Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 06, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000345
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Sali Yzeiri
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit converting an existing 4-plex dwelling into an 8-plex
Reference Number: A.006/24
Property Address: 231 Greenwood Avenue
Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000345
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000345
OLT Case Name: Yzeiri v. London (City)
Heard: June 12, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Sali Yzeiri | Jacob Damstra |
| City of London | Aynsley Hovius |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY nehad allam and jackie denyes ON June 12, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an Appeal filed by Sali Yzeiri (“Appellant”) against the City of London (“City”) Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) decision to refuse a part of the Minor Variance Application (“MVA”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended (“Act”). The City is not calling evidence or contesting the Appeal.
2There were no issues raised regarding the Notice of this Hearing dated April 22, 2024, and filed as Exhibit 1.
SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING, AND SURROUNDINGS
Property Description
3The lands are municipally known as 231 Greenwood Avenue (“Subject Property”). It is located on the west side of Greenwood Avenue, south of Springbank Drive, in the Southcrest Planning District of the City. The surrounding land uses include vacant residential lands to the north, an elementary school to the west, single detached dwellings to the south, and multiple residential forms of development to the east.
4The Appellant is proposing to convert the basement within the current four-plex to residential units, bringing the total unit count for the site to eight units. As converted dwellings are permitted in single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, and triplexes, the Appellant is looking to vary the definition of a converted dwelling to permit them within the existing four-plex on the Subject Property.
5The Subject Property is zoned “Residential R3 Zone”, and more specifically within the “R3-2” variation, which recognizes the four-plex as an existing permitted use. The “R3-2” zone permits a converted dwelling; however, this is limited to a single detached, semi-detached, or triplex dwelling.
FOCUS OF THE APPEAL
Requested Relief
6The Appellant requires two variances to permit converting an existing four-plex into an eight-plex, as follows:
a) To permit a converted dwelling in an existing dwelling constructed as a four-plex, whereas converted dwellings are permitted in a single, semi-detached, duplex, or triplex dwelling; and
b) To permit a minimum lot area of 151.7 square metres (“m2”) per unit, whereas 180 m2 per unit is the minimum required.
7The City’s Planning Report recommended approval of the variances following circulation and input from various departments within the City, including Heritage, Ecology, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and Engineering, all of whom expressed no objection to the MVA.
8The CoA considered the MVA and supporting documents, and rendered a decision at its meeting on February 8, 2024, approving the first variance. The CoA “struck out” the second variance request to permit a minimum lot area of 151.7 m2 per unit, whereas 180 m2 per unit is required. The refusal to grant the second variance was based on an objection from a current tenant who claimed they would be evicted. The CoA did not want to displace a family and the CoA did not appreciate that the Appellant had allegedly started renovations to add units without either having obtained approval for the subject variance, or a building permit from the City.
HEARING
9The Tribunal heard uncontroverted viva voce evidence from Robert Brown, H. Ba., MCIP, RPP, and further evidence from, Mr. Brent House, City Planner, appearing under summons. Both were qualified as experts in the field of land use planning. The Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty of Mr. Brown was marked as Exhibit 2. The Appellant’s Document Book, which included the Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty of Mr. House, was marked Exhibit 3.
Robert Brown, H. Ba., MCIP, RPP
10Regarding the first variance, Mr. Brown testified as to the definition of “converted dwelling” in the City’s Plan as follows:
means an existing dwelling constructed as a single, semi-detached, duplex or triplex dwelling on an existing lot prior to July 1, 1993, in which the number of dwelling units has been increased without significant alteration to the exterior of the building except for non-leasable floor such as fire escapes, stairwells and entrances to a maximum of 10 percent of the dwelling or 30.0 sq. m, whichever is the lesser.
11Regarding the second variance to convert the four-plex into an eight-plex, Mr. Brown references the definition of “converted dwelling” under s. 7.3.3 of the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law (“By-law”), as follows:
In no case shall a converted dwelling have a lot area of less than 180.0 sq m per unit in the R3-1 and R3-2 Zone variations and 220.0 sq m per unit in the R3-3 Zone variation or a lot area as indicated on Tab 7.3 whichever is greater.
Legislative Tests
[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
12It was the professional opinion of Mr. Brown that the MVA has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2, inter alia, as follows:
(j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
(p) The appropriate location of growth and development; and
(q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit.
13He opined that pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Act, the CoA can consider allowing a use not permitted on a property if, in the opinion of the CoA, the use is similar in nature to those already permitted by the By-law.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
14Mr. Brown referenced how the proposed development on the Subject Property is supportive and consistent with policies in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), as follows:
Section 1.1.3.1 states that, “Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”
Section 1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on (a) Densities and a mix of land uses including efficient use of land and resources, appropriate for existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities, and supports active transportation.
