Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 21, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000530

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Neo Construction Inc.
Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority
Description: Consent and MV applications to facilitate the development of 8 residential units
Reference Number: B23/25
Property Address: 29 Henry Street N1R 3W3
Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000530
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000530
OLT Case Name: Neo Construction Inc. v. Cambridge (City)

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

Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Consent and MV applications to facilitate the development of 8 residential units
Reference Number: A49/25
Property Address: 29 Henry Street N1R 3W3
Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000525
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000530

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

Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Consent and MV applications to facilitate the development of 8 residential units
Reference Number: A50/25
Property Address: 29 Henry Street N1R 3W3
Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000531
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000530

Heard: October 8, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Neo Construction Inc. (“Applicant”)	Ben Eby

DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This matter relates to appeals by Neo Construction Inc. (the “Applicant’) under s. 53 (19) and s. 45 (12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), in response to the City of Cambridge’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) decision to refuse a Consent and two Minor Variance Applications (together the “Applications”) that proposed to sever the property municipally known as 29 Henry Street (“Subject Property”) into two separate residential lots. Each resulting lot is proposed to accommodate one single detached dwelling, containing three attached Additional Residential Units (“ARUs”) for a total of eight residential units across the two parcels. To facilitate the proposed development, Minor Variances are required from the applicable zoning by-law, including a reduction in minimum lot area; a reduction in rear yard setback; a reduction in the number of required parking spaces; a change to the permitted location of parking for the principal dwelling; and an increase in the number of attached ARUs beyond what is currently permitted.

2The COA for the City considered the Consent Application (B23/25) and Minor Variance Applications (A49/25 and A50/25) at its meeting on June 18, 2025, and refused the Applications, noting that in its opinion, it did not meet the objectives and criteria set out in s. 51 (24) of the Act, was not minor in nature, and did not represent good planning.

3Before turning to the applicable legislative tests under s. 51(24) and 45(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must first determine the proper characterization of the proposed use. In particular, the Tribunal must decide whether the proposed buildings constitute single detached dwellings, each containing three ARUs, as asserted by the Applicant, or whether they functionally represent apartment dwellings, as characterized by City staff. This determination is fundamental, as it defines the applicable zoning permissions and informs whether the consent and associated variances can be considered within the scope of the existing zoning framework.

SITE CONTEXT AND PROPOSAL

4The Subject Property is located at the southeast corner of Henry Street and Birch Street with the lot having approximately 599 square metres (“m²”) in area with a frontage of approximately 22.29 meters (“m”) on Henry Street and 26.85 m on Birch Street.

5The Subject Properly is generally flat and square in shape and currently contains a two-storey duplex building, with an accessory structure that has been converted into a third residential unit. Vehicular access is provided by two driveways, one from Henry Street and one from Birch Street, with the parking for the accessory unit located in front of the building.

6The surrounding neighborhood is an established residential area characterized by a grid street pattern, and a mix of lot sizes and dwelling types. The immediate area includes predominantly single-detached and semi-detached homes, ranging from one to three storeys in height. The architectural character varies with a mix of century stone homes, mid-century dwellings, and more recent infill development, including contemporary semi-detached units. Corner lots in this area commonly featured parking in rear or side yards, while some properties provide parking within the front yard areas.

7The Subject Property is located within one block of the community park and is approximately 800 m of the downtown Ainslie Transit Station. Thus, the Subject Property is situated outside of the designated Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”).

8The Subject Property is designated Low-Medium Density Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned R4, under Zoning By-law 150-85, which allows a range of residential uses, including single detached dwellings. In 2023, the City adopted By-law 23-077, which introduced permissions for up to two ARUs on low rise residential lots, supporting the underlying R4 zoning.

9The proposal involves the redevelopment of the Subject Property through a consent to sever and associated minor variance applications. The Applicant seeks to create two residential lots, each to accommodate a single detached bungalow containing three ARU’s.

10The Applicant is seeking to sever a lot in area of 256.2 m², with a frontage of 9.54 m from 29 Henry Street. The retained lot would be comprised of a lot with an area of 343.7 m² and lot frontage of 12.8 m.

11Each proposed dwelling is designed in a bungalow form with individual front entrances for the principal units and individual side yard entrances for providing access to the ARUs. The proposed buildings each have a total gross floor area of approximately 193 m², consisting of a primary dwelling and one ARU on the main floor and two ARU’s in the basement (each unit with identical sizes of 48.25 m²). In total the proposed development would result in eight dwelling units across the two lots.

