Romanko v. St. Catharines (City), 2025 CanLII 113855

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 31, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000355

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

Applicant and Appellant: Daniel Romanko

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a one-storey addition over an existing detached garage to accommodate a new accessory dwelling unit

Reference Number: A-81/24

Property Address: 4 College Street

Municipality/UT: St. Catharines/Niagara

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000355

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000355

OLT Case Name: Romanko v. St. Catharines (City)

Heard: July 17, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Daniel Romanko

J. Patrick Maloney

Todd Dunning

Brian Duxbury

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Daniel Romanko and Monica Drenth applied to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of the City of St. Catharines (“City”) for eight minor variances to permit a one-storey addition over an existing detached garage in order to accommodate a new Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”), located at 4 College Street (“Subject Property”) in the City.

2The COA denied six of the requested variances and approved two of the requested variances. Mr. Romanko (“Appellant”) subsequently appealed that decision to the Tribunal.

3In advance of the Hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the City would not be participating in nor attending the Hearing.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

4The Subject Property is located on the north side of College Street, near the downtown area of the City, and is occupied by a two-and-a-half storey detached dwelling and a detached two-car garage in the rear yard. It has a lot area of approximately 428 square metres (“sq m”), a depth of approximately 27.3 metres (“m”) and fronts onto College Street with a frontage of approximately 15.45 m.

5The Subject Property is:

a) surrounded by residential uses to the East (single detached), South (sixplex and semi-detached) and West (fourplex), with a commercial use (gravel parking lot) to the North;

b) designated Delineated Built-Up Area in the Niagara Regional Official Plan (“NOP”), May 2024 Consolidation;

c) designated Downtown on Schedule D1 of the Official Plan (“OP”) (Garden City Plan) and further designated Low Density Residential on Schedule E10;

d) zoned R2 - Low Density Residential - Traditional Neighbourhood by the City’s Zoning By-law 2013-282 (“ZBL”);

e) designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Yates Street Heritage District or within the Yates Street Heritage Conservation District;

f) within walking distance of the City’s central business district; and,

g) relatively flat with several mature trees.

BACKGROUND AND VARIANCES SOUGHT

6In October 2024, a heritage permit application was made by the Appellant outlining a proposed garage addition and a Heritage Permit was granted on December 2, 2024.

7The minor variance application was initially filed by the Appellant in November 2024 and was scheduled to be considered at the January 2025 COA meeting; however, the City Planning Staff recommendation report did not support all of the variances. The minor variance application was deferred to allow the Appellant to revise the application. To address the concerns raised: a proposed third-storey loft was removed from the proposal, which reduced the overall height; the roof pitch was changed to address compatibility with the neighbouring property; and the upper floor setback was changed to 0.2 m on the east side, to permit roof drainage along that side.

8At the April 16, 2025, minor variance application hearing, the Appellant requested the following variances:

1. Reduction of the minimum rear yard to a detached accessory dwelling unit from 1.2 m to 0.6 m;

2. Reduction of the minimum interior side yard (East) to the first floor of the detached accessory dwelling unit from 1.2 m to 0.0 m;

3. Reduction of the minimum interior side yard (East) to the portion of the detached accessory dwelling unit, above the ground floor, from 1.2 m to 0.2 m;

4. Reduction of the minimum distance between buildings and a detached accessory dwelling unit from 3.0 m to 1.6 m;

5. Increase of the maximum height for an accessory structure from 6.0 m to 7.1 m to the peak of roof;

6. Reduction of the required parking space for an accessory dwelling unit from 0.5 to 0 parking spaces;

7. Increase of the maximum encroachment of the eaves and gutters into the required yard from within 0.15 m of the lot line to within 0.0 m of the lot line;

8. To permit openings above 4.5 m on a facade facing an interior lot line for an accessory structure located within the required yards for the principal building.

9These eight variances are now being considered by the Tribunal.

