Sobhi and Gavaranic v. Burlington (City), 2025 CanLII 83068

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 12, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000391

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

Applicant and Appellant: Milana Sobhi and Srdjan Gavaranic

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To legalize the conversion of an existing medical office to a detached dwelling use.

Property Address: 488 Locust St. Burlington

Municipality: Burlington/Halton

Reference: 540-02-A-005/2024

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000391

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000391

OLT Case Name: Sobhi and Gavaranic v. Burlington (City)

Heard: August 1, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Milana Sobhi and Srdjan Gavaranic (“Applicant”)	Meredith Baker
City of Burlington (“City”)	Hannah Ruby

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON AUGUST 1, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Parties have reached a settlement in the matter of an appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (“Act”) by the Appellants from the decision of the City to refuse a number of variances in relation to the property at 488 Locust Street (“Subject Property”).

2Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the Parties had worked to arrive at an agreement that resolves the appeal. Accordingly, they jointly requested an Order approving the requested minor variances and called expert land use planning evidence in support of the settlement.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

3This appeal is a hearing de novo of the Application for all of the minor variances. The Tribunal is required to hear the evidence presented by the Parties and decide whether to allow the minor variances based on the applicable legal tests. The Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the Committee but is not bound by it.

4In making its decision, the Tribunal is required to assess the minor variances based on the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act. The Tribunal must ensure that the variances sought:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);

• is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and

• is minor in nature.

5Additionally, the variances must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”) and conform to any applicable Provincial plan. The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest and to the decision made by the Committee, as well as the information and material considered by it in the course of making its decision.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

6The Tribunal heard testimony in support of the settlement from Melissa Dalrymple, a Registered Professional Planner and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. Ms. Dalrymple provided a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the settlement agreement and reviewed the proposed minor variances against the relevant legislative framework all outlined in her Affidavit (Exhibit 1)

7Ms. Dalrymple referenced that the Subject Property is a rectangular shaped corner lot with a total lot area of approximately 779.2 square metres (“m²”) with an approximate lot frontage of 20.12 metres (“m”) along Locust Street.

8Ms. Dalrymple identified that the Subject Property is located within the City’s Downtown Urban Centre, and a mix of residential, retail, office and institutional uses are close by. The Subject Property is in the Downtown Core Zone which permits detached dwellings, offices and other service commercial uses. Although the Subject Property abuts a Downtown Residential Low-Density (”DRL”) Zone to the rear, the uses immediately adjacent to the Subject Property are office uses located in buildings with a residential appearance. Typically, converted dwellings on Locust Street have a landscaped front yard with extensive parking areas behind.

9Ms. Dalrymple advised that the Appellant was seeking to legalize the conversion of an existing office (medical office) building to a detached dwelling use. The residential use is permitted under the current zoning. Variances are required to facilitate the use, conversion and renovations. Variances are also required for the proposed attached garage addition to the existing building.

10Ms. Dalrymple advised that at the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) stage, the Appellants sought approval of the following eight minor variances with respect to the Subject Property:

1. To permit a front yard of 2.8 m instead of the minimum required 6 m for façade changes to a two-storey detached dwelling;

2. To permit a front yard of 0.9 m instead of the minimum required 5.35 m (6 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a roofed-over 1-storey porch including steps and roof overhang excluding eaves and gutter;

3. To permit a south-east side yard of 1.1 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 m for a proposed attached garage addition;

4. To permit a dwelling depth of 21.9 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m measured from the building wall closest to the front lot line to the building wall closest to the rear lot line for a proposed attached garage addition;

5. To permit a second driveway in the front yard instead of the maximum permitted one driveway for each residential property;

6. To permit a 0 m landscape buffer abutting a DRL zone (rear lot line) instead of the minimum required 3 m;

7. To permit 13% of the area of the front yard to be landscaped instead of the minimum required 50%; and,

8. To permit a 0 m landscape area abutting Locust Street instead of the minimum required 3 m.

11Ms. Dalrymple prepared the staff report that was before the Committee and in the report, she concluded that it was her opinion that all of the variances sought met the four-part test both individually and cumulatively and that staff had no objections to the granting of the variances.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

12Ms. Dalrymple stated that the Subject Property is located within the Urban Area and within the Built Boundary of the Region Official Plan (“ROP”). She continued that the ROP identifies that the range of permitted uses and the creation of new lots within the Urban Area will be in accordance with local OPs and ZBLs.

13Ms. Dalrymple opined that detached dwellings are a use permitted by the ZBL and the requested variances are within the intent of the ROP.

