Mohammed Ahmed v. City of Brampton, 2025 CanLII 74204

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 15, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000147

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

Appellant

Mohammed Ahmed

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To widen driveway

Reference Number:

A-2024-0379

Property Address:

49 El Camino Way  (Lot 73, PIan .43R-28?63)

Municipality/UT:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000147

OLT Case Name:

Ahmed v. Brampton (City)

Heard:

May 2, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Agent*

Mohammed Ahmed (“Appellant”)

Mazhar Raja*

City of Brampton (“City”)

Matthew Rea (co-counsel) Raenelle Manning (co-counsel)

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of part of the application for Consent and Minor Variances (“Application”) to permit driveway widening on the lands municipally known as 49 El Camino Way (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2The Subject Lands, located on the south side of El Camino Way and east of Crown Victoria Drive, have an approximate lot area of 390.4 square metres with an approximate lot width of 12.2 metres (“m”) and lot depth of 32.0 m.

3There is an existing single-detached dwelling on the Subject Lands with a total of four legal parking spaces, two of which are located in the attached garage and two of which are in the driveway.

4The Subject Lands are designated as “Community Areas” (Schedule 1A-City Structure) and “Neighbourhood” (Schedule 2-Desginations) in the City’s Official Plan (“City OP”), which was scheduled to take effect on June 6, 2024, except for any sections that may be subject to appeal. Schedules 1A and 2 have been appealed on as city-wide basis, which therefore, 2006 Official Plan designations are in effect until the appeal is resolved. The 2006 version of City OP designates the Subject Lands as “Residential”.

5The Subject Lands are located and designated “Low/Medium Density Residential” in the Fletcher’s Meadow Secondary Plan 44.

6The City’s Zoning By-law No. 270-2004, as amended (“City ZBL”) zones the Subject Lands “Residential Single Detached D (R1D)-Special Section 1148”.

7The Appellant sought the approval of the following variances to permit the non-conforming existing driveway expansion in the front yard and the accessory structure in the rear yard.

1. To permit an accessory structure (existing shed) having a setback of 0.31metres tot the rear lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres to the nearest lot line;

2. To permit the accessory structure (existing shed) having a setback of 0.31 metres to the side lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres to the nearest lot line;

3. To permit a driveway width of 8.66 metres, whereas the by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 7.00 metres;

4. To permit 0.00 metre of permeable landscaping abutting the side lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres of permeable landscaping abutting the side lot line; and,

5. To permit a parking space depth of 5.10 metres (16.76 feet), whereas the by-law requires a minimum parking space depth of 5.1 metres (17.72 feet).

STATUS REQUEST

8The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant Status nor individuals at the Hearing requests for either status.

NOTICE OF HEARING

9There is no issue with notice of this Hearing.

EXHIBITS

10The following Exhibits were marked during the hearing:

1. City of Brampton-Document Book marked as Exhibit 1;

2. City of Brampton-Evidence outline marked as Exhibit 2;

3. Mohammed Ahmed, Appellant-Presentation marked as Exhibit 3;

4. Mohammed Ahmed, Appellant-OLT Appeal marked as Exhibit 4; and,

5. Staff recommendation report for the Reference Property (14 Keelview Cres) marked as Exhibit 5.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

11The Tribunal qualified François Hémon-Morneau, a candidate member for Registered Professional Planner, candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Professional Standards Board, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

12The Tribunal advised Mazhar Raja in advance of and during the Hearing that his opinion would not be considered as expert witness opinion due to his position acting as an agent of the Appellant, therefore, was not qualified as an expert witness to provide independent opinion on the matter before the Tribunal during the Hearing.

13Mr. Raja requested the Tribunal to list the Appellant and owner of the Subject Lands, Mohammed Ahmed, as a witness to provide factual evidence during the Hearing. Counsel for the City gained confirmation from Mr. Ahmed, which confirm that Mr. Ahmed was not a professional Land Use Planner. The Tribunal granted Mr. Ahmed would be a lay witness to provide evidence.

14Mr. Raja indicated that the Reference Property, another property in the City, was proposed with same variances and received approval from the City COA for all the variances at the same COA hearing. Mr. Raja stated that it appeared to be unfair to his client (Appellant) to receive the refusal from COA.

15Mr. Hémon-Morneau confirmed that Mr. Raja’s statement regarding the COA’s decision on the Reference Property was accurate and stated that the City’s staff report for this Reference Property provided the same recommendation to the COA with the refusal of the application. Mr. Hémon-Morneau further indicated that he was not clear on the reasons behind the different decisions of the COA on the two applications.

Variances #1 and #2

16Mr. Hémon-Morneau stated that the Variances #1 and #2 for an accessory structure located in the rear yard had no impact within and did not conflict with the context of the policies of the City OP. Mr. Hémon-Morneau further held the opinion that these two variances maintain the general intent of the City OP.

17Mr. Hémon-Morneau summarized an overview of the Variances #1 and #2 with respect to the City ZBL and held the opinion that these two variances would have no negative impacts to drainage or regular maintenance of the property, despite the reductions to the setbacks from the lot lines. Mr. Hémon-Morneau concluded that these two variances maintain the general intent of the City ZBL.

18Mr. Hémon-Morneau expressed his opinion that the accessory structure (existing shed) was modest in scale and size, minimizing the visual and spatial impacts, and did not compromise the character of the neighbourhood. Mr. Hémon-Morneau concluded that the variances for the shed, subject to the conditions in City staff report, were desirable and considered minor in nature.