10City Planning Staff recommended that variance nos. 4 and 6 be approved, and that all other variances be denied. At its April 16, 2025, meeting, the COA approved variances no. 4 and 6 and denied the remaining variances, in keeping with the Staff recommendation.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11As found in s. 45(1) of the Act, four tests must be considered when evaluating a minor variance application:

a) Does the variance meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);

b) Does the variance meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);

c) Is the variance minor in nature; and

d) Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

12In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, as well as regard for the decision of the Municipality or approval authority and the information it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

13In the determination of this Appeal, it must be noted that, pursuant to s. 45 of the Act, this is a Hearing de novo and the onus is on the Appellant to establish that the four tests have been met.

STATUS REQUEST

14The Tribunal received one request for Party status from Todd Dunning, the neighbour whose property, 2a College Street, is adjacent to the Subject Property.

15In his written request and at the Hearing, Mr. Dunning, through his Counsel, raised concerns that the proposed ADU would result in a new, two-storey structure within inches of his property, very near active amenity space and would negatively impact his property. He indicated his intent to participate fully in the Hearing, to call a Land Use Planner to give evidence and also highlighted his ability to assist the Tribunal by providing distances between his home and the proposed ADU, as well as his unique perspective.

16The Appellant indicated consent for the addition of Mr. Dunning as a Party.

17Upon review and consideration, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr. Dunning had a direct interest in the matter and that his participation as a Party would assist in the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter. The Tribunal granted Mr. Dunning Party status to the matter.

HEARING

18To support the proposal, Mr. Romanko, the Appellant, provided testimony as a lay witness, and Adam Moote was called to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. In opposition to the proposal, Mr. Dunning provided testimony as a lay witness and summoned Claire Semple, a Planner for the City, to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. Upon review of their respective Curricula Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty forms, Mr. Moote and Ms. Semple were each qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

Evidence of the Appellant’s Witnesses

19Mr. Romanko described the history of the application, the Subject Property, the context of the neighbourhood, and the design process. He presented a series of photographs of the Subject Property, as well as conceptual drawings of the proposed ADU.

Drawings found at Exhibit 1a, pages 27-29

20Mr. Romanko highlighted that at the start of the process, he thought he had the Dunnings’ support for the proposal, but upon realization of their lack of support, and in light of the concerns in the initial City Staff report, the proposal was revised reorienting the roofline and lowering the height to decrease the impact on the adjacent property. He said that his intention was to be as transparent as possible with Mr. Dunning, that he acted in good faith and that he engaged with Mr. Dunning upon discovering his lack of support for the proposal. He said that he tried to address issues and to be context-sensitive. He also highlighted the current housing crisis, the need for additional housing units and the government’s focus on increasing housing options.

21Mr. Moote opined that the variances met the four tests, were consistent with the PPS, had regard for the matters of Provincial interest, and facilitate a development that represents good land use planning. He said that each variance was independently supported, as was the collective impact of the variances as a whole.

22He stated that the proposal:

… offers a well-designed site plan that provides an architectural design that is sympathetic to the primary dwelling and the surrounding heritage neighbourhood. Accordingly, the proposed development offers an attractive, high quality, built form that enhances the built environment with minimal impact to neighbouring land uses. (Exhibit 1a, page 103, paragraph 33)

23Mr. Moote’s written and oral evidence was very detailed, focusing on each of the eight variances. The Tribunal has summarized his evidence as follows:

No.

Variance

Summary

1

To reduce the minimum rear yard setback to detached accessory dwelling unit from 1.2 m to 0.6 m

• Is technical in nature, as condition predates the ZBL
• Maintains existing condition
• Is desirable, appropriate and historical
• Would not compromise drainage or maintenance, therefore meets the intent of the ZBL

2 3

To reduce the minimum interior side yard setback (east) to the first floor of a detached accessory dwelling unit from 1.2 m to 0.0 m To reduce the minimum interior side yard setback (east) to the portion of the of the detached accessory dwelling unit, above ground level from 1.2 m to 0.2 m

• Are technical in nature and recognize the existing legal non-conforming condition
• ADU’s east wall will not dominate the neighbouring balcony as the wall will be lower and sloping away from the balcony, providing a more airy feel than a solid wall would
• Meet the intent of the ZBL to ensure drainage, access for maintenance and to mitigate separation of uses

4

To reduce the minimum distance between two buildings (for detached accessory dwelling unit) from 3.0 m to 1.6 m

