Two Rivers Building Group Inc. v. Guelph (City), 2025 CanLII 85055

Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 18, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001175

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

Applicant and Appellant: Two Rivers Building Group Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit an additional residential dwelling

Reference Number: A-71/24

Property Address: 424 Willow Road

Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001175

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001175

OLT Case Name: Two Rivers Building Group Inc. v. Guelph (City)

Heard: March 13, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Agent(*)
Two Rivers Building Group Inc. ("Appellant")	Bobby Randhawa*
City of Guelph ("City")	Ian White, Allison Thornton

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

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), and is brought by the Appellant against the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) refusal of the application for Minor Variance (“Application”) to facilitate the conversion of the detached garage into an Additional Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) on the lands municipally known as 424 Willow Road (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2The Subject Lands have a frontage of approximate 11.3 metres (“m”) along Willow Road and a depth of approximate 42 m. There is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling and a single-storey detached garage on the Subject Lands.

3The Subject Lands are designated as “Low Density Residential” in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and are zoned “Low Density Residential 1 (RL.1)” in the City Zoning By-law No. 2023-20790 (“ZBL”).

4The Appellant sought the relief from the City ZBL to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.61 m for the proposed ADU in a separate building (the existing garage) on the Subject Lands. The City ZBL requires the interior side yard setback and rear yard setback to be consistent with the required interior side yard setback of the main dwelling unit (1.2 m in this circumstance), and the Application proposes to reduce the interior side yard setback by 0.59 m.

STATUS REQUEST

5The Tribunal received no written requests for Party or Participant Status nor were there any requests by individuals at the Hearing for either status.

NOTICE OF HEARING

6There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

EXHIBITS

7The following Exhibits were marked during the Hearing:

• Exhibit 1: Joint Document Book; and,
• Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Bobby Randhawa.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

8The Tribunal qualified Mr. Eric Rempel, Planner II with the City with sound knowledge of and experience in land use planning, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning in the matter before the Tribunal.

9The Tribunal confirmed that the evidence document of Mr. Bobby Randhawa, who was representing the Appellant, was received and marked as an exhibit to this Decision. Mr. Randhawa was advised that his evidence would not be considered as expert opinion as he was not qualified as an expert witness.

10Mr. Randhawa indicated that the existing garage to be converted to an ADU was built in 2021 and had proper footings and foundation. He also stated that there was no intention to alter the appearances of the building for the proposed ADU.

11Mr. Randhawa expressed his opinion that the Application would increase one residential unit to the housing stock in the neighborhood and the City-wide area, and it would not be sustainable to the environment to redo the concrete foundation for the ADU to accommodate the interior side yard setback requirements in the City ZBL. Further, he stated that the cost to relocate the existing garage would be very high.

12Mr. Randhawa indicated that the proposed ADU was intended for his client’s (“homeowner”) relative, who was unable to afford a similar size unit in the City-wide area.

13In Mr. Randhawa’s opinion, the Application would not cause the privacy loss of the immediately adjacent property as the side wall along the interior side yard lot line had no windows.

14Further, Mr. Randhawa stated that his firm proposed the same application at another property (“Reference Property”) for an ADU within a separate building in 2023, and that application proposed the interior side yard setback to be reduced to 0.65 m, whereas the City ZBL required a minimum of 1.5 m interior side yard setback. Mr. Randhawa confirmed that the application for the Reference Property received approval from the CoA, but the Application on the Subject Lands was refused by CoA. Lastly, Mr. Randhawa expressed his confusion of the two different decisions of the CoA on similar applications and requested that the Tribunal approve the Application to move the project forward.

15Mr. Rempel confirmed that the City’s position remained the same as indicated in the City staff report with the recommendation to refuse the Application, as the Application failed to meet all the four tests set out in s. 45(1) under the Act.

16Mr. Rempel stated that the “Low Density Residential” designation in the City OP permits a range of housing types, including but not limited to ADUs, within the built-up area, and he held the opinion that the Application maintained the general intent of the City OP.

17Mr. Rempel indicated that the City received many concerns from residents about privacy loss due to the in-effect interior yard setback requirements of 0.6 m for ADUs at the public consultation phase and, accordingly, the City approved setback requirements at a higher standard for ADUs than for non-habitable accessory structures (0.6 m) to mitigate the impacts of ADUs to privacy of neighbouring properties and to ensure sufficient space for maintenance activities.

18Mr. Rempel opined that the proposed setback in the Application would limit the property owner’s ability to maintain the ADU’s structure along the interior side yard lot line and to mitigate the privacy concerns between the occupants of the neighboring properties and the future occupants of the ADU. Mr. Rempel concluded that the Application did not maintain the general purpose of the City ZBL.

19Mr. Rempel expressed his opinion that the Application was not desirable due to the concerns about privacy loss and limited ability of maintenance of ADU structures, and it failed to maintain the character of the low-density neighbourhood.

20In Mr. Rempel’s opinion, the Application proposed a roughly 50% reduction to the interior side yard setback, so this variance was considered significant. Finally, Mr. Rempel concluded that the Application only met one of the four tests and recommended the Tribunal to refuse it.

21The City’s Counsel summarized that the Application failed to meet the below three tests:

• The Application does not maintain the general intent of the City ZBL;
• The Application is not desirable for the appropriate use of the land, building or structure; and
• The Application is not minor in nature.

22The City’s Counsel added that the hardship must be on the property itself and must not be related to finance nor created by the owner itself as concluded in the two enclosed cases submitted to the Tribunal for consideration.

23The Tribunal recognizes the need for a range of various types of housing to increase the affordability of housing in the City-wide area and the neighbourhood. In addition, the Tribunal agrees with the Appellant’s analysis regarding the privacy loss from having no windows in the side wall adjacent to the neighbouring property.

24The Tribunal finds that the City’s concerns about the maintenance of the ADU structure along the interior side yard lot line is reasonable.

25After carefully evaluating the evidence of both Parties, the Tribunal finds that:

• The Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP;
• The Application is desirable for the use of the Subject Lands, building and structure;
• The Application fails to maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL; and
• The Application is not minor in nature.

26In summary, the Application fails to meet two tests of the four set out in s. 45(1) of the Act. The Application must meet all the four tests for approval.

ORDER

27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed, and the variance to the City of Guelph’s Zoning By-law No. 2023-20790 is not authorized.

“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.