12To facilitate the proposed development, the Applicant requires a series of minor variances for each of the proposed lots. The requested variances are summarized as follows:

Proposed Severed Lot (Henry Street):

i. A minimum lot frontage of 9.5 m, whereas the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 m;

ii. A minimum lot area of 256.8 m², whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 450 m²;

iii. A minimum rear yard of 6 m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 m;

Proposed Retained Lot (Corner):

i. A minimum lot frontage of 12.7 m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 m;

ii. A minimum lot area of 343.7 m², whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 540 m²

iii. A minimum rear yard of 6 m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 m;

For Both Proposed Lots:

i. A minimum of three attached ARU’s per residential lot, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum of two attached ARU’s per residential lot;

ii. A minimum of two parking spaces, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum total of four parking spaces; and

iii. A parking stall for the principal dwelling unit to be located in front of the regulatory building line or established building line, whereas the ZBL requires that the required parking for the principal dwelling unit is located behind the regulated building line or established building line, whichever is less.

13A diagram and rendering of the development proposal is illustrated below for reference:

APPLICABLE TESTS

14When considering a proposed consent, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Application has regard to the criteria set out in s. 51 (24) of the Act; including whether the proposed consent is premature or in the public interest; whether there is conformity with the region and city official plans and applicable zoning by-laws; and the suitability of the land for the purpose for which it is to be subdivided.

15The Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in section 45 (1) of the Act, and all four elements must be satisfied in determining the requested Variances:

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
4. Is minor in nature.

16Lastly, the Tribunal must consider whether the proposed Consent and Minor Variances, along with any required conditions, are representative of good planning and are in the public interest.

PARTIES AND EVIDENCE

17At the outset of the hearing the Tribunal heard a request for Participant status from Andrea Jonahs, who resides adjacent to the Subject Property. Ms. Jonahs expressed concerns regarding the proposed development, including the level of residential intensification, adequacy of parking, and potential impacts on noise, privacy, and neighborhood character. The Tribunal granted Ms. Jonahs Participant status, and her Participant Statement was received and marked as Exhibit 4.

18The City advised the Tribunal in advance of the hearing that it would not be participating in the proceeding. As such, the City did not appear or provide evidence at the hearing.

19The Applicant was self-represented and called one expert witness, Ryan Mounsey a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Mr. Mounsey provided his curriculum vitae, executed the Tribunal’s Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty, and submitted an Expert Witness Statement. Based on his qualifications and prior experience before the Tribunal, Mr. Mounsey was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the disciplines of land use planning and urban design.

20Mr. Mounsey additionally sought to be qualified to provide expert evidence in development approvals. The Tribunal declined to grant this qualification, finding that such an area does not constitute a distinct discipline for the purpose of expert opinion under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, and that no specialized credentials or evidentiary basis were provided to support that designation.

21During the hearing, the Applicant’s Planning Witness sought to introduce a legal opinion dated September 22^nd, 2025, prepared by Steven O’Melia of Miller Thomson LLP and an engineering opinion letter dated September 8, 2025, prepared by John Perks of JPE Engineering. The Tribunal acknowledges that the opinions were filed as part of the Applicant’s materials. However, as the authors of the opinions were not present and there was no opportunity for examination or clarification, the Tribunal has not considered the opinions in its findings or determination.

Applicant’s Position

22Mr. Mounsey provided extensive expert planning evidence in support of the proposed development, including analysis of compliance with the City Zoning By-law, the Official Plan, and the PPS 2024, as well as the appropriateness of the variances and the suitability of the Subject Property for residential intensification. While his evidence addressed the merits of the Consent and Minor Variance Applications, he did not provide a specific opinion or analysis regarding the procedural threshold issue of whether the application constitutes the consent under s. 51 (24) of the Act or a plan of subdivision. His evidence focuses on the planning merits, consistency with provincial and municipal policy, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Minor Variances

23The Applicant relied on the planning evidence of Mr. Mounsey, who described the proposal as a single-storey detached dwelling containing three accessory residential units, for a total of four self-contained units. He testified that each unit has its own exterior entrance, with no shared interior corridors, hallways, or common access points, and that the principal dwelling maintains a single entrance facing the public street. In his view, the building’s form and access arrangement align with a detached dwelling containing ARUs, rather than an apartment use. Mr. Mounsey referenced the definition of “apartment house” in the applicable zoning by-law, which states:

