Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000083

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tariq Ayesha Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of two lots Reference Number: B33/24 Property Address: 69 Ontario Street Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000083 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000083 OLT Case Name: Ayesha v. Cambridge (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tariq Ayesha Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of two lots Reference Number: B34/24 Property Address: 69 Ontario Street Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000103 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000083

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tariq Ayesha Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of two lots Reference Number: A85/24 Property Address: 69 Ontario Street Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000106 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000083

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

Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of two lots Reference Number: A84/24 Property Address: 69 Ontario Street Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000105 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000083

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tariq Ayesha Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of two lots Reference Number: A84/24 Property Address: 69 Ontario Street Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000104 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000083

Heard: May 21, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative*
Tariq Ayesha	Farhan Mahmood*
City of Cambridge	Did not attend

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns appeals filed pursuant to ss. 45(12) and 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), by Tariq Ayesha (“Appellant”), regarding the decision of the City of Cambridge’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) which denied two consent applications and three minor variance (“MV”) applications (together, “Applications”) for the property municipally known as 69 Ontario Street, Cambridge (“Site”).

2The Site is located on the north side of Ontario Street, between Redwood Avenue and Black Street. It is approximately 751 square metres (“m²”), with a 32.35 metre (m”) lot width along Ontario Street. A single-detached dwelling is currently built on the Site. It is zoned R4 which is Low/Medium Density in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”).

3The City Planning Staff recommended refusal of the applications commenting that the proposed Applications will result in:

a. Three lots that are not compliant with Zoning By-Law No. 150-85 (“ZBL”) for required rear yard setback, frontage, and lot area which will deviate from the intent to have spatial separation, provide parking, provide amenity space, and have open landscaping.

b. Undersized parcel sizes that are not compatible with lot sizes in the neighbourhood. Two lots located to the west are comparable in size but are located in RS1 zoning which allows for semi-detached dwellings on smaller lots. The average lot size, including the RS1 lots within 60 m of the Site, is 505 m² making the proposed lots the smallest in the area.

c. Difficult to maintain retaining walls around a large portion of the Site to deal with a prominent grade change. This may have potential drainage impacts to abutting properties.

d. A failure to meet many of the criteria outlined in s.51(24) of the Act.

4On January 8, 2025, the CoA refused the Applications, citing as its rationale:

a. the proposal is not minor in nature;

b. it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-Law; and

c. it does not represent desirable and appropriate development of the Site.

APPLICATIONS/ VARIANCES REQUESTED

5The Applications requested the following:

a. a severance of the Site into three lots:

• retained lot (B33/24);
• severed lot #1 (B33/24); and
• severed lot #2 (B34/24).

b. relief from Zoning By-Law 150-85 as follows:

• retained lot (A83/24): A) s.3.1.2.2(a)(i) - Lot area: 249.5 m² from the required 450 m²; B) s.3.1.2.2(b)(i) - Lot Frontage: 10.78 m from the required 15 m; C) s.3.1.2.2(g) - Rear Yard Setback: 5.0 m from the required 7.5 m.

• severed lot #1 (A84/24): A) s.3.1.2.2(a)(i) - Lot area: 250.15 m2 from the required 450 m2; B) s.3.1.2.2(b)(i) - Lot Frontage: 10.78 m from the required 15 m; C) s.3.1.2.2(g) - Rear Yard Setback: 5.0 m from the required 7.5 m.

• severed lot #2 (A85/24): A) s.3.1.2.2(a)(i) - Lot area: 251.9 m2 from the required 450 m2; B) s.3.1.2.2(b)(i) - Lot Frontage: 10.78 m from the required 15 m; C) s.3.1.2.2(g) - Rear Yard Setback: 5.0 m from the required 7.5 m.

Parties

6The Tribunal received no Party or Participant status requests prior to or during the hearing.

SUBMISSIONS

7The Appellant attended the hearing but did not produce any land planning witnesses in support of their appeal. The Appellant provided fact evidence.

8The City did not attend the hearing.

ANALYSIS

Legislative Tests

9When considering a minor variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:

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.

10The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.

