Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
June 27, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000187
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Surila Bennett
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
MV to permit a driveway width extension of 1.48 meters
Reference Number:
A-2023-0352
Property Address:
46 Elgin Drive
Municipality:
City of Brampton
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000187
OLT Case Name:
Bennett v. Brampton (City)
Heard:
June 14, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Surila Bennett
Self-represented*
City of Brampton
Somya Sood
Steven Ross (in absentia)
DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an Appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Surila Bennett (“Appellant”) regarding the decision of the City of Brampton (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CofA”) to deny a Minor Variance Application (“Application”) to permit an existing driveway widening on the property located at 46 Elgin Drive (“Property”). The Property is developed with a detached dwelling with an attached single-car garage and is within an urban residential area.
2The Appellant sought relief from Zoning By-Law No. 270-2004, as amended (“ZBL”), to allow an increase in the driveway width from the ZBL maximum of 7.32 metres (“m”) to 8.8 m in order to recognize the existing driveway width, resulting in an increased width of 1.48 m (“Variance”).
3The CofA denied the Application, following the recommendation by the City Planning Department in their Staff Recommendation Report (“Staff Report”).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
4An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act results in a hearing de novo before the Tribunal and, as such, the Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act (“Four Tests”) have been met. The Four Tests are summarized as follows:
Does the Variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the City Official Plan (“COP”)?
Does the Variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL?
Is the Variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? and
Is the Variance minor in nature?
5In carrying out its responsibilities under the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and, in the course of making its decision related to a planning matter, the Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the City and the information and material the City considered in making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
6In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with policy statements issued by the Province and to conform with provincial plans. In this case, the Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”).
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
7Ms. Bennett was self-represented and called no witnesses in support of her case. The City called Charles Ng, Development Planner at the City, who was qualified, on consent, to provide expert opinion evidence in the discipline of land use planning.
Background and Appellant Submissions
8The driveway widening was constructed prior to the Application having been filed and was for the purpose of accommodating additional parking for residents of the dwelling as well as for a potential second unit to be constructed in the basement.
9Ms. Bennett filed an Explanation Letter dated May 13, 2024 in support of the Variance which was entered as an Exhibit to the Hearing. She advised that her family lives in the dwelling and has four personal vehicles. She intends to rent her basement as a legal second unit, which would require a parking space, and noted that, at the time of the construction of the driveway widening, she was not aware of the approval process for same. She added that she had spent considerable money to have the driveway widened to accommodate the number of vehicles her family owns and due to two of the vehicles having been hit by other vehicles while parked on the road in front of the dwelling. She advised that none of her neighbours objected to the Application at the CofA Hearing, and that she was willing to do whatever is required to be able to accommodate four vehicles on the Property.
10Ms. Bennett acknowledged that, when she had the driveway widened, she did not address the total width of the driveway, and that she had not considered whether the widening was appropriate for the use of the Property, only that she required the extra parking space.
City Evidence
11The City filed a Document Book in support of the denial of the Variance, which included the Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty for Mr. Ng, as well as the Staff Report, the CofA Decision, and the requisite policy documents. The City also filed a Witness Statement of Mr. Ng and a Book of Authorities. These documents were all entered as Exhibits to the Hearing.
12Mr. Ng advised that, in preparation for the CofA hearing, he conducted a site visit to the Property and surrounding area and authored the Staff Report.
13In forming his professional opinion on the Variance, Mr. Ng reviewed s. 2 and 45(1) of the Act, the PPS, the Growth Plan, the COP, the City Development Design Guidelines, the Brampton Flowertown Secondary Plan (Area 6) (“Secondary Plan”), and the ZBL. He also considered the adopted new City Official Plan (“Brampton Plan”) in his review of the Application.
The Act
14Mr. Ng opined that the Variance does not meet s. 2. (h), (q), and (r) of the Act, related to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the promotion of development that is oriented to pedestrians, and the promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant. It was his opinion that the Variance does not represent orderly development for the Property or neighbourhood, is not pedestrian oriented, and is not well designed considering the width of the Property and garage. He added that the loss of landscaping and increase in hard surfaces affects the streetscape, emphasizes driveways and vehicles, and detracts from the neighbourhood sense of place.
15Mr. Ng’s opinion evidence related to the Four Tests is addressed below.
The PPS and the Growth Plan
16It was Mr. Ng’s opinion that the Variance is not consistent with the PPS and not in conformity with the Growth Plan, as the increased width of the driveway, relative to the width of the lot and the garage, does not foster a safe environment for pedestrians, does not encourage a sense of place, and the resulting loss of landscaped area does not support the climate change policies of the PPS or the Growth Plan. He further opined that the Variance emphasizes automobile use contrary to the Growth Plan policies related to increasing the modal share of transit and active transportation, and decreasing the reliance on automobiles.
The Four Tests
Does the Variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the COP?
17Mr. Ng indicated that the Property is designated ‘Residential’ in the COP and that policy 4.2.7 encourages ground-related residential development “to avoid excessive parking of vehicles in the front yard on driveways and to promote a realistic driveway design that is complementary to the house and lot size”. He opined that the Variance does not conform to the COP in this regard, and with respect to policy 4.2.1.14, as it “creates excessive parking in the front yard, deviating from a realistic design that aligns appropriately with the house and lot size”, removes landscaping thereby impacting the streetscape and character of the neighbourhood, and reduces the area available for water infiltration. He proffered that the original driveway design was intended for one vehicle whereas the Variance would support three vehicles on the driveway, which, in his opinion is excessive and not in harmony with the dwelling and lot dimensions.