Apartment House means a residential building containing four or more dwelling units to each of which access is obtained through a common entrance or entrances from the outside and through a corridor or hallway from the inside, but does not include a row house, maisonette, mixed terrace or semi-detached duplex;

He stated that because the proposed units do not share an interior corridor or hallway, the development does not meet the definition of an “apartment house”. On this basis, he characterized the application as seeking minor variances to add one more ARU (a 25% increase in units per lot), rather than constituting a minor zoning change or an amendment to the by-law.

24Mr. Mounsey provided evidence regarding recent provincial housing reforms and their relevance to the proposal. He noted that the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23) amended the Planning Act to require municipalities to permit “up to three units per lot in low-density zones and to waive many approval barriers”. He further stated that “Cambridge has already amended its rules to conform – for example, amending the OP/Zoning to allow two ARUs on detached or semi-detached lots, and the City’s HAF Action Plan and new ARU program, echo these changes.”

25In his opinion, the proposed development meets the intent of the new provincial planning reforms and ARU mandates. He also opined that adding an additional unit beyond the two currently permitted by the City can be supported through the 2024 PPS, including splitting a lot to add units, furthering the Province’s goal of creating more small multi-unit homes in established neighbourhoods. Finally, he expressed that refusal of the application would, in his opinion, undermine the City’s housing commitments under the Housing Accelerator Fund, and would conflict with the public mandate for more diverse housing reflected in the City’s Housing Needs Assessment.

26Mr. Mounsey testified that the additional ARU does not alter the building envelope, height, massing, or setbacks, and the development remains ground-oriented, low-rise, and compatible with surrounding neighbourhood character. Comparable municipalities, including Waterloo, Kitchener, Guelph, London, and Collingwood, permit four units as-of-right (three ARUs) in single-detached dwellings without classifying them as apartment buildings. Accordingly, Mr. Mounsey concludes that the City’s characterization of the proposal as an apartment use is a misinterpretation of zoning definitions and land use intent.

27As such, Mr. Mounsey stated that the proposal is a permitted single-detached dwelling with ARUs, consistent with both the Official Plan’s low to medium-density residential policies and provincial objectives for missing-middle housing and that it provides a context for assessing the requested minor variances under Section 45(1) of the Act, confirming that the proposed additional unit aligns with the intended land use, built form, and policy framework.

28Mr. Mounsey testified that, in his opinion, the requested minor variances collectively satisfy all four tests set out in section 45(1) of the Act. He stated that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of both the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 150-85, are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the lands and are minor in nature. He explained that the additional ARU proposed for each lot represents a modest and compatible form of gentle residential intensification that aligns with the City’s and Province’s objectives to broaden housing choice and optimize existing urban land and services. Mr. Mounsey emphasized that the proposal does not alter the built form, building envelope, or streetscape character of the neighbourhood and therefore constitutes a technical adjustment rather than a substantive change in land use. In his opinion, the Applications represent good planning, are in the public interest, and implement the intent of recent provincial housing legislation and the City’s own policy direction to encourage gentle density within existing residential areas. In support of his position, Mr. Mounsey addressed each of the four statutory tests for the Minor Variances:

A. Maintenance of the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan a. The development is consistent with Official Plan policies promoting gentle density, compact development, and transit-supportive growth. b. The proposal adds mid-market rental housing in a compatible, low-rise form, in line with Official Plan objectives for intensification, housing diversity, and complete communities.

B. Maintenance of the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law i. The development is a single-detached bungalow with three ARUs, consistent with R4 zoning and site-specific Bylaw 23-077. ii. The fourth unit does not change the building form or scale and does not create an apartment use.

C. Desirability for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land i. The project provides modest infill housing with functional lots, services, landscaping, and access. ii. It supports mid-market rental housing, addresses local housing needs, and contributes to Housing Accelerator Fund targets. iii. The development is transit-supportive and within walking distance of schools, parks, and transit.

D. Minor in Nature i. The variances are internal only, with no changes to the building envelope, setbacks, or height. ii. No negative impacts on traffic, parking, servicing, sun-shadowing, or privacy are anticipated. iii. The increase from three to four units is modest and compatible with neighbourhood scale and character.