• Is technical in nature, largely recognizing the existing relationship between the existing garage and the principal residence
• Is desirable and appropriate
• Meets the intent of the ZBL, which is to maintain appropriate separation between buildings
• Causes no further constraints to access on the ground floor
• Causes no adverse impacts to privacy on the Subject Property as a result of the second floor

5

To increase the maximum accessory structure height from 6.0 m to 7.1 m to peak of roof

• Would allow a peak of the roof at 7.1 m, which would open up the ceiling, providing an airy feeling in the ADU, which is desirable
• Since 6 m is permitted as of right, the visual impact would be negligible when viewed from the neighbouring balcony
• Is desirable and appropriate
• Meets the intent of the ZBL to regulate impact on neighbouring uses (particularly sun shadow and overlook impacts), as the roofline rises away from the neighbouring balcony
• Sun shadow impact to the neighbouring balcony will be limited, as the roofline rises away and there is a 1.0 m difference between the second floor of the ADU and the balcony
• Will blend with the heritage context of the neighbourhood and remain subordinate to the principal dwelling

6

To reduce the required parking space for accessory dwelling unit from 0.5 to 0 parking spaces

• Would have minimal impact, as the Subject Property is within walking distance of the downtown area, Brock University campus and bus routes, and there is overnight street parking
• Is desirable and appropriate
• Meets the intent of the ZBL to recognize the parking needs of the principal dwelling and the ADU
• While the existing driveway doesn’t meet the required measurements in the ZBL, two cars can be parked in the driveway

7

To increase the maximum encroachment of the eaves and gutters into the required yard from within 0.15 m of the lot line to within 0.0 m of the lot line

• The second storey of the ADU has been set back 0.2 m to allow for construction and maintenance, thereby improving the current situation
• Is desirable and appropriate
• Meets the intent of the ZBL to limit encroachment of eaves and gutters and to ensure maintenance

8

To permit openings above 4.5 m on a facade facing an interior lot line for an accessory structure located within the required yards for the principal building.

• Windows are important for a living space and this would permit windows overlooking the Romanko backyard (on the west side) and driveway (on the south side)
• Important for the future ADU to offer natural light
• Causes no impact to the Dunning property
• Is desirable and appropriate
• Meets the intent of the ZBL to address overlook concerns, as the window locations and orientation pose no overlook nor compatibility concerns to the principal dwelling amenity space

24In addition, Mr. Moote explained that the proposed development conforms to the NOP as it:

a) uses existing infrastructure to manage growth and meet intensification targets; (Policy 2.2.1);

b) contributes to the Region’s intensification targets by directing growth through intensification in a built-up area (Policy 2.2.2); and,

c) provides a mix of housing options (Policy 2.3.1).

25Mr. Moote highlighted that, as the urban boundary in the City is completely built out, future growth must be accommodated through infill and intensification, as is contemplated by the proposed ADU. He opined that the variances conform to, and uphold, the intent and purpose of the policies in the City’s OP, including, but not limited, to those that:

a) promote new housing (Policy 2.3.3(5)(ii));

b) support housing diversity (Policy 2.3.3 (5)(iv));

c) require development to be based on sustainable design principles (Policy 4.2);

d) have compatible built form (Policy 4.3);

e) evaluate redevelopment based on a set of criteria (Policy 7.1); and,

f) outline requirements for Accessory Apartments (Policy 7.10).

26Mr. Moote opined that the variances meet the intent and purpose of the City’s ZBL. He stated that:

The variances facilitate housing that is appropriately situated on the property and adjacent land uses. The application permits a modest-sized living space above an existing garage. Varying the zoning provisions still achieves the goal of the by-law, which is to maintain functional lots and achieving appropriate spatial separations from abutting land uses. … [The variances facilitate] an appropriate design for an accessory dwelling unit that contributes positively to the neighbourhood in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent uses. (Exhibit 1a, page 123, paragraph 73-74)

27Mr. Moote opined that the proposed development is appropriate and desirable as the variances:

a) will permit a well-designed, modest-sized addition, on an appropriately- sized lot, which will improve and enhance the streetscape;

b) are minor in nature and will add another unit of housing; and

c) will not create a detrimental impact to neighbouring uses, grading or any other functional aspect of the development; and,

