from the existing lot with this address, with frontage on Middle Street, such that the retained rectangular parcel would have a depth of 26.6 m frontage of 12.23 m, and an area of 324.8 sq. m, and the severed parcel, rectangular in shape, would have a lot frontage of 6.1 m, a depth of 26.37 m and a lot area of 161.3 sq. m In the case of 359 Middle Street, the retained parcel would have a lot frontage of 12.23 m, a depth of 26.37 m, resulting in a lot area of 322.3 sq. m, which would be generally rectangular in shape. The severed parcel would have a lot frontage of 6.1 m, a depth of 26.5 m and a lot area of 161.3 sq. m and would generally be rectangular in shape. The severed parcels from 359 Middle Street and 381 Middle Street would then be merged to form a new lot that would have a total lot frontage of 12.2 m, a depth of 26.5 m and a lot area of 323 sq. m, which again would be generally rectangular in shape.

14Mr. Patterson said that while each of the new resulting lots would meet the “R5” zoning requirement for minimum lot frontage of 12 m, they would need relief from the existing By-laws, to allow a reduced lot area of 323 sq. m whereas the By-laws require a minimum lot area of 360 sq. m. Specifically, for the lot with the municipal address 364 Melrose Street, the retained parcel would have a lot frontage of 12.17 m, a depth of 20.6 m, a lot area of 251.1 sq. m, while the severed portion will have a lot frontage of 6 m, depth of 20.6 m and an area of 125 sq. m. For the lot with the address 368 Melrose Street, the severance will result in a retained portion with a frontage of 12 m, a depth of 20.6 m, and a lot area of 248.9 sq. m, while the severed parcel will have a lot frontage of 6.23 m, depth of 20.6 m resulting in an area of 126.7 sq. m. The severed parcels from 364 Melrose Street and 368 Melrose Street will be merged to form a new lot with a total frontage of 12.28 m, a depth of 20.6 m and an area of 251.7 sq. m. He emphasized that each of the four resulting lots will be rectangular in shape, and that a single family dwelling would be constructed on each of the emergent lots, in addition to a new driveway for each lot and independent municipal services (sanitary, storm and water) would be made available for each of the four lots.

15Mr. Patterson then described the relationship between the proposal and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020). He spoke to the overall purpose of the PPS 2020, and described how it encourages the establishment of healthy, liveable and safe communities, which require a sufficiency of land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses, to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 25 years. After describing why PPS 2020 views the Subject Lands as “underutilized properties” because they collectively contain one and only dwelling covering four lots, he discussed the applicability of Policies 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.6.6.2, to explain how the proposal represented a gentle form of intensification, as well as an appropriate form of redevelopment for “underutilized properties”. He concluded that the creation of the two new lots proposed in this project reflects context-sensitive intensification and infill development, which collectively satisfy redevelopment policies in PPS 2020, resulting in the of the promotion of intensification and redevelopment in this neighborhood.

16Describing the relationship between the proposal and the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan, 2019), Mr. Patterson discussed and applied Policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 to the proposal, with specific reference to promotion of intensification, and concluded that the proposal conforms to the Growth Plan, 2019, because it supports a range and mix of housing options, and supports modest growth in the delineated built up area and in an identified settlement area, as specified in the aforementioned policies.

17Mr. Patterson then discussed the relationship between the proposal and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“Waterloo”) Official Plan (ROPA, 2010). Mr. Patterson emphasized that the Subject Lands are designated “Built Up Area” as per Map 3a- Urban Area of the ROPA, and that they are located within the Urban Area Boundary. He discussed how the new residential development occurring within the built boundary will be counted towards the achievement of the re-urbanization target set out in the ROPA, and stated that the minimum intensification target for the City is 65 percent.

18Mr. Patterson predicted the impact of the ROPA would be that “existing neighborhoods will see growth through gentle density and a broader range of missing middle housing options”. Mr. Patterson concluded that the Proposal conforms to the ROPA, as it results in an appropriate intensification of both Middle Street and Melrose Street, with a use that has been deemed suitable, and is permitted by the applicable Planning Documents. He emphasized that, in his opinion, the dwellings that will emerge from this Application are compatible with the neighbourhood, while respecting its character.