Consent

29Mr. Mounsey provided evidence addressing the criteria for consent set out in section 51(24) of the Planning Act. He testified that the proposed severance is not premature and is in the public interest, providing ground-oriented, purpose-built rental housing, including attainable and affordable units.

30It was the opinion of Mr. Mounsey that the proposal conforms to the City and Regional Official Plans, applicable Zoning By-laws and is consistent the 2024 PPS. In particular, Mr. Mounsey referenced:

• City of Cambridge Official Plan policies 2.2.1(b), 2.2.3.1, 2.6.1.6(b)(d)(f), and 2.8, supporting residential intensification, a range of housing types, transit-supportive development, and compatibility with the neighbourhood;
• Provincial Policy Statement (2024), which encourages efficient use of land, housing diversity, and complete communities.

31Evidence was provided by Mr. Mounsey that the lands are suitable for the intended use, with lot sizes and shapes consistent with surrounding properties and capable of accommodating the proposed development. He further opined that the dimensions and configuration of the lots are appropriate for residential development, maintaining the character of the neighbourhood and allowing for the intended dwellings on both the severed and retained lots.

32In summary, it is the opinion of Mr. Mounsey that the proposed severance is consistent with the 2024 PPS and conforms to the City and Regional Official Plans. He testified that the severance would enable compact and efficient residential growth on a fully serviced corner lot, support a greater mix of attainable housing, and is aligned with provincial housing policy objectives and matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act.

33Mr. Mounsey also testified that the proposed development meet all applicable technical standards. He noted that throughout the circulation of the Applications, no technical objections were identified by City departments or external agencies with respect to servicing, drainage, building code compliance, fire access, or traffic impacts. In his opinion, the absence of such objections demonstrates that the proposed development is technically feasible and capable of being implemented without any adverse functional or safety concerns.

34In addressing implementation, Mr. Mounsey advised that the Applicant accepts the standard conditions of approval identified in the City’s Planning Staff Report. He stated that these conditions are customary for consent and minor variance applications of this nature and ensure that the development proceeds in a coordinated and technically appropriate manner. The conditions include the preparation of a draft reference plan by a qualified surveyor, payment of the Region of Waterloo consent review fee, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland equal to five percent of the value of the severed land, and the preparation of servicing and grading plans to the satisfaction of the City’s Development Engineering Division.

35Mr. Mounsey testified that these conditions are intended to secure orderly lot creation and adequate municipal servicing, and that they are consistent with standard municipal practice. He further noted that the City’s recommended lapse date of June 18, 2027, provides sufficient time for the Applicant to fulfill these requirements.

36With respect to the related Minor Variance Applications, Mr. Mounsey indicated that the proposed conditions clarify that each variance (A49/25 and A50/25) would apply only to the respective parcels described in provisional consent B23/25, and that the variances would lapse in the event the consent is not finalized. He stated that these conditions ensure that the approvals remain coordinated and legally linked, reflecting a common implementation approach used by municipalities to maintain procedural consistency between consents and associated variances. Mr. Mounsey opined that the proposed conditions are reasonable and appropriate, having regard to the nature and scale of the development, and that they are consistent with standard municipal practices.

37Mr. Mounsey opined that the evidence he provided demonstrates that the consent and minor variances, with the proposed conditions, represent good planning and are in the public interest, supporting housing supply, gentle intensification, and transit-oriented development, while respecting neighbourhood character.

FINDINGS

38The Tribunal notes that the COA refused the Applications. In hearing this appeal, the Tribunal considers the matter de novo, and its determination is based on the evidence and submissions before it, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Planning Act.

39As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed lot creation requires approval by way of a plan of subdivision under s. 51 of the Act, or whether it may properly proceed by consent under s. 53. The Tribunal finds that a plan of subdivision is not required in this case. The proposal involves the creation of a single additional lot from an existing, fully serviced corner parcel. No new public roads, shared facilities, or servicing extensions are required, and no evidence was presented indicating that the level of coordinated planning provided through a subdivision process is necessary. While Mr. Mounsey did not provide a specific opinion on this threshold question the evidence before the Tribunal supports that the Application is appropriately processed as a consent.

