Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 21, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000936

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

Applicant and Appellant: Cristiana Nuamah

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a driveway variance

Property Address: 15 Olde Town

Municipality/UT: City of Brampton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000936

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000936

OLT Case Name: Nuamah v. Brampton (City)

Heard: February 5, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Cristiana Nuamah (“Appellant/ Applicant”)	Cristiana Nuamah (Self Represented) *
City of Brampton	Eugenia Bashura

DECISION DELIVERED BY G. ROSS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

LINK TO ORDER

INTRODUCTION

1This is a Merit Hearing with respect to a minor variance appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act for the property located at 15 Olde Town (“Subject Property”), City of Brampton (“City”). The Applicant seeks relief from the provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) No. 270-2004 to permit a driveway width of 7.5 metres (“m”), whereas the ZBA permits a maximum driveway width of 7.0 m.

2On August 21, 2024, the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) issued a decision denying the application, citing that it does not meet the tests to qualify as a minor variance.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

3The relief sought from ZBA No. 270-2004 is to:

a. permit a driveway extension of 7.5 m, whereas ZBA No. 270-2004 states that the driveway cannot exceed 7.0 m in width, resulting in a variance of .5 m in order to allow an additional vehicle to park.

BACKGROUND, PARTIES AND EVIDENCE

4In advance of the Hearing, the Tribunal was in receipt of the City’s Book of Documents, Witness Statement, City’s Book of Authorities as Exhibits as noted in the Exhibit’s list. These were presented into evidence at the Hearing and marked as Exhibits 1 through 3.

5The Applicant/Appellant was self-representative and appeared as her own non-expert witness. The Appellant was sworn in as a non-expert witness allowing any uncontested information provided to be weighted appropriately as factual.

6The City appeared in support the Decision of the COA who denied the request for the variance. The City called upon one Expert Witness - Paul Brioux – ( “Expert” ) who was qualified by the Tribunal in the area Land Use Planning (“expert”)

7The City and the Appellant confirmed there were no additional written or in person Parties at the COA hearing, and no further requests were made to the Tribunal for Participant or Party status.

8The Appellant/witness key submissions included:

a. the request for approval relates to a practical need to ensure safe, convenient, and accessible use of the driveway for her family including young children, caregivers, and seniors with mobility needs, to minimize risk from private vehicle movement or traffic and;

b. after receiving a notice from the City the Appellant met with the City’s Building department. The staff member advised the Appellant to apply for a minor variance given the extension was only .5 m., and that;

c. further City staff – having reviewed “the photo map” of the lot – indicated ample green space around this corner property noting that the Variance would likely be approved and;

d. further that the Appellants’ architect measured the property and confirmed that the Appellants’ corner lot green space of 202.8 square metres (“m2”) of grass was ample to meet the City’s requirements, even after accounting for the extension. The Appellant further noted that this information was given to the City – later confirmed on a point of clarification to the City and Appellant. Therefore, any environmental concerns were addressed and the Appellant noted that;

e. they have a legal basement unit and the additional .5 m variance allows the two residing families to move in an out of the home safely and with more ease and that;

f. the additional driveway extension does not in any way block the walkway or front entrance, and further noting that the City’s own photo evidence clearly confirms that fact and that;

g. the City continues to say there is room for four cars yet, over the past year there has never been more than the two vehicles as shown in the City’s own photo presented at the hearing, and only one variance is being sought and that;

h. the costs to date have been a financial burden, and highly stressful and could have potentially been avoided with proper communications and that;

i. the City planner was supposed to make contact to discuss solutions but never reached out to do so. This was later confirmed by the City on a point of clarification.

9The City Expert’s key submissions included:

a. the Minor Variance should not be granted to permit an increased driveway width to 7.5 m. creating a .5 m variance exceeding the maximum permitted width of 7 m as per the City’s ZBA. Further they submitted that the driveway had already been expanded to 7.5 m without obtaining approvals and that;

b. the proposed variances did not meet the four tests of a minor variance as set out in s.45(1) of the Planning Statement specifically Policy 2.3.1.2 relating to “land use patterns within settlement areas to be based on densities and a mix of land uses which are transit-supportive” as appropriate and that;

c. the requested variance does not align with the City’s Official Plan (“COP”) or the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and;

d. does not meet the general intent of the PPS 2.3.1.2 – Tab 12 of City Doc Book related to land use patterns within settlement areas and that;

e. the proposed variance does not create a pedestrian and active transportation-oriented environment as it emphasizes driveway and parked vehicle use and impacts the streetscape and design elements of the house and that;