14Ms. Dalrymple advised that the Neighbourhood Mixed Use Precinct policies of the 2020 City of Burlington Official Plan (“COP 2020”) are not yet in effect and staff relied on the policies of the 1997 City of Burlington Official Plan (“COP”) in their review.

15Ms. Dalrymple stated that as outlined in the COP, the Subject Property is subject to site-specific zoning regulations designed to preserve the existing low rise, residential appearance and character of this area and to ensure compatibility with the abutting residential neighbourhood to the west. She continued that permitted uses are limited to residential, office and service commercial uses.

16Ms. Dalrymple opined that the COP requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding area. She expanded that compatibility should be evaluated in accordance with measurable/objective standards where they exist, based on criteria such as aesthetics, noise, vibration, dust, odours, traffic, safety and sun-shadowing, and potential for serious adverse health impacts on humans or animals.”

17The Subject Property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-law No. 32-2023. Heritage staff have also reviewed the proposal and confirmed the landscape changes do not impact the heritage attributes of the building.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

18The Subject Property is zoned Downtown Core Zone Special Provision 347 (DC-347) to Map No.9 in COP 2020. Special Provision 347 allows detached dwellings, offices and service commercial uses, subject to R3.2 zone regulations and site-specific regulations related to landscape buffer abutting a DRL zone, percentage of landscaping in the front yard and fencing abutting a DRL zone.

19Ms. Dalrymple advised that due to the location of the existing dwelling on the Subject Property which is setback 2.8 m from the front lot line and the porch which is setback 0.9 m from the front lot line, there is not sufficient depth in the front yard to allow for a 3 m landscape area abutting Locust Street. She continued that the width of the road allowance between the property line and the edge of the sidewalk is approximately 4.5 m. This area has been landscaped with a decorative walkway, shrubs and other plantings and contains a City-owned tree.

20Ms. Dalrymple opined that the design provides sufficient landscaping to maintain a residential appearance and balances the appearance of a second driveway along the Locust Street streetscape.

21Ms. Dalrymple confirmed that based on aerial imagery, the extent of the paved area that is proposed to remain has existed since at least 1998 without any identified issues and that staff is of the opinion that sufficient screening is provided in the form of a board fence between the parking area and DRL zone and that the variance therefore meets the intent of the ZBL.

Desirable for Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building or Structure

22Ms. Dalrymple stated that the minor variances are to recognize the conversion from office use to residential use on the Subject Property. She continued that staff are satisfied the variances facilitate a development that is compatible because it would preserve the existing low rise, residential appearance, and character of the area, ensuring compatibility with the abutting residential neighbourhood to the west.

Minor in Nature

23The conversion of an office use to a residential use on the Subject Property was referenced. Ms. Dalrymple confirmed that the requested relief is not anticipated to pose any negative impacts on the Subject Property, adjacent properties or to the surrounding streetscape. As such, Ms. Dalrymple opined that the requested variances are considered minor in nature.

24Ms. Dalrymple opined that the reductions in landscaping at the front and rear do not have a cumulative visual effect or cumulative impact on residential character, since a set of gates blocks the sightline from the property frontage into the back yard area. She continued that the cumulative effect is acceptable and would not result in negative impacts to the streetscape or adjacent properties.

Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest

25Ms. Dalrymple provided a detailed review of the s. 2 of the Act in her Affidavit. Ms. Dalrymple opined that variances have regard to applicable matters of Provincial interest related to the following:

• The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific interest;

• The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

• The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

• The minimization of waste;

• The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

• The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

• The appropriate location of growth and development; and,

• The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians.

Consistency With the PPS

26Ms. Dalrymple advised that the variances were assessed for consistency with the PPS and that policies 2.3.1 and 4.6.1 were of relevance.

27Ms. Dalrymple opined that the Subject Property is located in a settlement area and that heritage staff confirmed that the landscaping changes do not impact the heritage attributes of the building.

28Overall, Ms. Dalrymple recommended that the Tribunal approve the requested variances as, in her opinion, they meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act; have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest; are consistent with the PPS; and, in general, constitute good land use planning and in the public interest.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

29The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning opinion evidence of Ms. Dalrymple in its entirety and is satisfied that the proposed variances have due regard for matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS and meet the requisite legislative four-part test as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act and, in general, represent good planning and in the public interest.

ORDER

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City of Burlington Zoning By-law No, 2020 are authorized for the property legally described as Pt Lt 50, P174, as in 518383, Except Pt 1, 20R20760.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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.