Variances #3, #4 and #5

19Mr. Raja confirmed with Mr. Ahmed that the expanded driveway was intended to provide additional space for wheelchair moving around and not for another vehicle parking.

20Counsel for City challenged Mr. Raja and Mr. Ahmed regarding the use of the expanded driveway with a photo showing that there were three cars parked on the expanded driveway. The City’s Counsel continued to question the use of the expanded driveway by comparing the space for wheelchair moving around and the size of the expanded driveway, which stated that it was unnecessary to have excessive driveway for wheelchair movements. Counsel for the City also questioned Mr. Ahmed for the curb cut in the photo.

21Mr. Ahmed confirmed that three cars were parked there from time to time and the curb cut was complete without permit issued by the City, but they intended to reinstate the curb.

22Mr. Hémon-Morneau held the opinion that the reduction in open space permeable landscaping did not conform to the policies in the City OP, would result in water infiltration along the side property line and might cause parked vehicles overhanging onto the City’s right-of-way. Mr. Hémon-Morneau expressed concerns about the possible encroachment of the vehicle parking that could potentially impacted the accessibility of the sidewalk, which is required in the City’s Accessibility Technical Standards. In Mr. Hémon-Morneau’s opinion, the variance #5 was inconsistent with the Accessibility Technical Standards.

23Mr. Hémon-Morneau further stated that the City OP discouraged excessive parking of vehicles within the front yard on driveways, which the variances related to the expanded driveway were not consistent with the policies in the City’s Development Design Guidelines due to the impacts of the use of the extra parking space, including but not limited to the visual impacts of vehicles and loss of green space.

24Mr. Hémon-Morneau expressed that the major concern of the City was the depth of the expanded driveway and the proposed depth (5.1 m) did not meet the minimum parking space depth requirement (5.4 m) in the City ZBL, nor was desirable.

25Mr. Raja held the opinion that the City OP encouraged intensification and accessibility within the existing neighbourhood, and the expanded driveway providing wheelchair-accessible space aligned with the City’s goals of inclusive barrier-free design. Mr. Raja further indicated that the existing front yard with the expanded driveway still provided excess green space, which was beyond the requirements in the City ZBL.

26In Mr. Raja’s opinion, the requested variances were minor based on his calculation of the deviations from the requirements and all other provisions of the City ZBL, such as lot coverage and building size were met. Mr. Raja concluded that the variances maintained the general intent of the City ZBL.

27Mr. Raja stated that the driveway was expanded to accommodate the movement of the wheelchair and this proposal was desirable to provide accessibilities of the residents within the dwelling.

28During the Hearing, the Parties agreed on the approval of the variances #1 through #4 subject to the revisions to the conditions as imposed in the City’s staff report and the denial of the variance #5 in Paragraph [7]. The revised conditions are detailed as follows:

1. That the variance #5 be refused.

2. That the extent of the variances #1, 2, 3 and 4 is limited to that is shown on the sketch attached to the Notice of Decision.

3. That drainage on adjacent properties shall not be adversely affected.

4. That the owner shall reinstate the curb that has been modified, reducing the curb cut to the permitted seven (7) m.

5. That the Owner shall contact ROA.Permits@brampton.ca prior to starting any works and obtain a road occupancy permit should it be required.

6. That failure to comply with and maintain the conditions of the Committee shall render the approval null and void.

29The Tribunal finds that it is desirable to provide extra space in the expanded driveway for wheelchair accessibility to move around and the intent of the expanded driveway should not be for extra vehicle parking, which could possibly impact accessibility of the sidewalk.

30The Tribunal finds that the agreements reached during the Hearing are reasonable and that the public interest is protected by denying the variance #5 that is subject to appropriate conditions of the approval of the variances.

31The Tribunal has carefully considered all the evidence from both Parties and finds that:

1. The Variances #1 through #4 meet the four tests set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.

• Does this Minor Variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP?

• Does this Minor Variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL?

• Is this Minor Variance considered desirable for the use of the lands?

• Is this Minor Variance considered minor in nature?

2. Variance #5 fails to meet the four tests set out in s. 51(24) of the Act as the proposed depth of the driveway does not maintain the general intent of City OP and City ZBL, and it is not desirable.

ORDER

32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and the variances to the City of Brampton’s Zoning By-law No. 270-2004, listed in the Appendix A, are authorized subject to the conditions as set out in the Attachment 1 to this Order.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU

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.

APPENDIX A

List of Variances

1. To permit an accessory structure (existing shed) having a setback of 0.31metres tot the rear lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres to the nearest lot line;

2. To permit the accessory structure (existing shed) having a setback of 0.31 metres to the side lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres to the nearest lot line;

3. To permit a driveway width of 8.66 metres, whereas the by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 7.00 metres; and,

4. To permit 0.00 metre of permeable landscaping abutting the side lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres of permeable landscaping abutting the side lot line.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Approval of Minor Variances

1. The variance #5 in Para. [7] is refused.

2. The extent of the variances #1, 2, 3 and 4 is limited to that shown on the sketch in Schedule A.

3. Drainage on adjacent properties shall not be adversely affected.

4. The owner shall reinstate the curb that has been modified, reducing the curb cut to the permitted seven (7) m.

5. The Owner shall contact ROA.Permits@brampton.ca prior to starting any works and obtain a road occupancy permit should it be required.

6. The Owner shall comply with and maintain the conditions in this Attachment 1 to the satisfaction of the City.

SCHEDULE A

Site Plan for Minor Variance