Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 02, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000042
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Shilpa Shilpa
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a personal service shop (salon) with 0 parking spaces as a home occupation in a semi-detached dwelling.
Reference Number: A-2024-0411
Property Address: 34 Hollowgrove Boulevard
Municipality/UT: City of Brampton/Region of Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000042
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000042
OLT Case Name: Shilpa v. Brampton (City)
Heard: May 28, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Shilpa Shilpa Nitin Khanna
Manpreet Kohli* (in absentia)
City of Brampton
Matthew Rea Rashad Usmanali (Articling Student)
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link To Final Order
INTRODUCTION
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 Shilpa Shilpa and Nitin Khanna (collectively, the “Appellant”) regarding the decision of the City of Brampton’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) to deny the minor variance (“MV”) application to allow a personal service shop (beauty salon) as a home occupation in a semi-detached dwelling and to permit zero parking spaces for the home occupation at the property known as 34 Hollowgrove Boulevard (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellant requested a MV from Zoning By-Law No. 270-2004 (“ZBL”) to:
a. Permit a personal service shop (beauty salon) as a home occupation in a semi-detached dwelling, whereas the ZBL only permits an office as a home occupation in a semi-detached dwelling; and
b. Permit zero parking spaces for 18.59 square metres (“sq m”) home occupation, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum of one parking space for every 20.0 sq m of floor area occupied by the home occupation.
3On December 10, 2024, the CoA refused the application, citing the City Staff Report as its rationale:
a. That the variance does not meet the intent of the ZBL;
b. That the proposal is not desirable for the Subject Property; and
c. The proposal is not minor in nature.
4At the start of the Merit Hearing, the Appellant indicated, via an email to the Case Coordinator, their intention to withdraw their appeal Application.
ORDER
5THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, having received confirmation from the Appellant that the Appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, appealing the Committee of Adjustment’s decision of the City of Brampton relating to 34 Hollowgrove Boulevard, is withdrawn in its entirety, the Appeal is dismissed, and the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to refuse the Minor Variance application is final.
“A. Snowdon”
A. SNOWDON 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.