28Mr. Moote stated that the proposed variances are minor as they:

… deviate in small measure from the required regulation values and facilitate construction of an appropriate form and scale that is expected to have a minimal impact ... [and] the variances achieve the appropriate building addition on the property that provides additional housing, sufficient amenity space and does not negatively impact the enjoyment or privacy of neighbouring properties. As infill development, many of the variances are technical in nature, resulting from the existing building location. Accordingly, I believe the nature of the variances are minor in both degree and have negligible impact.” (Exhibit 1a, page 111, paragraph 54-55)

29Upon cross examination, Mr. Moote confirmed that the Dunning balcony was 1.3 m away from the property line and that, as the ADU’s second level east wall would be set back 0.2 m from the property line, the total space between the balcony and the second-storey wall would be 1.5 m.

30Based on his opinion evidence that the variances meet the four tests, have regard for the matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS and represent good land use planning, it was Mr. Moote’s recommendation that the Tribunal grant the variances as requested.

Evidence of the Added Party’s Witnesses

31Mr. Dunning showed the Tribunal a series of photos demonstrating the location of the existing garage in relation to his property. He highlighted that the wall of the existing garage is 0 m from the property line, while the second storey of the proposed ADU was planned to be set back just 20 cm from the property line. The balcony also acts as a fire escape for his son’s room and he raised concerns that even if fire-resistant material was used on the exterior of the ADU, should something go wrong, it would be just inches from his home, which is made of wood and was built in approximately 1906. He highlighted that the proposed ADU is much closer to the Dunning house, than it is to Mr. Romanko’s house.

Exhibit 2a, page 11

32Mr. Dunning explained that his kitchen (shown in the photo below) faces head on to the existing garage, and that the light going to it, as well as to the living room and dining room, would be impacted by the added height of the proposed ADU. He questioned how Mr. Moote could conclude there would be no impact without a sun/shade study.

Exhibit 2a, page 5

33Mr. Dunning explained that the balcony gets the light in the late afternoon and raised concerns that the wall of the ADU’s second storey, plus the upward-sloping roof, would block both the light and the view from the balcony and the main floor.

34Mr. Dunning described how the large spruce tree behind the Romanko garage regularly sheds needle debris. The current drainage pattern (from the front to the rear of the garage) already impacts his property as the needles plug the gutters during thunderstorms, resulting in water cascading down onto his property. He raised a concern that a similar problem would result from the needle debris build-up with the proposed new drainage pattern for the ADU, which would send water and debris from the top of the ADU’s roof sloping down towards his home.

35On cross-examination, Mr. Dunning agreed that a 6 m second storey, which could be built as-of-right, would impact the light onto and view from his property; however, he also pointed out that Mssrs. Romanko and Moote were both very concerned about ensuring there was enough natural light for the ADU.

36In her evidence, Ms. Semple said that variances no. 4 and 6, regarding the reduction of the minimum distance between the primary dwelling and the ADU, as well as the reduction in parking, both met the four tests of a minor variance.

37Ms. Semple’s overall opinion was that the other variances, when looked at collectively, should not be granted. She looked at the long-term impact of the variances and maintained that built form must be looked at in its locational context.

38Ms. Semple highlighted that the proposed design:

a) does not provide appropriate clearance between the ADU and the Dunning’s property line;

b) would overwhelm the neighbouring low-density residential use;

c) may pose engineering concerns for storm water;

d) does not provide sufficient space for maintenance on two sides, to the north (towards the parking lot) and the east (towards the Dunning home); and,

e) would create an undesirable, potentially confrontational situation with the Dunnings, which could require the use of City’s By-law 72-179 – Maintenance of Adjoining Lands to allow access onto the adjacent property in order to conduct maintenance.