15Mr. Brown testified that no additional services are required as a result of this development as the Subject Property is already close to parks and a number of schools. The Subject Property is transit supported by Route 05, Byron/Argyle Mall, has a vehicle connection to Wonderland Road as a major cross-town route, and access to Highways 401 and 402 to the south.
General Intent and Purpose of The London Plan
16Commenting on the City’s Official Plan (“London Plan”), Mr. Brown testified the applicable Place Type for the Subject Property is “Neighbourhood”, which applies to the majority of residential areas throughout the City. Place Type uses are defined by the street classification on which a property has frontage. He opined that the Subject Property, 231 Greenwood Ave., is located on a Neighbourhood Street, and the Place Type permits additional dwellings units such as those proposed in the existing four-plex.
17He further testified that the London Plan echoes many of the same initiatives outlined in the PPS regarding residential intensification particularly when it utilizes existing housing stock. It was his opinion that residential intensification can be achieved on the inside of the Subject Property with “very little to no impact” outwardly on the lot. The Subject Property is located in an area already providing a variety of housing options to the east.
Maintains the Intent and Purpose of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
18Mr. Brown confirmed that the Subject Property is located within the “Residential R3 Zone”, and more specifically within the “R3-2” variation, wherein a four-plex is a permitted use but is not considered for use as a converted dwelling via the allowance of additional units.
19The additional units result in only one zoning deficiency, namely; the required lot area per unit of 180 m2 as compared to the requested variance of 151.7 m2. Despite this, it is the opinion of Mr. Brown that the variance does not impact on setback or lot coverage, and does not create any deficiency.
Are the Variances Requested Desirable for Appropriate and Orderly Development and Use of Lands and Buildings?
20Given other multi-residential uses in the area, Mr. Brown opined that this MVA is appropriate for the development of the Subject Property and the area based on the other mixed residential uses in the area. The retrofitting of existing buildings is a cost-effective and expedient method of providing added units with little to no change to the building footprint, and is simply a renovation of the basement area.
Are the Variances Minor in nature?
21Mr. Brown testified that the proposed development supports the intensification policies of the London Plan. As the added units will not overwhelm the lot or lead to a lack of parking or open space, and as they will result in no outward change to the existing building, the required variances can be considered to be minor in nature.
22Mr. Brown provided his interpretation of the rationale for the CoA to refuse the variances as being primarily two issues:
Renovations were started in the basement prior to any consideration by the CoA; and
A concern expressed by a tenant of potential eviction if the variances were granted.
23Mr. Brown remarked that neither complaint is based on planning rationale and can be dealt with through the permit process under the Ontario Building Code and notice provisions under the Residency Tenancies Act, 2006.
Brent House, City Planner
24Mr. House concurred with the opinion and policy analysis presented by Mr. Brown.
25Mr. House testified that the Planning and Development staff recommended the approval of both variances as the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the London Plan as the MVA supports residential intensification at a higher residential intensity than what currently exists.
26In his report to the CoA, he confirmed the use of a converted dwelling is a permitted use on the Subject Property, with no limit as to how many units can be included within the building. The proposed modifications are interior and do not require any additions on the lands which maintains the intent of a “converted dwelling”, and thereby, the site functionality is maintained. It was the opinion of the City’s Planning staff that the variances are minor in nature.
27Section 7.3.3 of the By-law requires a minimum lot area per unit of 180 m2. The existing four-unit converted dwelling is a condition that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The conceptual site plans provided by the Appellant show the construction of four additional units on the Subject Property will remain in the existing building, while the site continues to provide sufficient landscape, open space, amenity space, and off-street parking spaces. The intensity of the development is balanced with other site functions and is adequately sized for the proposed intensity.
FINDINGS:
28The Tribunal’s authority to grant variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances. It must be noted that the Hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo, and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Appellant, notwithstanding the decision of the CoA.
29Through the qualified planning evidence of Mr. House and Mr. Brent, the Tribunal finds that the variances meet the legislative framework set out in the Act, as follows:
i. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the London Plan by conforming to the policies that outline how built form, community character, and compatibility are to be evaluated;
ii. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the By-law as the development will continue to provide sufficient landscape, open space, amenity space, and off-street parking spaces.
iii. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development, or use of land building or structure, as the intensity of the development is balanced with other site functions and is adequately sized for the proposed intensity.
iv. The variances are minor in nature as the construction of four additional units on the Subject Property will remain in the existing building, and thereby, would not result in an undue adverse impact on functionality of open space, and is in keeping with the established pattern in the surrounding neighbourhood.
30The Tribunal finds, through the evidence of Mr. Brown, that the variances are consistent with the PPS as set out in ss. 1.1.3.1 and 1.1.3.2, complimenting local policies and addressing local interests.
31The Tribunal finds the MVA has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and represents good planning.
ORDER
32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed, and the variances to the City of London’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Residential R3-2 zone are authorized.
“N. Allam”
N. Allam
MEMBER
“Jackie Denyes”
JACKIE DENYES
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.