Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 22, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000018
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: The Ambrose Condos Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of a 4-storey, 8 unit apartment building
Reference Number: A35/2023
Property Address: 575 Conklin Road
Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000018
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000018
OLT Case Name: The Ambrose Condos Inc. v. Brantford (City)
Heard: March 25, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
The Ambrose Condos Inc.
Alex Ciccone
DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from an Appeal filed by The Ambrose Condos Inc. (“Appellant”), pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), in respect of the refusal by the City of Brantford’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of its application for Minor Variances (“MV”), which seeks to permit the development of a four-storey, eight-unit apartment building, at the property Municipally known as 575 Conklin Road (“Subject Property”).
BACKGROUND
2The Subject Property is approximately 0.99 hectares with an approximate frontage of 131 metres (“m”) on Conklin Road. It is zoned ‘Residential’ by the Official Plan (“OP”) and Residential High-Density Zone by the City of Brantford (“City”) Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 160-90 (“ZBL”). The Subject Property is surrounded by townhouses to the north, a commercial plaza to the east, and vacant land to the west and south of the Subject Property.
3The Appellant is already in the process of developing the southern portion of the Subject Property with a 10-storey, mixed use building with 198 units along Shellard Lane. The proposed development (“Development”) would be in the northern portion of the Subject Property, closer to the townhouses. The Appellant identifies each Development as Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.
4The Appellant’s original variance application requested a minimum rear yard setback of 6.7 m, and the same lot area and lot coverage relief as revised. Following discussions with City Planning Staff concerning the minimum rear yard setback, the Appellant revised its application. On November 10, 2023, the Appellant submitted a revised variance application to the City’s COA, increasing the requested rear yard setback from 6.7 m to 11.5 m. The City Planning Staff’s report dated December 6, 2023 (“planning report”), found the proposal met the four tests for a MV and recommended the COA approve all three minor variances of the application. The COA refused the application.
THE HEARING
5Alex Ciccone attended the Hearing, representing the Appellant. The City confirmed with the Tribunal in advance of the Hearing that it would not participate at the Hearing and took no position on this Appeal. There were no Party status requests, but several Participant status requests.
6The Tribunal granted Participant status to Catherine Astolfo, Elaine Bessie, Richard