Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

ISSUE DATE: February 10, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000024

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

Applicant and Appellant: Kevin Michael

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit an increased maximum driveway width to accommodate parking for two proposed Additional Residential Units

Reference Number: A-2024-0429

Property Address: 4 Alderway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Brampton/Regional Municipality of Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000024

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000024

OLT Case Name: Michael v. Brampton (City)

Heard: January 28, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Kevin Michael	Matthew Helfand
City of Brampton	Nicolas Koschany Bruce Engel (in absentia)

ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON JANUARY 28, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Kevin Michael (“Applicant/Appellant”) owns the property known municipally as 4 Alderway Avenue (“subject property”). He applied to the City of Brampton (City) Committee of Adjustment (CoA) for a minor variance to permit the widening of the existing driveway on the subject property. The Committee denied the application, and Mr. Michael appealed to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

2The Application was triggered by the Applicant’s desire to facilitate the construction of two secondary accessory residential dwelling units (“ARUs”) on the subject property, and the associated need for a third parking space pursuant to section 10.16(f) of the City’s Zoning By-law 270-2004 (ZBL).

3Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence that a settlement, on consent, had been reached. The Parties made a request that the Tribunal review the settlement materials and approve the proposed planning instrument.

SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING AREA

4The subject property is a corner lot with frontage on Alderway Avenue and Greystone Cres., having an approximate width of 20.7 metres (“m”)., and a lot depth of 30.48 m., with a lot area of 649.47 square metres (“sq m”), which is currently home to a single detached dwelling.

5The neighbourhood generally consists of various one (1) and two (2) storey detached dwellings of varying size, height, and architectural styles. The property is currently occupied by a single-storey dwelling, with a 2 car driveway along Alderway Avenue. The existing dwelling does not include an attached or detached garage, which is generally atypical in the neighbourhood (the only other examples include 5 Alderway and 12 Kingsview), and therefore only accommodates two vehicles via its current driveway configuration.

6To accommodate the construction of two (2) ARU’s in the basement of the single detached home, the City requires an additional parking space be provided to serve the third dwelling unit. The Owner is seeking to widen the existing two (2) car driveway to accommodate a further, third parking space, for the third ARU. The Revised Site Plan illustrating the agreed upon widening of the existing driveway is contained in Attachment “A”.

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

7Section 45(18.1.1) of the Act, speaks to varying an application for a variance from the original proposal and the necessity to provide notification to all who have received notice of the original application. Hearing that the Parties have put together a proposal for the consideration, the Tribunal must consider s. 45(18.1.1).

Amended application

(18.1) On an appeal, the Tribunal may make a decision on an application which has been amended from the original application if, before issuing its order, written notice is given to the persons and public bodies who received notice of the original application under subsection (5) and to other persons and agencies prescribed under that subsection. 1993, c. 26, s. 56; 1994, c. 23, s. 26 (7); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 80.

Exception

(18.1.1) The Tribunal is not required to give notice under subsection (18.1) if, in its opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 98 (5).

8Having considered the proposed changes to the application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the revised proposal is minor in nature and that no further notice is required. The settlement proposal includes a stringent set of Conditions of Approval which have been introduced on consent by the Appellant and the City. Along with the relocation of the below-grade entrance to the rear of the property, the proposed driveway is required to be tapered beginning at the limit of the existing curb cut and terminating at the property line.

9Along with the relocation of the below-grade entrance to the rear of the property, the proposed driveway is required to be tapered beginning at the limit of the existing curb cut and terminating at the property line. No hard surfacing or paving will be permitted to occur outside of the driveway. Instead, a landscape buffer that includes large landscape rocks will be installed ensuring that they are preluded from ready removal or displacement. This will ensure that parking will be limited in scope to the area designated and further prevents cars from parking on any areas beyond the eastern limit of the driveway.