f. the variance will create excessive parking in the front yard allowing up to four vehicles to park and that;

g. the proposed variance removes landscaping on the front yard impacting streetscape and character of the neighbourhood and creates hard surfaces which reduce the “run-off water infiltration “area and that;

h. the driveway width does not confirm to objectives in policy 4.11.2.1.2 relating to vehicular parking on the streetscape that impacts built form, design elements and a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment, concluding that access to the front entrance and porch would be blocked by vehicles and that;

i. the proposed variance does not meet the City’s Urban Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 which addresses minimization of the impact of driveways on streetscape moving focus from entrances and design features such as porches, windows and landscaping and that;

j. the objectives outlined in Policy 4.2.7 of the COP objectives – to avoid overuse of front yard driveways for vehicle parking and encourage driveway design that is complementary to the house and lot size and that;

k. guidelines 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 which address driveway widths are not to be wider then garages to reduce the visual impact of vehicles, preserve green space, and help maintain a visually balanced and aesthetically pleasing streetscape has not been met and that;

l. the proposed variance could potentially impact access of emergency vehicles and that;

m. the development does not meet the City’s ZBL No. 270-2004 and that the changes create a precedent.

FINDINGS

10The Tribunal accepts the submissions provided by the Applicant presented as evidence. There was no contradictory submission to conclude the testimony under oath was not factual, however the Tribunal does not consider the financial burden - noted above in paragraph 8 - when considering the merits of the case, and that;

11Safety concerns related to the driveway extension do not pose a risk to private or public, health and safety. The PPS 2 at s.3.1.2 states, “development including extended parking space must ensure that they can be safely accessed without posing risks to public health and safety” and;

12Within the Provincial mandate, noting section 3.3.4, the Tribunal finds the driveway is suitable and viable as a legal use of the property and;

13The variance is minor in nature and meets the Four Tests for a minor variance as it does not: “significantly impact neighbouring properties”; is “desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land”; does “maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL” does “conform to the general intent and purpose of the official plan”. and The Document Book photographic evidence at Tab 5 pg. 15 demonstrates the neighbouring properties have multiple cars parked, and that;

14The Tribunal finds that the general intent of ZBA No. 270-2004 has been met with a modest variance of .5m and that the position of the driveway extension does not impact the design elements such as the windows and entrance way as noted above in paragraph 9 and that;

15No evidence was provided to support assumptions that the minor .5 variance is what will be used for four vehicles to park. Further, the Tribunal accepts the submission by the Appellant that there have only been two vehicles in total parked on the property over the past year – one on the original parking space and one in the extension area – which was to accommodate safety and access of those residents with mobility issues as evidenced in the City Document Book Tab 3 (pg. 11), Tab 4 (pg. 13) and that;

16The Tribunal rejects the conclusion that the entrance way to the home will be blocked, especially given that the reason submitted for the extension is to accommodate better access and safer movement within the front area of the home. The existing walkway to the front entrance remains unobstructed, and the photos provided by the City’s Exhibit in the Document Book Tab 3 (pg. 11), Tab 4 (pg. 13) and Tab 5 (pg.15) demonstrates that not more than two cars in total have been parked in the front yard driveway over the past year. Further, any municipal by-law infraction can by addressed by the municipal by-law enforcement division and that;

17On the point of clarification, both the City and the Applicant concur that while not in compliance with the City’s Policies, there is technically room behind the original approved parking space in front of the garage, to park another vehicle at the Subject Property and for neighbouring properties to do to park there as well. This is evident in the Document Book Tab 5 (pg.15). Given this other space is not being utilized at the Subject Property, it reinforces the area being used ensuring there is better access for the residents with mobility issues as stated under oath in paragraph 8 and;

18The Tribunal accepts the findings presented by the Applicant that the 208 m2. of grass area maintained with the extension meets the City’s requirements and mitigates any environmental concerns related to run off and that;

19While the Applicant initially failed to navigate proper procedure and approvals to add the extension, the Tribunal concludes that absence of communication by Planning staff to discuss possible solutions - confirmed on a point of clarification addressed to the City and the Applicant - may have influenced outcomes and that;

20Paragraph 21 below, indicates modifications can be permitted by way of permits and that;

21This application has regard for s. 2 of the PPS, including:

a. the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

b. the adequate provision of a full range of housing; and

c. the appropriate location of growth and development and that;

d. consistent efficient use of land and infrastructure;

e. Maintains permeable landscaping; and

f. Must maintain Driveway width and obtain permits for driveway modifications.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the Variance to Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 is authorized.

“G. Ross”

G. Ross 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.