Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 21, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000997
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: King Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: to permit one required parking space
Reference Number: A-83-25
Property Address: 62 Victoria Road North
Municipality/UT: City of Guelph
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000997
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000997
OLT Case Name: King Homes Inc. v. Guelph (City)
Heard: March 18, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties King Homes Inc.
Counsel Ken Bekendam (agent)
Parties City of Guelph
Counsel Ian White
DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”) by King Homes Inc. (“Applicant”), of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for the City of Guelph (“City”) refusing a Minor Variance Application (“Application”) to permit one required parking space to facilitate the conversion of the existing attached garage into an Additional Residential Unit (“ARU”/“ADU”). The City opposes the appeal brought by the Applicant.
2In order to assist the Application, the following variance from the City Zoning By-law No. (2023)-20790 (“ZBL”) is requested:
a. To permit one required parking space to be located a minimum distance of 0.84 metres (“m”) from the street line and to the front of the front wall of the dwelling, whereas the by-law currently requires one parking space with a minimum distance of 6 m from the street line.
SUBJECT PROPERTY (“SP”) AND SURROUNDINGS
3Municipally known as 62 Victoria Road North in the City of Guelph, the SP has a lot area of 450.66 square metres and dimensions of approximately 31.5 m deep and 14.2 m wide. A raised bungalow single-detached dwelling and attached garage exist on the site as shown on the Site Plan depicted below.
SITE PLAN
TESTS FOR MINOR VARIANCES
4Pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Act, the proposed variance must:
a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL
c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; and,
d. Be minor in nature.
5The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of provincial interest in accordance with s. 2 of the Act when evaluating and approving applications as well as have regard to the decision of the CoA and the information considered by it as required under sub-s. 2.1(1) of the Act, though it is not bound by that decision.
6Further, the Tribunal’s decision on the minor variance must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), represent good land use planning, and be in the public interest.
HEARING
7The following materials were identified as Exhibits:
EXHIBIT 1 – Notice of Hearing dated Feb 12, 2026
EXHIBIT 2 – Joint Book of Documents
EXHIBIT 3 – (a) Witness Statement of Adam Laranjeiro
(b) Curriculum Vitae of Adam Laranjeiro
(c) Acknowledgement of Expert Duty
8Three Witnesses provided testimony under affirmation:
Mr. Ken Bekendam, Agent for the Applicant/King Homes
Mr. Sean Baker, Applicant/Owner
Mr. Adam Laranjeiro, summonsed on behalf of the City, was qualified as a land use planner
9Mr. Baker provided brief evidence to clarify