11With respect to the Appeal pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Act, in order to determine whether provisional consent should be granted, the Tribunal must be satisfied that a Plan of Subdivision is not necessary. If not, then regard must then be given to the criteria set out in s.51(24) of the Act including:

a. the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

b. whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

c. whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

d. the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

e. the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

f. the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

g. the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

h. conservation of natural resources and flood control;

i. the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

j. the adequacy of school sites;

k. the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

l. the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

m. the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

12The Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act when making a decision regarding the Applications. Section 2.1 of the Act states that the Tribunal shall have regard for:

a. any decision that is made under the Act by municipal council or by an approval authority and relates to the same planning matter; and,

b. any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority considered in making the decision described in clause (a).

13Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

14Finally, the Tribunal must decide whether the Applications are representative of good planning and in the public interest.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

15The Appellant stated that the proposed Applications have regard for matters of Provincial Interest and are consistent with the PPS as they promote intensification within the Urban Boundary and Delineated Built-Up Area in the OP.

General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law

16Section 8.4.2.2 of the City OP which speaks to Residential Compatibility states:

Infill, intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be minor in nature and will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character.

The following will be considered in assessing whether the development is minor in nature:

a) comparable building height, generally within two storeys of neighbouring buildings;

b) massing and scale;

c) similar lot coverage and side yard setbacks to neighbouring housing;

d) maintaining the predominant or average front yard setback;

e) built form that respects the façade details and materials of neighbouring housing, including garage width, porches, screening and architectural details;

f) transportation implications; and

g) appropriate parking arrangements and traffic movement

Rear Yard Setback

17The Appellant stated that the justification for the reduced rear yard setback was to maintain the streetscape. They said that with a reduced rear yard setback, the front of the proposed dwellings would better align with the neighbouring dwellings and would be a better fit for the character of the neighbourhood.

Lot Frontage

18The Appellant stated that there are multiple other properties in the City that have lot frontages below the required 15 m. They gave several examples of properties with similar lot frontages to the proposed MV.

19The Appellant’s submissions conflict with the City staff report which indicated that, while there are properties with lot frontages less than 15 m, the only properties that have comparable frontages to the proposed MV are zoned differently. The Site is zoned R4 and the comparably sized properties are zoned RS1. RS1 zoning allows for semi-detached dwellings on smaller lots.

20The Appellant explained that two properties on Ontario Street (11 and 15) have 10 m frontages instead of the required 15 m.

21The City staff report does not include 11 Ontario Street and 15 Ontario Street.

Lot Size/Area

22The Appellant stated that there are multiple properties in the City that have smaller lot areas than the required 450 m². They provided a list of properties that had smaller lot areas than 450 m². The Appellant explained that two nearby properties on Ontario Street (11 and 15) have deeper lots making their lot areas over 350 m².

23The Appellant’s submissions conflict with the City staff report which indicated that, while there are properties with lot sizes less than 450 m², the only properties that have comparable lot sizes to the proposed MV are zoned differently. The Site is zoned R4 and the comparable properties are zoned RS1. RS1 zoning allows for semi-detached dwellings on smaller lots.

24The staff report states that the average lot size within 60 m of the Site is 505.25 m². The staff report states that substantially deficient lot sizes are in conflict with the ZBL.

25Three of the criteria for a consent, as listed in s. 51(24) of the Act, are:

c. whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

f. the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; and

h. conservation of natural resources and flood control.

26The Appellant stated that the proposed severances to create three lots are in provincial and public interest and conform to the OP. They stated that the area would benefit from intensification and higher density as mentioned in the OP.

27The City staff report states that the proposed severances do not conform to the ZBL and will result in a lack of “adequate space to maintain setbacks, spatial separation, provide parking, amenity space and open landscaping".

28The City staff report raised concerns about potential drainage impacts for the street as there is a prominent grade change toward the end of Ontario Street. Pictures in the City staff report show that the land elevation of the Site drops significantly on the eastern portion of the property. The City staff report stated that “the new lots are anticipated to have potential impacts on drainage and character of the existing neighbourhood”.

29The Appellant explained that they have had retaining walls designed and a grading plan drafted by AM Engineering to address this issue.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land

30The Appellant stated that the neighbourhood is primarily single detached dwellings. The Appellant submits that the Applications are desirable for appropriate development and use of the land. They explained that the severances are appropriate for the area and character of the neighbourhood. They also stated that no neighbours have objected to the proposed Applications.