39Ms. Semple spoke to the OP polices regarding compatibility with the street and neighbourhood context. In the April 11, 2025, Planning Report, she stated:

Section 7.1.(c)(i) of the GCP [Garden City Plan] states that development within the urban area shall be evaluated having regard for streetscape and neighbourhood context sensitive design to ensure integration of compatible building form, scale, massing, height, setbacks, spacing, siting, orientation, facades and architectural materials with adjacent buildings, properties and the surrounding neighbourhood. Additionally, Section 7.1.(c)(ii) directs evaluation of potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties in regard to grading, drainage, location and design of service utilities and areas, access and circulation. (Exhibit 1a, page 42)

40She said that appropriate “clearance between a building and the property line supports compatibility and integration of different uses and built forms in a neighbourhood.” The setbacks requested through the variances would mean the ADU would be in such close proximity to the adjacent amenity area (the Dunning balcony) that it could overwhelm that sensitive use. In her opinion, this is not in keeping with the intent and purpose of the OP, and the built form is not compatible with the adjacent building and property.

41As ADUs are often closer to adjacent properties and buildings, Ms. Semple explained that the proposed ADU is looked at differently than the principal dwelling. In her evaluation, she opined that the ADU failed to meet the intent of the OP or ZBL policies on redevelopment and compatibility. She said that while an ADU is desirable and good planning, this proposed ADU in this location is not good planning. She stated that:

Accessory buildings often interface more directly with adjacent amenity areas than principal dwellings since accessory structures are permitted to be located within portions of the property that the principal building cannot occupy (eg. rear yards). Accordingly, the Zoning By-law aims to protect adjacent outdoor amenity areas from negative impacts of taller accessory buildings and window on accessory buildings, by limiting its height. The requested height in this context, when combined with the requested reduced interior setbacks is not sensitive to the surrounding area and not minor in nature. Staff are concerned that the height of 7.1m in this location would contribute to overwhelming the adjacent residential dwelling and its associated private amenity space. Staff find the intent and purpose of the Official Plan policies is not maintained by the requested height increase, and not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands. (Exhibit 1a, page 44-45)

42Ms. Semple highlighted that the proposal’s location and height could impact both the second storey balcony and the rear yard amenity space, and that consideration of these variances must not just contemplate the current owner, but must also be thinking of the longer use of the building, twenty to fifty years out. She opined that the ZBL is in place to protect these types of adjacent outdoor amenity spaces from negative impacts caused by taller accessory buildings and that the proposal does not meet this intent.

43As put forth by Mr. Moote in his testimony, the height permitted as-of-right was 6 m. Ms. Semple said that she would not support an ADU with that height in this location and reiterated that she did not support the proposed increase in height to 7.1 m.

44When pressed in cross-examination, Ms. Semple said that had the proposal been fully compliant with the ZBL, the application would not have required any variances and would have gone straight to the building permit stage. She said that as all development has impacts, a compliant ADU would also impact the Dunning’s property in terms of light, view and vistas; however, she maintained that, in this location, the current proposal, as facilitated by variances no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, does not meet the intent of the OP or ZBL and is not minor nor desirable.

45Given the above concerns, while Ms. Semple agreed that an ADU on the Subject Property would generally conform to the policy framework, she concluded that “this built form in this context is not good planning.” She recommended that, as variances no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 fail the four tests, these variances should not be granted by the Tribunal.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

46As was put forward by Counsel for Mr. Dunning, this Appeal “raises the constant tension between the benefits of intensification, now including accessory dwelling units and the extent to which intensification should interfere with meaningful living space and privacy.”

47It was not disputed that intensification was encouraged and that the proposed ADU would create a new dwelling unit in an appropriate location, thereby contributing to the goals of the Province, Region and City to provide additional housing. The key question is whether this proposed two-storey ADU in this location meets the four tests of a minor variance.

48The Appellant, through its witnesses and submissions of its Counsel, spent considerable time and effort looking at each variance and its individual impact, while Mr. Dunning’s position was that the Tribunal must assess the locational context and the cumulative impact of the variances on the Dunning’s primary living space.

49Upon consideration, the Tribunal accepts the combined evidence of Mr. Moote and Ms. Semple that variances no. 4 and 6 meet the legislative tests required of a minor variance, and Mr. Moote’s evidence that both variances have regard for s. 2 of the Act and are consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal finds that variances no. 4 and 6, regarding the distance between the proposed ADU and the principal dwelling, and the reduction in parking, do not impact the adjacent property but instead impact the principal dwelling. The Tribunal will grant variances no. 4 and 6.