19Speaking to the relationship between the proposal and the City Official Plan (identified earlier as the “OP”), Mr. Patterson discussed how the “General Land Use Plan” identifies the Subject Lands to be within a “Low/Medium Density Residential” designation, as well as the “Built-Up Area” of the City. Mr. Patterson then referred to Policy 8.4.6, which addressed Residential Designations, and classified Residences as “Low/Medium Density Residential”, “High Density Residential” and “Rural Residential”, before explaining how the Subject Lands were classified as “Low/Medium Density Residential”. He then described how the Subject Lands satisfied Policy 8.4.6 by proposing a growth of 6.8 units per gross hectare, which satisfies the Policy’s direction of a maximum of 40 units/gross hectare.

20Mr. Patterson then spoke to the concept of intensification, as described in Chapter 13 of the OP, as the “the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through: redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously developed areas, infill development; or the expansion or conversion of existing buildings.”. He applied the definition to the Subject Lands, and identified them as ideal for intensification by virtue of being an underutilized lot, with the potential to be redeveloped so as to achieve a net increase in residential units and accommodation. He then discussed how intensification is encouraged throughout the City by referring to Policy 2.6.1., with a specific description of how the proposed development satisfies the definition of intensification under this Policy.

21Based on the above evidence, Mr. Patterson concluded that the proposal maintained the purpose and intent of the OP.

22Speaking to the relationship between the proposal and the City Zoning By-law, Mr. Patterson identified the Subject Lands as being zoned “R5”, and that the corresponding By-laws governing these lands are listed in section 3.1.2 of the By-law. He specifically referred to section 3.1.2.1 of the Zoning By-law, and how it identified permitted uses in R5, including “a detached one family dwelling”, which the By-law defined as a “a dwelling which is designed for occupancy by one family or household only and is not attached by any means to any other dwelling”. He then highlighted how the intent and purpose of this By-law would be fulfilled by the construction of a house for occupancy by a single family, on each of the four lots resulting from the requested severance of the lots.

23Mr. Patterson then alluded to By-law 3.1.2.2, which requires lots to have an area of 360 sq. m each. He described how all four lots resulting from the requested consent satisfy all parameters prescribed in the By-laws, including frontage, set-backs, lot coverage, parking, and how they needed relief from the By-law solely with respect to Lot Area. He explained how smaller lots maintain the intent and purpose of the By-law noting that the lots would be functional in every respect, and would not result in any hardship to the neighbours, or the occupants of the houses to be constructed on the Subject Lands. Mr. Patterson also asserted that the difference in the area lots (i.e. the differences between the actual lot area, and the lot area prescribed under the Zoning By-law) would not be discernable from the public realm, because the frontage of the lots satisfied the By-law, and would be consistent with what already exists on that street. After stating that the parking required under section 2.2.1 of the By-law is one parking space per four bedrooms in a house, Mr. Patterson explained how this condition would be satisfied by the houses contemplated for the lots, because one parking space and four bedrooms were planned for each house to be developed.

24On the basis of the above evidence, Mr. Patterson concluded that the proposal maintains the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law .

25Speaking to the relationship between the proposal and whether the requested variances are minor, Mr. Patterson testified that the resulting lot areas will each allow for the development of a single, detached one family dwelling, in accordance with the permitted uses of the “R5” zone. He emphasized that “there would no impact whatsoever” to abutting properties, as no changes were contemplated to the depth of the lots, nor the interior side yard setbacks, building height provisions and lot area coverages. Mr. Patterson said that the single, family home type of development contemplated for the lot is consistent with what is permitted, even if the lot sizes are smaller. After discussing how the aesthetic of the streetscape will be maintained through the development of new homes in accordance with the setback provisions established in the By-law, Mr. Patterson concluded that the requested variances are minor in nature.