40Before applying the statutory test for consent and minor variance, the Tribunal must first determine the proper characterization of the proposed development. This is a threshold issue because the applicable zoning permissions and consequently the scope within which the requested consent and variances may be considered depends on whether the proposed buildings constitute single-detached dwellings, each containing three additional ARUs, as asserted by the Applicant, or whether they functionally operate as ‘apartment houses’, as characterized by City staff. The Tribunal therefore assesses this foundational issue at the outset.

41The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence that each proposed building is a single story, ground-oriented dwelling compatible in scale and form with surrounding residential properties. Each unit has a separate exterior entrance, and the buildings do not contain shared internal corridors or common interior circulation space. On this basis, the Tribunal finds that the proposed use meets the definition of a single-detached dwelling containing additional residential units and does not meet the City's definition of an ‘apartment house’. This characterization governs the applicable zoning permissions and informs the subsequent analysis under section 51 (24) and 45 (1) of the Act.

Minor Variances

42The Tribunal has considered the requested Minor Variances under section 45(1) of the Act. The Applicant seeks to permit an additional (third) ARU within each proposed single-detached dwelling, for a total of four units per lot. The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence that the proposed dwellings remain single-storey, ground-oriented, and compatible in scale and form with surrounding residential properties. The Tribunal also accepts that the proposed units have separate exterior entrances, no shared corridors, and therefore do not constitute an “Apartment House” as defined by the City’s Zoning By-law.

43The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant’s planning evidence that other Ontario municipalities, such as Waterloo, Kitchener, Guelph, London, and Collingwood, have adopted permissions allowing three ARUs per lot, and that this reflects an emerging trend toward expanded housing flexibility. The Tribunal further acknowledges the reference to the PPS 2024, which encourages municipalities to facilitate a range and mix of housing options and gentle intensification within serviced settlement areas. However, benchmarking of other municipalities’ approaches does not inform this Tribunal’s determination. Each municipality implements the PPS through its own official plan and zoning framework, adopted and approved in accordance with the Act. The Tribunal must apply the planning instruments that are in force for the municipality in which the subject lands are located, and in this case, it is the City of Cambridge. The Tribunal cannot substitute or import policy approaches from other jurisdictions where those permissions have not yet been adopted locally.

44Under the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, a maximum of two ARUs are permitted per lot in association with a single-detached dwelling. The requested third ARU therefore exceeds the permissions in both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the PPS 2024 encourages municipalities to facilitate additional units “up to three” as-of-right on low-density residential lots, the City’s current zoning permits only two ARUs. Consequently, the proposed variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law or the Official Plan. The Tribunal finds that the application cannot properly be characterized as a minor variance, as it would, in effect, require an amendment to the Zoning By-law to authorize additional units beyond those currently permitted. The Tribunal also notes that the Subject Property is located outside of the downtown Ainslie Station MTSA and that the reduction in required parking to accommodate an additional unit raises functional and compatibility concerns.

45Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances fail to satisfy the tests set out in section 45(1) of the Act.

Consent

46The Tribunal has considered the proposed consent under the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. On the evidence before it, including the uncontroverted professional opinion of Mr. Mounsey, the Tribunal finds that the proposal would create two residential lots within a fully serviced and built-up area of the City. The Tribunal accepts that the lots are of adequate size and configuration for residential use and that the proposed severance would represent a modest form of infill from a physical and servicing perspective.

47However, the Tribunal notes that the stated purpose of the consent is to enable the construction of single-detached dwellings, each containing three ARUs, for a total of four self-contained units per lot. The Tribunal finds that the proposed lot creation is functionally and purposefully linked to that specific development concept. Because the proposal requires variances to permit a third ARU per lot, the consent cannot be implemented without approval of those variances. The Tribunal therefore considers the consent and variances together in determining whether the overall proposal represents good planning and conforms with applicable policy and regulatory frameworks.

48For these reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the proposed consent does not satisfy the criteria of section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and that the requested variances do not meet the four tests under section 45(1). The Applications do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the applicable Official Plan and Zoning By-law and are not minor in nature. Accordingly, provisional consent is not granted, and the associated minor variances are not authorized. The appeal is dismissed.

ORDER

49THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed, and the provisional consent is not to be given; and the variances to By-law No. 150-85 are not authorized.

“j. innis”

J. INNIS

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.