Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 04, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000651

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the development of a single-family detached dwelling

Reference Number: A13-24

Property Address: Block 4, 30M-324, Grimsby Lake Street

Municipality/UT: Town of Grimsby

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000651

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000651

OLT Case Name: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. v. Grimsby (Town)

Heard: September 20, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.	William Liske
Town of Grimsby	Tom Halinski

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 (“Act”) by Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. (“Appellant”) regarding the decision of the Town of Grimsby (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) which denied the minor variances (“MVs”) for the development of a two-storey single detached dwelling at the property known as Block 4, 30M-324, Grimsby Lake Street, Grimsby (“Site”).

2The Site is located on the south side of Lake Street, between Brook Road and Bal Harbour Drive. It is approximately 0.469 hectares with a 9.51 metre (“m”) lot width along Lake Street. Nothing is currently built on the Site.

3The Appellant requested relief from two MVs from the Town of Grimsby Zoning By-Law No. 14-45 (“ZBL”) as follows:

a. To permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 m from the easterly side lot line instead of the required 1.8 m and 0.6 m from the westerly side lot line instead of the required 1.8 m, and

b. To permit a maximum lot coverage of 35% instead of the 25% required

4On May 22, 2024, the CoA refused the application, citing as its rationale:

a. that the application did not satisfy the four tests;

b. the proposal is not minor in nature; and

c. that the proposal was not appropriate for the land.

STATUS REQUESTS

5The Tribunal received no Party or Participant status requests.

SUBMISSIONS

6The Appellant provided a lengthy document containing the witness statement of Mark Condello, supporting planning documents, the CoA decision, and other appeal evidence. This submission was marked as Exhibit 1.

7Mark Condello, a Registered Professional Planner and Associate Planner at Glen Schnarr & Associates Ltd., testified with respect to the evidence set out in Witness Condello’s Witness Statement, dated September 13, 2024. Planner Condello has been previously qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert evidence in land use planning matters.

8The Town attended the hearing but elected to neither oppose the appeal nor to submit any evidence or witnesses.

APPLICATIONS/ VARIANCES REQUESTED

9The Appellants have appealed the CoA decision and requested the following MVs:

a. To permit a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 m from the easterly side lot line instead of the required 1.8 m and 1.2 m from the westerly side lot line instead of the required 1.8 m, and

b. To permit a maximum lot coverage of 35% instead of the 25% required.

10These MVs were suggested in the Town’s Planning Report, found in Exhibit 1, with two conditions:

a. A tree survey of the western property line to determine ownership of the tree-line, and

b. A tree preservation plan to protect the existing tree line on the western property line.

[Section 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec45subsec1_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

11The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act when making a decision regarding an MV application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”).

12Planner Condello testified that the proposed development has regard for s.2 of the Act, as it is not a development in a natural area, will be fully connected with existing municipal services (e.g., water, stormwater management, sanitary), is an intensification of an underutilized lot, has access to community services (e.g., schools, healthcare, recreational facilities) and is located within the Town’s Urban Settlement Area and Built Boundary.

13The witness stated that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS as follows:

a. it facilitates development of existing underutilized lands and promoting efficient land use as per s.1.1.1 e);

b. it is in a Settlement Area and makes efficient use of a lot on municipal services with access to community services and infrastructure as per ss. 1.1.3.1 and 1.1.3.2 a);

c. it is a compatible form is gentle intensification as per ss. 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4; and

d. it adds to the range and density of housing types as per s. 1.4.1.

14Planner Condello stated that the proposed development conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as follows:

a. it supports healthy and active living communities and provides a wider range of dwelling types than currently exist in the neighbourhood as per s. 1.2.1;

b. it is within the delineated built boundary, has access to municipal water/sewage as per s. 2.2.1.2; and

c. it is within the Built-Up Area as required for 50 percent of all residential development as per s. 2.2.2.1 a).

15When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:

maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law;
is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
is minor in nature.

16The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.

General Intent and Purpose of the Niagara Official Plan

17Planner Condello stated that Schedule B of the Niagara Official Plan (“NOP”) designates the Site as an Urban Area and a Delineated Built-Up Area. The Urban Area designation is intended to accommodate the majority of growth including appropriate development and intensification. Policy 2.2.2.5 of the NOP states that 60% of all residential units will occur in the Built-Up Area. The NOP details that the intensification target for the Town is 98% (4500 units) between 2021 and 2051.

General Intent and Purpose of the Town of Grimsby Official Plan

18The witness testified that according to Schedule B-2 of the Town of Grimsby Official Plan (“GOP”), the Site is located in the Town’s Urban Settlement Boundary (“URA”) and is designated as low-density residential. Section 2.3.2 of the GOP states that the URA is the primary focus of urban growth. It is intended for a broad range of housing. Section 3.4.2 of the GOP applies to existing stable residential neighbourhoods in the URA. The GOP permits ongoing evolution and rejuvenation in these neighbourhoods.

General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

19The Site is zoned Residential Detached 2 (RD2.25), which permits a single detached dwelling, in the ZBL.

20Planner Condello opined that the increase in lot coverage from 25% to 35% would be consistent with surrounding lots that have the same lot coverage and that the increase would permit a building depth of 20 m, which is permissible by the ZBL.

21Planner Condello stated that the side yard setback variances for the east and west would ensure sufficient space and buffering between neighbouring buildings to provide adequate access and maintenance while avoiding privacy and overlook concerns.

22It is the witness’ opinion that the increase in lot coverage would not result in an over-development of the Site.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land

23Planner Condello’s opinion is that the approval of the MVs would facilitate a two-storey single detached dwelling as permitted by the GOP and ZBL. The reduced side yard setbacks will maintain an appropriate built form.

24The witness stated that the approval of the MVs would allow the proposed development to be complimentary to the character of the neighbourhood and is a desirable and appropriate development for the Site.

Is Minor in Nature

25Planner Condello testified that the requested variances are minor and create no unacceptable adverse impact.

26The MVs will allow a building design that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

27The witness opined that the requested variances are a minor departure from what is currently permitted and do not represent an over-development of the Site.

28It is Planner Condello’s expert opinion that the MVs:

a. represent good planning,

b. meet all policy requirements,

c. meet all requirements of s. 45(1) of the Act,

d. meet the four tests, and

e. are in the public interest.

FINDINGS

29The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Appellant and finds that the requested variances have regard for the Provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and satisfies all four elements of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

30Additionally, the evidence provided by the Appellant has not been opposed by the Town.

ORDER

31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the following variances to the Town of Grimsby’s Zoning By-Law No. 14-45 are authorized:

a. to permit a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 metres from the easterly side lot line instead of the required 1.8 metres,

b. to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres from the westerly side lot line instead of the required 1.8 metres, and

c. to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35% instead of the 25% required

32And subject to the following conditions:

a. A tree survey of the western property line to determine ownership of the tree-line.

b. A tree preservation plan to protect the existing tree line on the western property line.

“A. Snowdon”

A. SNOWDON

MEMBER