Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 3, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001115

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

Applicant/Appellant: Mou Hong Huang & Zhe Lin (Joseph) Wang Subject: Minor Variance Description: Proposal to construct a two-storey residential building with 6 four-bedroom units Reference Number: A38/24 Property Address: 654-656 Stewart Street Municipality/UT: Peterborough/Peterborough OLT Case No: OLT-24-001115 OLT Case Name: Wang et al. v. Peterborough (City)

Heard: January 20, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Zhe Lin Wang, Mou Hong Huang	G. Woodward
City of Peterborough	A. Barber

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 20, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matter before the Tribunal is an Appeal filed by Zhe Lin Wang and Mou Hong Huang (“Appellants”) against the decision of the City of Peterborough (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny minor variances (“MV”), pursuant to ss. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 654-656 Stewart Street (“subject property” / “site”).

2The subject property is located at the intersection of Stewart Street and Chemong Road, south of Parkhill Road West. It is zoned R.2 and is designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule B ‘Land Use’ of the City’s Official Plan.

3The site currently contains a duplex and is accessible by a driveway from Stuart Street.

4The Appellants are seeking to construct a two-storey residential building with six four-bedroom units.

5There were no other status requests for this Hearing.

THE APPLICATION

6To facilitate the construction of the subject property, the Appellants are seeking relief from the following regulations of the City’s Zoning By-law No. 97-123 and are seeking authorization of the following Minor Variances (“MV”):

1. S. 9.2(b) to reduce the minimum lot area per dwelling unit from 230 square metres (“m²”) per unit to 158 m² per unit;
2. S. 9.2(c) to reduce the minimum lot width per dwelling unit from 6 metres (“m”) per unit to 4.4 m per unit;
3. S. 9.2(e)(i) to reduce the minimum building setback from the north side lot line from 2.4 m to 1.5 m;
4. S. 9.2(e)(ii) to reduce the minimum building setback from the rear lot line from 9 m to 4.1 m;
5. S. 9.2(f) to increase the maximum building coverage from 35% to 36.8%;
6. S. 9.2(h) to increase the maximum lot coverage by open parking areas, driveways, and vehicle movement areas from 25% to 32%;
7. S. 4.2(a) to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 9 to 7;
8. S. 4.3.1(b)(i) to reduce the minimum parking space length from 5.7 m to 5.5 m;
9. S. 4.3.1(b)(i) to reduce the minimum aisle width of a parking space with an angle of 76-90 degrees from 6.4 m to 6.0 m; and,
10. S. 6.11(a) to reduce the minimum street line setback from 6 metres to 0 m.

7City Planning Staff reviewed the Application and recommended approval of the variances to the COA.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

8When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.

9An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo and the Applicant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in s. 45(1) have been satisfied:

a) the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is being maintained; b) the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is being maintained; c) the variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and, d) the variances are minor in nature.

HEARING

10Prior to the Hearing, Alan Barber, informed the Tribunal that the Parties have resolved their issues.

11Nun Nil appeared on behalf of the City and is currently employed as a Junior Planner. Mr. Nil is a candidate member of the Professional Standards Board and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute to become a Registered Professional Planner.

12Mr. Nil proffered that the proposed development has regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.

13In Mr. Nil’s professional opinion, the proposed development satisfies the four tests of ss. 45(12) of the Act, as outlined in detail on pp. 51-53 in Tab 3 of Exhibit 1, and he recommended that the requested MV be approved.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

14The only planning evidence before the Tribunal is the Planning Report and viva voce evidence of Mr. Nil. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Application meets the criteria of the four tests set out in ss. 45(12) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the requested MV can be implemented without any adverse impact on the neighbouring properties.

ORDER

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 97-123 are authorized subject to the condition that the construction proceed substantially in accordance with the concept plan attached as Exhibit B.

“P. Tomilin”

P. TOMILIN 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.