Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000957
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Maimoona Laeeq
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To increase Lot coverage by 4%
Reference Number: A23-053/M
Property Address: 111 Robinwood Crescent, PLAN 568 LOT 228
Municipality/UT: Town of Milton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000957
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000957
OLT Case Name: Laeeq v. Milton (Town)
Heard: December 11, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Maimoona Laeeq
Representative Claramae Manasan
Jeffrey Jansen Claramae Manasan (Self-represented)
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. GOPIKRISHNA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) from the refusal of a variance by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of the Town of Milton (“Town”) as submitted by Ms. Maimoona Laeeq (“Appellant”) requesting the approval of a single variance for her property at 111 Robinwood Crescent (“Site”/“Subject Lands”). The Appellant seeks an increase in the maximum permitted lot coverage to 24% where a lot coverage of 20% is permitted under Comprehensive Zoning By-law 016-2014, as amended (“ZBL”). The purpose of the variance is to facilitate the addition of a two-storey covered balcony to the rear of the dwelling on the Site. The COA heard the Application, and refused it on August 31 2023.
2The Appellant appealed the COA’s decision on September 4, 2023 to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”), which scheduled a Hearing by way of video conference at 10 a.m. on December 11, 2023. On October 22, 2023, the Town of Milton indicated that it would not participate in the Appeal before the Tribunal. On September 16, 2023, Ms. Claramae Manasan, a neighbour whose residence and property is to the immediate right of the Site, elected for Party Status. Ms. Kate Croke and Ms. Lisa Robson, both of whom reside in the vicinity of the Site, stated that they had submitted emails stating their concerns to the COA and the Tribunal, and wanted to express their opposition to the approval of the variance before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was aware of a request from Ms. Croke for Participant Status, but wasn’t aware of a similar request from Ms. Robson. In response to a question from the Tribunal about objections to giving Ms. Robson Participant status in the proceeding, the Appellant did not object to either individual being granted Participant status, resulting in both individuals being granted Participant status.
VARIANCES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
3To facilitate the construction of a two-storey covered balcony to a new two-storey single detached dwelling on Lot 228, Registered Plan 568, municipally known as 111 Robinwood Crescent in the Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton, the Appellant requests that the following variance be approved:
- A maximum lot coverage of 24%, whereas Section 6.2., Table 6b(1) of the ZBL permits a maximum lot coverage of 20% for a lot greater than 830 square metres.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
4In considering applications for variances from the Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applications meet all of four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land
are minor
5The proposed variances must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, as amended (“Growth Plan”). When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act. It must also have regard to the decision of the COA and the information considered by it, as required under [s.2.1(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec2.1