31The City staff report states that the proposed lot sizes are not appropriate for the neighbourhood. The City staff report highlights that the proposed severances result in undersized lots which do not have regard for multiple criteria in s.51(24) of the Act as follows:

b) the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; and

i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services.

Is Minor in Nature

32The Appellant stated that the MV applications are minor in nature without providing additional context or explanation. They provided examples of other properties with comparable sizes and frontages.

33The Appellant stated that the proposed development is for three single detached dwellings. They submit that the neighbourhood is predominantly single detached dwellings and that the proposed development will fit the character of the neighbourhood.

34The City staff report has indicated that the required MVs are not minor as they would result in undersized lots, both in area and frontage, which would not be compatible with the lot sizes within the neighbourhood. The staff report states that the MV applications will result in a lack of spatial separation, amenity space, and open landscaping.

FINDINGS

35In general, the Tribunal does not have concerns with the Applications when evaluated against s.2 of the Act or the PPS and accepts the proposal would promote intensification within the Urban Boundary and Delineated Built-Up Area. However, the PPS also speaks to the importance of the Official Plan. As discussed further below, the Tribunal’s decision, in this case, turns on its the evaluation of the variances against the four tests in s. 45(1) and the consents against the applicable criteria in s. 51(24). To the extent that portions of the relief requested in the Applications do not conform/maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP, the Tribunal similarly finds them to be inconsistent with the PPS.

Minor Variances

36The Tribunal accepts that the requested reduction to rear yard setbacks is minor, will maintain the streetscape and will help maintain the character of the neighbourhood in conformity with OP policies respecting Residential Compatibility. The Tribunal finds that the reduced rear yard setbacks satisfy the four tests set out in s.45(1) of the Act.

37The Tribunal similarly accepts that reducing the lot frontages can be considered minor as there are nearby properties, that share the same zoning as the Site, which have similar frontages. The Tribunal finds that the reduced lot frontages satisfy the four tests set out in s.45(1) of the Act.

38The Tribunal does not accept that the requested reduction in lot areas maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL and further finds it is not a desirable use for the land and is not minor. The majority of the properties relied upon as comparative examples to support the Appellant’s position were not considered persuasive, as they are zoned differently and the few that share the same zoning have larger lot areas providing more spatial separation and amenity space. The Tribunal finds that the reduced lot areas do not satisfy the four tests set out in s.45(1) of the Act.

Consent

39With regard to the applicable criteria in s. 51(24) and in particular, the proposed lot areas, the Tribunal finds they are undersized, do not represent the lot patterns and/or massing of the surrounding area, and do not conform to the OP’s requirements for residential compatibility. While the Tribunal does accept that the Appellant has addressed the drainage concerns raised in the City staff report, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed undersized lots are compatible with, and will not result in adverse impacts upon, the character of the neighbourhood. The Tribunal finds the requested severances do not have appropriate regard for the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act in particular the sections outlined in the City staff report.

Good Planning and Public Interest

40When considering a planning application, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it constitutes good planning. In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied of this.

41While the Appellant stated that the proposed Applications would fit into the character of the neighbourhood and maintain the streetscape, the proposed lot areas are undersized, do not fit the lot patterns of the neighbourhood, and would be the smallest lots in the area.

42The Tribunal finds that the proposed Applications are not representative of good planning and are therefore not in the public interest.

SUMMARY

43The Tribunal is satisfied that the requested MVs in relation to rear yard setbacks and lot frontages meet the necessary legislative tests, but is not similarly satisfied with regard to lot areas, which the Tribunal finds are not in conformity with the OP, and are not consistent with the PPS. Accordingly, the Tribunal will authorize the rear yard setback and lot frontage reductions, but not the reduced lot sizes/areas.

44The Tribunal will not give the provisional consent requested, as it is not suitable for the land, does not conform to the OP, and the dimensions/shapes of the proposed lots would not be compatible with the character of the neighbourhood.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal pursuant to s.45(12) of the Act is allowed in part, and the following variances to the City of Cambridge’s Zoning By-Law No. 150-85 are authorized:

a. Lot Frontage: 10.78 Meters(“m”) from the required 15 m

b. Rear Yard Setback: 5.0 m from the required 7.5 m

46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT in all other respects, the appeal pursuant to s.45(12) of the Act is dismissed.

47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal pursuant to s.51(24) of the Act is dismissed and the provisional consent is not to be given.

"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.