18Mr. Ng furthered that the Variance does not conform to the public realm policies of the COP that require the design of streetscapes to “[d]e-emphasize the importance of the car/garage on the streetscapes” and”[a]chieve a pedestrian-scaled environment for the public domain that is safe and comfortable”. He noted that the widened driveway blocks the front entrance of the dwelling and porch. It was his opinion that the Variance emphasizes vehicular parking on the streetscape in a manner that is not considered to contribute to a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment.
19Mr. Ng proffered that the Variance is inconsistent with the City’s Development Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”), which the COP directs residential development to be evaluated against. The Guidelines state that “the impact of garages and driveways should be minimized”, that the architectural features of the home and landscaping should be distinguishing components of the streetscape and that driveway widths shall be no wider than the garages they serve. It was his opinion that the widened driveway obstructs the porch and the entrance to the dwelling, “undermining the prominence of key architectural elements”, and removes front yard landscaping, which “compromises the creation of a high-quality streetscape”.
20Mr. Ng advised that the Secondary Plan policies have no significant implications to the consideration of the Variance.
21It was Mr. Ng’s opinion that the Variance does not maintain the general intent of the COP and is inconsistent with the Guidelines. He also noted that the Variance does not maintain the general intent of the Brampton Plan, as it “conflicts with the overarching goal of creating a high-quality, pedestrian-friendly streetscape by emphasizing the importance of vehicles on the streetscape”.
Does the Variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL?
22Mr. Ng advised that the Property is zoned ‘Residential Single Detached B – R1B Zone’ in the ZBL. Mr. Ng advised that the ZBL permits a maximum driveway width of 7.32 m on the Property and that, City-wide, the minimum parking requirement for single-detached dwellings is two parking spaces. He noted that the as-of-right permissions of the ZBL allow for a driveway width to accommodate two vehicles, providing for a total of three vehicles on the Property including one in the garage.
23Mr. Ng noted that the ZBL requires the front yard of a residential dwelling, other than the area for a permitted unit or permitted driveway, be maintained for landscaping, and a minimum of 60% of the front yard is to be landscaped open space. It was his opinion that the intent of these provisions is to reduce the visual impact of hardscaping, limit vehicular parking, preserve green space, and help maintain a visually balanced and aesthetically pleasing streetscape.
24It was Mr. Ng’s opinion that the intent of the ZBL, in regulating driveway widths, “is to balance parking needs with aesthetic and functional concerns by ensuring that driveways and the vehicles parked on them do not dominate the streetscape, and by permitting water infiltration through landscaping”. He noted that the portion of the driveway within the City’s right-of-way has also been widened which could allow for a vehicle to be parked parallel to the road, although not desirable. He proffered that the Variance would allow for an excessive number of vehicles to be parked on the Property, adversely impacting the streetscape and character of the neighbourhood, contrary to the intent of the ZBL.
25It was Mr. Ng’s opinion that the Variance does not meet the intent of the ZBL in regulating driveway widths and maintaining sufficient landscaping on the Property.
Is the Variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
26Mr. Ng opined that the Variance adversely impacts the streetscape and character of the neighbourhood, and blocks access to the dwelling’s entrance and porch thereby shifting the attention to vehicles parked on the front of the driveway, instead of focusing on the key architectural elements such as the dwelling’s entrance, porch, windows, and landscaping. It was his opinion that the Variance compromises the creation of a high-quality streetscape, negatively affects the overall appearance of the neighborhood, and is unattractive from a public perspective.
27Mr. Ng furthered that having a vehicle parked in front of the entrance to the dwelling may pose as an issue for emergency services by potentially restricting the access to the dwelling. Further, he opined that the widened driveway “creates an excessive amount of hard surface in the front yard, reducing the area available for landscaping, and water infiltration” and “creates an unattractive streetscape and neighbourhood”.
28It was Mr. Ng’s opinion that the Variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
Is the Variance minor in nature?
29In Mr. Ng’s opinion, allowing for the parking of three vehicles in the front yard of the Property is an excessive number of vehicles, creates an unrealistic driveway design that is not complementary to the dwelling and lot size, and adversely impacts the Property by “creating a front yard dominated by hard surfaces and vehicles, instead of landscaping”. It was his opinion that the Variance is not minor in nature.
Overall Planning Opinion
30It was Mr. Ng’s overall opinion that the Variance does not meet s. 2. of the Act, is not consistent with the PPS, is not in conformity with the Growth Plan, does not meet the Four Tests, and does not represent good land use planning. He recommended that the Appeal be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
31Pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act, in making this decision, the Tribunal has had regard for the information and material considered by the CofA and the decision of the CofA with respect to the Application.
32The Applicant did not present any land use planning evidence to the Tribunal in support of the Variance. Considering the lack of such evidence, the Appellant did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that the Four Tests are met.
33The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted land use planning evidence of Mr. Ng and agrees that the Variance does not have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform to the Growth Plan in accordance with s. 3(5) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Ng’s evidence that the Variance does not meet the Four Tests and would provide for an excessively wide driveway width compared to the width of the Property and the garage, resulting in reduced landscaping and groundwater infiltration, and would allow for vehicles to dominate the front yard of the Property, leading to an unattractive streetscape. In that respect, the Variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, nor minor in nature.
Order
34THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is dismissed and the Variance to Zoning By-Law No. 270-2004, as amended, is not authorized.
“C.I. Molinari”
c.I. Molinari
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.