26Lastly, Mr. Patterson discussed how the variances are desirable from a planning and public interest perspective. He argued that broad public interest is protected because additional housing is proposed on lots within established density parameters, and the predominant pattern of existing development is maintained. He also discussed, at some length, how the shortage of housing in the province has impacted its inhabitants, and how the Province is was in the process of addressing the shortage through accelerating the construction of new housing, such as those contemplated for the Subject Lands. As a result, he concluded that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate use and development land, building or structure and therefore meets this branch of the four part test for a minor variance.

27Speaking to the consent to sever Mr. Patterson asserted that the requested consent to sever four existing lots into six lots did not require a plan of subdivision, and proceeded to demonstrate how the severance could be granted under section 51(24) of the Act. He dwelt briefly on sections (a), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) , (j), (k), (l) and (m) of Section 51(24) and explained how some were not applicable to the proposal, including the provision of affordable housing, because the Applicants did not contemplate the building of affordable housing at this Site. He also explained that the existing municipal services, utilities and schools were adequate to serve the residents of the new dwellings, if approved.

28Mr. Patterson’s evidence in relation to s. 51(24) focused on the following, which he considered to be the most relevant criteria in this instance:

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; and

(f) the dimension and shapes of the proposed lots.

29He explained that the proposal is not premature, and is in the public interest because the Subject Lands have been specifically designated for development of single family dwellings, front onto a fully maintained public right-of-way which is accessible throughout the year, and has access to full municipal services. He alluded to his earlier discussion of the relationship between the proposal, the ROPA and OP, before concluding that the proposal conformed to both Official Plans at the regional and municipal level. Lastly, Mr. Patterson highlighted how the shapes and dimensions of the proposed lots are consistent with the shapes of the existing lots by virtue of being rectangular, with dimensions that are comparable to the frontage and area of existing lots. As a result, Mr. Patterson concluded that the requested consent has regard for section 51(24) of the Act.

30Based on the above evidence, Mr. Patterson reiterated that the proposal satisfied the stipulations of sections 51(24) and 45.1 of the Act, and recommended that both the consent to sever the parcels of land, and the requested variances which would permit the construction of single family homes on the resulting four lots be approved. Speaking to the conditions to be imposed by the Tribunal should the consent and variances be approved, Mr. Patterson referred to an initial, draft list of conditions that had originally been recommended by the City staff to the COA, if the latter approved the application. He briefly reviewed how the City withdrew the aforementioned conditions when the matter was finally heard, because it now recommended that the application be refused. Mr. Patterson recited the conditions that were initially recommended by the City, and recommended that all of them were reasonable and appropriate, save for the condition which recommended that:

an Archeological Study be prepared by a licensed Archeologist, and submitted to the Regional Staff, and that implementation measures be secured, to the satisfaction of the Region’s Planning, Development and Legislative Services Department.

31Mr. Patterson expressed “serious concerns” about the need for an archeologist’s report , given that the City did not participate at the OLT hearing, and did not provide a rationale about why such a study was required. He then recommended that the other conditions originally proposed by the City be imposed if the Tribunal authorized the consent to sever, because they were reasonable and appropriate from his perspective.

32Mr. Patterson responded to the concerns of Ms. McCabe- Boniface who was granted Participant Status. Ms. Cabe-Boniface expressed concerns with how the proposed lots were significantly smaller than what existed, and how authorizing such lots would negatively impact the character of the neighbourhood. She also expressed concerns about how constructing six houses would result in increased traffic, and impact the quality of life in the community. Mr. Patterson disagreed with Ms. McCabe’s contention that the proposed lots, if approved, would be closer to lot sizes appropriate for the R6 Zone, rather than the R5 Zone, on the basis of the evidence provided in support of how the proposal satisfied the ROPA and City OP. He disagreed with her concern that the construction of two more houses on the street would result in traffic congestion, asserting that the construction of two houses would result in no more than four new cars being parked on parking lots in the neighbourhood, and disagreed that the addition of four cars would result in a significant increase in traffic related issues. Lastly, he disagreed with Ms. McCabe Boniface’s concern about the impact of the proposed houses on the character of the community, because the proposed houses would be comparable to what already existed on the street. As a result, Mr. Patterson disagreed with the concerns raised by the Participant, and recommended that they be given no weight.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