10Prior to the commencement of any works, the Applicant is required to provide the City with a Tree Evaluation Report and Plan for the front yard Beech tree demonstrating that there will be no negative impact to the tree from the installation of the proposed widening of the driveway. The Applicant is further required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City to monitor the Beech tree for up to (2) two years following the installation of the widened portion of the driveway.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11Planning evidence and opinion to support the settlement proposal was provided by Mr. Patrick Pearson, a land use planner and Registered Professional Planner with full membership with the Canadian Institute of Planners (OPPI) and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (RPP).

12Mr. François Hémon-Morneau, the Principal Planner/ Supervisor at the City, also provided the Tribunal with evidence on the Settlement Proposal. Mr. Hémon-Morneau is a candidate Member in both the OPPI and RPP.

13Both were qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning evidence.

14The settlement proposal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act. In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and in this case, ensuring the settlement proposal meets the criteria set out in s. 45(12) of the Act.

15Mr. Pearson stated the settlement proposal has sufficient regard for matters of Provincial interest, specifically it relates to Section 2.j), the provision related to providing a full range of housing, including affordable housing. He emphasized that the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23) amended the Planning Act in 2022 with the intent of accelerating housing delivery across Ontario. Bill 23 expanded permissions for additional residential units by requiring Official Plans and Zoning By-laws to permit up to three (3) residential units per lot. He stated that Bill 23 is relevant to the subject application, as the proposed variance for an increased driveway width is required to facilitate the addition of an additional residential unit on the subject property.

16Mr. Pearson stated the introduction of the ARUs on the subject property represents a gentle residential intensification that enhances housing diversity and affordability, accommodates various household types. The settlement proposal supports the policies of the PPS by allowing the necessary parking associated with the introduction of ARUs to the property located within a designated Settlement Area.

17Mr. Pearson opined that although the Official Plan does not provide specific standards related to driveway widths, Section 4.2.1.14 provides the key design elements for Residential areas in accordance with the City of Brampton Development Design Guidelines (DDGs). Mr. Pearson relied on Section 4.2(v) of the City of Brampton Official Plan to illustrate that the Settlement Proposal has considered residential intensification and infill development in the built-up area with the accommodation of the widening of the driveway through a third parking space for the additional ARUs. The settlement proposal will ensure that sufficient parking is achieved for the ARUs which allows for the desirable use of the land.

18Mr. Pearson explained that the requested variance would not result in a change to the land use of the subject property and, in general, the intent and purpose of the ZBL would be maintained by the widening which will be subject to Conditions of Approval that were requested by the City.

19Both Messrs. Pearson and Hémon-Morneau emphasized the proposed driveway widening through the variance will facilitate the need for a car for the proposed third ARU. The accommodation and the consideration given to the streetscape ensures the tapered widening of the driveway provides for pedestrian safety and will require no additional curb cuts along Alderway Avenue. By introducing the tapered design, the Parties have considered not only the requirements of the City but have addressed the safety concerns raised by the Participants regarding safety.

20The Tribunal heard that the proposed settlement would see an increase in driveway width of approximately 1.4 metres. Given the substantial lot frontage, the proposed driveway would occupy approximately 27% of the Site’s 30.48-metre frontage, ensuring that the majority of the frontage remains available for soft landscaping. The Tribunal considers the widening as minor.

CONCLUSION

21Based on the planning evidence presented, the Tribunal is persuaded that the settlement proposal, subject to the Conditions of Approval, is consistent with the PPS and has regard for matters of Provincial interest, insofar as it is compatible with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area and will result in minimal impact on neighbouring properties. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tapered driveway design, together with the mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval, adverse impacts with respect to pedestrian safety, tree protection, or neighbourhood character will be mitigated.

22The Tribunal has given regard to the decision of the Committee as well as the comments of included in the Participant statements. The Tribunal was satisfied through the evidence that all concerns have been addressed.

ORDER

23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law 270-2004 is authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment “A” to this Order.

“D.Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN

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.

Attachment A