50In terms of the remaining variances (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8), the Appellant argued that the design: is context-sensitive, is of appropriate scale and massing in relation to existing dwellings, provides an appropriate transition and overall height with window orientations that minimize adverse impacts, such as privacy, and recognizes the character of the Yates Street Heritage District.

51However, the Tribunal prefers Ms. Semple’s evidence that the scale, massing and height of this proposed ADU are not appropriate and that this proposed built form is not appropriate in this location. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Semple’s evidence that the proposal would create an undesirable and incompatible situation with the neighbouring dwelling.

52Despite the Appellant’s position that there would be appropriate spatial separations from abutting land uses, the Tribunal finds that the spatial separation of the second level ADU and the Dunning primary living area is not appropriate, desirable or minor.

53OP policy 7.1 (c)(ii) states that development and redevelopment within the Urban Area shall be evaluated having regard for the following:

c) Building, site, streetscape and neighbourhood context sensitive design to ensure:

ii) Adverse impacts on adjacent properties are minimized in regard to grading, drainage, location and design of service utilities and areas, access and circulation, parking, transition in height, privacy, views, vistas, microclimatic conditions and protection of the natural features, functions and hazards. (Emphasis added)

54The Tribunal finds that the impact of the proposed ADU on the Dunning’s privacy, view and vista is not sufficiently minimized. On the balcony, while they now look out over a flat garage, if the remaining six variances were permitted, the Dunnings would look at a wall and roof 1.5 m away. This would mean a loss of view and a loss of openness. The variances would result in a residential use that would impact privacy, as the Dunnings would be living in very close proximity to the residents of the ADU, closer in fact than the Appellant would be. In addition, the amount of light which gets to the Dunning’s ground floor living space, such as the kitchen, would be less. This reduction in light would be a negative impact. The Tribunal finds that the intent of the OP policy is not met.

55The Tribunal accepts Ms. Semple’s evidence that the purpose of the ZBL is to protect the adjacent amenity area from negative impacts caused by taller accessory buildings and that the proposal does not meet this intent. The proposed 0.2 m setback of the second storey on the east side puts it 1.5 m from the Dunning balcony. In his closing submissions, Counsel for Mr. Dunning stated that a person on the balcony will be:

… confronted with the wall of the second storey of the ADU and confronted with more wall – the roof of the ADU … [The ADU] is simply too close to achieve any sense of falling away to the peak or creating an “airy” feeling. The Dunnings will experience a vertical wall and a significant sense of proximity and negative enclosure.

56The Tribunal finds that the intent of the ZBL is not met.

57Counsel for the Appellant presented the Tribunal with the Bubis v. Toronto (City) Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, a predecessor of this Tribunal, which states at paragraph 23:

In many cases which come before the Board, there is a balancing of interests and impacts which must be addressed. This is one of those cases and the Board has determined, based on the evidence, that the improvement sought to be undertaken by the Owners will enhance the neighbourhood and outweighs any impact which may be suffered by the Appellant. (Emphasis added)

58In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the improvement to the Romano property in the creation of an ADU outweighs the impact to the Dunning’s primary living area.

59While the proposed ADU is in an appropriate, perhaps even ideal, area and would provide an additional housing option in the City, the Tribunal finds that, when considered together, the remaining six variances (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8) would permit a built form that is not compatible with the adjacent dwelling, and would negatively impact the Dunning property in terms of light, proximity, and privacy.

60The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and regard for the related decision of the COA.

61In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that these six variances (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8) do not meet the general intent of the OP, do not meet the general intent of the ZBL, are not minor in nature and are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure. The Tribunal will not authorize these variances.

ORDER

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed, in part, and the following variances to By-law 2013-283 are authorized:

a) The minimum distance between buildings and a detached accessory dwelling unit is reduced from 3.0 m to 1.6 m; and,

b) The required parking space for an accessory dwelling unit is reduced from 0.5 to 0 parking spaces.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA 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.