33The Applicant seeks to sever four existing lots and reconfigure them into six lots, such that each lot would have a frontage that corresponds to the by-law requirement, but would be smaller than what the by-law requires by way of lot area. Consequently, the Applicant also requests a single variance for smaller lot areas than required by the By-law for each of the resulting lots. This analysis examines the ability of the requested variance to fulfill each of the four tests under section 45(1) of the Act, followed by the ability of the requested consent to fulfill section 51(24) of the Act. The reason behind this approach of examining the variances, followed by the consent to sever is a recognition that while section 51(24) relies on the OP to analyze the requested severance, section 45(1) goes one step further and analyzes the variance through the prism of the Zoning By-law, which implements the OP - in other words, analyzing the proposal, through the prism of the Zoning By-law relies on a tool more sensitive than the use of the OP.

34The evidence from the Applicant’s planner supports how the requested variances for reduced lot area satisfy the intent and purpose of both the ROPA, as well as the City OP. The Subject Lands are within a “Low/Medium Density Residential” designation, as well as the “Built Up Area” of the City. Redevelopment of the Subject Lands helps implement intensification targets listed in the ROPA. The evidence also focused on how the Subject Lands are ideal for intensification, as defined in the OP, with the potential to be redeveloped and intensified based on an analysis of Policy 2.6.1. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances for the reduction in the lot area of the resulting lots maintain the intent and purpose of both the ROPA, and the City’s OP.

35The Applicant’s planner proffered how the requested variances maintain the intent and purpose of Zoning By-law. It is evident that the requested lots satisfy every required parameter in the By-Law, with the exception of the lot area. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that the reduction in the lot area does not result in any practical consequence for the future residents of the houses to be built on the lots, and that the difference between the actual area of the lots, and what is required by the Zoning By-laws will not be discernable from the public realm, and will not have any practical consequence. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is persuaded that the requested variances maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

36The evidence also demonstrates that approving the requested variances will not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts in the neighbourhood, which is the accepted threshold for variances to be considered minor. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that the variances are minor.

37The Appellants argued that the requested variances are appropriate for the development of the property, because authorizing the variances will result in six new single family houses in an area where they are the preponderance of the existing built form. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances are appropriate for the development of the Subject Lands.

38Based on the evidence, the Tribunal is persuaded that the requested consent to sever satisfies relevant components of the section 51(24) of the Act. The evidence demonstrates that the lots resulting from an approval of the severance will be similar and shape to what already exists in the community, notwithstanding the reduction in the lot area. The approval of the severance is in the public interest, because it results in the creation of six single family homes, in an area that is occupied by a single, existing building, and that has been designated by the applicable Official Plans as a site appropriate for intensification. The consent to sever conforms to the Official Plans generally and in particular fulfills intensification and redevelopment policies.

39Section 51(25) of the Act authorizes the approval authority to impose “such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable”. In this case, the Tribunal accepts the evidence from the Applicant about why a condition requiring a fulsome archeological survey of the Subject Lands is not reasonable nor necessary, because no evidence nor submissions were made in favour of such a survey by the City. The Tribunal imposes all conditions originally requested by the City, with the exception of the condition pertaining to the Archaeological Survey.

40The evidence from the Applicant’s planner emphasized how both the PPS, 2020 and Growth Plan, 2019 focus on the intensification of underutilized properties, as well as the redevelopment of existing properties. The evidence also demonstrated how the creation of six lots and six houses from the existing four lots and one existing building constitute both redevelopment, as well as intensification of underutilized lots. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the requested consent and variances meet the required tests of consistency and conformity. The planning evidence also satisfied the Tribunal that the proposed consent and minor variances have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest.

41Based on the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed consent and minor variances satisfy all of the necessary legislative tests. The Tribunal also notes the concerns raised by the Participant, but finds that the evidence of the Applicant’s planner adequately addressed such concerns.

ORDER

42The Tribunal Orders that the Appeal is allowed, and

43Provisional consent is to be given, subject to conditions listed in Part C of Attachment A.

[44] The variances to By-aw No.150-85 of the City of Cambridge, listed in Part B of Attachment A, are authorized.

“S. Gopikrishna”

S.GOPIKRISHNA

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.