Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 06, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000709
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Vijaya Kantipuly
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a sunroom attachment to the existing dwelling
Reference Number: A26-25
Property Address: 38 Morrison Crescent
Municipality/UT: Grimsby/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000709
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000709
OLT Case Name: Kantipuly v. Grimsby (Town)
Heard: February 20, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative(*) |
|---|---|
| Vijaya Kantipuly | Self-Represented* |
| Town of Grimsby | Laura Dean, Tom Halinski |
DECISION DELIVERED BY GORDON A. DRIEDGER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Decision and Order relate to an appeal by the Vijaya Kantipuly (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) brought pursuant to an application for two minor variances to the Town of Grimsby (“Town”) Zoning By-law No. 14-45 for 38 Morrison Crescent which was refused by the Town’s Committee of Adjustment. The requested variances related to setbacks for both interior side yard and rear yard for a proposed sunroom addition. Specifically, the requested variances were:
A minimum interior side yard of 2.35 metres (“m”) whereas a minimum interior side yard of 2.5 m is required; and
A rear yard of 4.34 m whereas a minimum rear yard of 8 m is required.
2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence indicating that the Parties had agreed to parameters of amended variances. The Parties made a request to the Tribunal to review and approve the proposed variances, submitted on consent.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
3The Tribunal, in considering appeals filed pursuant to section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended must be satisfied that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and structure, and that the requested variances conform with the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan and are deemed to be minor in nature.
SUBJECT LAND AND SURROUNDING AREA
4The property is located at 38 Morrison Crescent, Town of Grimsby (“subject property”). The subject property is improved with a townhouse dwelling and attached elevated deck and is connected to adjacent townhouse units to the east and west. To the rear of the subject property is park land, and Lake Ontario is located immediately north of the property.
5The Applicant, through an authorized agent, made an application to the Town on June 24, 2025 for the requested variances. Town staff provided a memo to the Town’s Committee of Adjustment dated August 19, 2025 (“Staff Report”) as contained in Ms. Lauren Burkhardt’s Affidavit. The Staff Report recommended approval of the minor variances, subject to the conditions set out in the Staff Report related to obtaining approval of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”) prior to construction of the proposed sunroom. On August 19, 2025, the Town’s Committee of Adjustment denied the application for minor variance.
6Following the Applicant’s appeal of the refusal of the Town’s Committee of Adjustment, the Appellant and Town staff negotiated modifications to the requested variances which culminated in an agreement on modified variances. On December 1, 2025, Town Council, by resolution, directed Town’s legal counsel to present the modified terms to the Tribunal. Specifically, Town Council agreed to support:
A minimum interior side yard setback of 2.35 m (unchanged from original minor variance application); and
A minimum rear yard setback of 5 m (whereas the original minor variance application proposed a minimum rear yard setback of 4.34 m);
SUBMISSIONS
7Planning evidence and opinion in support of the minor variances, as revised on consent, was provided by Ms. Lauren Burkhardt, a Policy Planner with the Town. Ms. Burkhardt is a Candidate Member with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners. She was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning related to the subject application.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
8The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms. Burkhardt that the proposed minor variances, as revised, collectively meet the intent of the Niagara Official Plan and now the Town Official Plan, following Bill 23. The Applicant, Ms. Kantipuly, confirmed that the contents of Ms. Burkhardt’s affidavit were provided on consent of both Parties.
9The subject property is within the defined “Built-Up Area” as shown in Exhibit “K” attached to Ms. Burkhardt’s affidavit. Further, the subject property is located wholly within the Urban Settlement Area and the rear of the lot is located within the Natural Heritage System as depicted on Schedule A and B2 to the Town Official Plan. Furthermore, the evidence provided confirmed that the subject property is outside of the Greenbelt Plan Area, identified on Schedule A of the Town Official Plan.
10Additional opinion evidence was admitted that, in Ms. Burkhardt’s view, the minor variances meet the intent of the Town Zoning By-law No. 14-45.
11The Tribunal heard that the subject property is zoned ‘Residential Multiple (RM1)’ under Site Specific Exemption 240 and includes a Hazard overlay related to the proximity to Lake Ontario.
12In Ms. Burkhardt’s opinion, the requested side yard variance would have a minor impact due to the pie-shaped lot configuration of the neighbouring property (36 Morrison Crescent) with a side yard that gets larger closer to the rear of the yard, further limiting the impact of the proposed sunroom and reduced setback.
13With respect to the revised minimum rear yard setback variance (5 m) the Tribunal heard that there is an adequate amount of outdoor amenity space for use by the property owners notwithstanding the revised setback and, as such, meets the intent of the Town’s zoning by-law.
14Ms. Burkhardt has consistently recommended that prior to development of the proposed sunroom, a permit for development is to be obtained by the NPCA.
15Ms. Burkhardt also concluded that the revised variances to permit a sunroom on the existing deck structure is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property (subject to the NPCA condition being satisfied) and further, that the requested variances, as revised, are minor in nature.
16With respect to section 2 of the Planning Act, the Tribunal heard from Ms. Burkhardt that, in her opinion, that appropriate regard had been given and specifically:
With regard to a) “the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions” and c), “the conservation and management of natural resources” the subject property is located outside of the Environmental Conservation Area designation of Schedule B of the Town’s Official Plan;
With regard to o) “the protection of public health and safety”, the NPCA provides a review of sites that are located in identified Hazard Lands as will be afforded through their review and approval condition; and
With regard to h) “the orderly development of safe and healthy communities”, n) “the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests”, m) “the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies”, and r) “the promotion of built form which is well-designed, encourages sense of place”, the Town required a minor variance application in order to consider the proposal for the subject property.
17Ms. Burkhardt finally concluded that the parameters of the revised variances are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conform with the relevant Provincial Plans, being the Greenbelt Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
18The Tribunal supports the uncontroverted evidence provided by Ms. Burkhardt that the proposed variances meet the intent and purpose of the Town’s Official Plan and zoning by-law, are appropriate for the development of the land and are minor in nature.
19The Tribunal is satisfied that the revised variance parameters agreed to by the Parties are reasonable and the resulting development represents good planning and is in the public interest. The Tribunal commends the Parties for working collaboratively in order to reach the revised setback parameters in this proceeding.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the minor variances to Zoning By-law No. 14-45 noted below are authorized subject to Condition (A);
To permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.35 metres (“m”) whereas a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.5 m is required, except for a one-storey end unit, as per site specific exemption 240 of section 7, Table 12, of Zoning By-law No. 14-45, as amended.
To permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5 m whereas a minimum rear yard setback of 8 m is required as per specific exemption 240 of section 7, Table 12, of Zoning By-law No. 14-45, as amended.
Condition (A)
That the Appellant receives Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”) approval for the construction of the proposed sunroom prior to the issuance of any building permit by the Town of Grimsby.
“Gordon A. Driedger”
GORDON A. DRIEDGER 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.