Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 29, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001044
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Heather and Mike Brown
Applicant: Susan Masterson
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Proposing the construction of driveway expansion in conjunction with an existing dwelling
Reference Number: 540-02-A-011-2023
Property Address: 4143 Millcroft Park Drive
Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001044
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001044
OLT Case Name: Brown v. Burlington (City)
Heard: January 10, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Heather and Mike Brown | Self-represented |
| City of Burlington | Blake O. Hurley* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Heather and Mike Brown (“Appellants”) against the decision of the City of Burlington (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny a minor variance (“MV”) for the property located at 4143 Millcroft Park Drive (“subject property”/ “site”).
2The subject property is rectangular in shape, with 21 metres (“m”) of street frontage on Millcroft Park Drive and a lot area of 797.7 square meters (“m2“). The site is located on the north side of Millcroft Park Drive and east of William O’Connell Boulevard and is comprised of an existing two-storey detached dwelling and pool.
3The surrounding land uses include the Millcroft Golf Club to the north and low-density residential development to the east, west and south of the subject property.
4The site is zoned R2.3, Low-Density Residential, under Zoning By-Law No. 2020 (“ZBL”), as amended.
5The Tribunal did not receive any additional status requests for this matter.
THE APPLICATION
6The MV application results from the construction of a driveway expansion in conjunction with an existing dwelling. The Appellants are seeking to permit the combined width of all hard surfaces to be 13.4 m whereas the maximum permitted is 10.5 m for a proposed driveway and walkway expansion.
7City Planning Staff reviewed the application and recommended approval; however, the COA denied the requested variance. The decision of the COA was subsequently appealed to the Tribunal.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
8An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo and the Applicant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in s. 45(1) has been satisfied:
the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is being maintained;
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is being maintained;
the variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
the variance is minor in nature.
HEARING
9At the onset of the Hearing the City informed the Tribunal that it is not opposed to the variance being sought and will not be calling any witnesses.
10The Appellants disagree with the COA’s reasons for refusing the application, namely, that the requested variance does not meet the four tests. In that regard, the Appellants rely on the Staff Planning Report which states:
“Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection.”
11Forestry, Building, Transportation Planning and various other City departments had no objection to the requested variance.
12Further, it was brought to the Tribunal’s attention that there were no members of the public at the COA meeting that spoke in support or opposition of the Application.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13The Tribunal, having considered the Staff Planning Report, is satisfied that the requested variance meets the criteria established in s. 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that the variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained. The variance facilitates the development of the property in a manner that has regard to the applicable provincial policies, does not result in the creation of any adverse impacts, and is representative of good planning in the public interest.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 2020 is authorized.
“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.