Janood v. Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town), 2026 CanLII 7234

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 30, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000739, OLT-25-000740

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

Applicant and Appellant: Syed Janood

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: MV to seek relief from Zoning By-law to support the development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit

Reference Number: D13-25-09

Property Address: 56 Montrose Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Bradford West Gwillimbury/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000739

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000739

OLT Case Name: Janood v. Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Syed Janood

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: MV to seek relief from Zoning By-law to support the development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit

Reference Number: D13-25-10

Property Address: 58 Montrose Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Bradford West Gwillimbury/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000740

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000740

OLT Case Name: Janood v. Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town)

Heard: January 20, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Syed Janood

Gurpreet Singh Rai

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Did not attend

DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Syed Janood (“Applicant”) appealed two decisions of the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) which denied two Applications for Minor Variance (“Applications”) concerning 56 and 58 Montrose Boulevard (“Subject Properties”) respectively. The Applications requested permission to construct a below grade entrance stairwell in the rear yard of each property and reduce the number of required parking spaces to facilitate the creation of an accessory dwelling unit in the basements of the respective dwellings.

2The Committee considered and denied the Applications citing safety concerns, notwithstanding the Town Planning Staff recommended approval of the Applications.

3One Participant Status Request and Participant Statement was received from a neighbouring property owner outlining opposition to the Applications. The concerns included increased foot traffic between the dwellings and encroachment on to their property, emergency services access to the accessory dwelling unit, garbage storage, lot grading impacts, increased on-street parking, and neighbourhood opposition.

4The Tribunal considered the evidence presented at the Hearing, the materials filed with the Tribunal, and the concerns raised by the neighbour. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds that the Applications meet the four tests of a minor variance as set out in the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”) and is satisfied that the concerns by the neighbour will be addressed through the Town permit process and the conditions attached to this Decision.

5The Tribunal allows the appeals and authorizes the Minor Variances, subject to conditions.

CONTEXT

6The Applicant owns both residential dwelling units located in a semi-detached dwelling on the Subject Properties. The Applicant proposes an accessory dwelling unit (“Accessory Unit”) in the basement of each of the dwellings.

7The Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2010-050 (“Zoning By-law”) permits an accessory dwelling unit within a semi-detached dwelling.

8To facilitate the establishment of the Accessory Units, the Applicant proposed a below-grade stairwell in each of the rear yards to access the proposed Accessory Units. Section 4.9 of the Zoning By-law permits steps to project into a required rear yard a maximum of 2 metres (“m”). The proposed stairwells will project 2.96 m into the required rear yard. The Applications request relief from this provision of the Zoning By-law.

9The Applicant also proposes to provide two parking spaces for the semi-detached dwelling unit and the Accessory Unit. Section 5.18 of the Zoning By-law requires that two parking spaces be provided for a semi-detached dwelling unit and one parking space be provided for an accessory dwelling unit for a total of three parking spaces required in this instance. The Applications also requested relief from this provision of the Zoning By-law.

10Isabella Commisso, an abutting neighbour to the Subject Properties, filed a Participant Status Request Form and Participant Statement. The Tribunal granted Participant status to Ms. Commisso with the consent of the Applicant.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11When considering an appeal of an application for a minor variance, the Tribunal conducts a hearing de novo, meaning that the Tribunal considers the merits of the application and may make any decision that the Committee could have made on the application.

12The criteria for the consideration of a minor variance are set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and are referred to as the four tests of a minor variance. The tests are summarized as follows:

1. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

2. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

3. Is the request desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure? and

4. Is the request minor in nature?

13The Planning Act requires the Tribunal, when considering a matter under the Planning Act that relates to a planning matter, shall have regard for the matters under s. 2 of the Planning Act, have regard for the decision made by an approval authority, the Committee in this instance, and the decision shall be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”).

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

14Tanvir Rai, a Designer and Registered Building Practitioner in the Province of Ontario, presented the Applications to the Tribunal.

15Mr. Rai explained that the Applicant is proposing to create an accessory unit in the basement of each of the Subject Properties. The access to these units will be provided at the rear of the dwelling by way of a below grade stairwell. Mr. Rai advised that a gravel walkway is proposed around the dwelling, along the side yard, to gain access to the rear yard and the stairwell. Mr. Rai acknowledged that a hard surface walkway would be better than a gravel path.

16Parking will be provided in the existing driveway. Mr. Rai explained that the driveway can accommodate two vehicles, and the attached garage can accommodate one parking space. He acknowledged that one of the vehicles parked on the driveway will be located within the municipal boulevard. Vehicles will be parked in tandem on the driveway and the occupants of the dwellings will be responsible to coordinate how they access their vehicles.

17The Applications seek relief from the Zoning By-law to permit the stairwell to encroach into the required rear yard and to permit a reduction of one parking space for each of the Subject Properties.

18Mr. Rai reviewed the Committee Staff Reports dated August 27, 2025 (“Staff Reports”), prepared by the Town’s Planning staff. The Staff Reports recommended approval of the Applications subject to conditions and responded to the concerns raised by the neighbours. Mr. Rai adopted the opinions expressed and the recommendations included in the Staff Reports.

Tests of a Minor Variance

19The Tribunal considered the four tests as follows:

1. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

20The Town’s Official Plan locates the Subject Properties within the Settlement Area Boundary and designates the Subject Properties as Medium Density Residential in Special Policy Area 15. The policies of the Special Policy Area 15 permit semi-detached dwellings.

21The Tribunal finds that the Subject Properties are intended for residential use and specifically a semi-detached dwelling is permitted. The Accessory Unit is a residential use and the below grade stairwell facilitates access and is accessory to the principal residential use. The parking relief requested results in on-site parking available for both residential units.

22The Tribunal finds that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is that the Subject Properties will be used for residential purposes and the Applications maintain this general intent and purpose.

2. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

23The Zoning By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a semi-detached dwelling. The Zoning By-law zones the Subject Properties Residential One Exception R1-43 (“R1-43”). The R1-43 zone permits a semi-detached dwelling. The R1-43 zone includes performance standards that permit encroachments into required rear yards of not more than 2 m and requires a total of three parking spaces to be provided in this instance.

Rear Yard Encroachment

24The Tribunal finds that the rear yard setbacks create a separation between dwellings which is used as an outdoor amenity area for the residential units. A review of the site plans filed with the Applications show generous rear yards and the proposed stairwells can be accommodated while still maintaining an acceptable amenity area.

25The Tribunal understands that a walkway is proposed from the front yard, along the side yard, to the top of the stairwell. The Tribunal reasons that a hard surface walkway should be provided to ensure a safe and stable surfaced access from the front yard to the rear yard of the Subject Properties. The provision of a walkway will not impact the amenity area in the rear yards. Further, the walkways shall be located wholly within the limits of the Subject Properties, thereby directing pedestrian traffic between the dwellings to remain on the Subject Properties.

26The Staff Reports include comments from the Development Engineering Section, which advises that:

…should any future drainage issues arise as a result of this minor variance, it will be their sole responsibility to address the drainage matter under the Drains and Swales By-law. The applicant should also be advised that any proposed grading alterations will be subject to a grading review as part of their building permit process…

The Tribunal reasons that the Town has a by-law and process in place to address alterations to the approved lot grading and drainage plans and the Applicant has been made aware of these requirements. Further, the Development Engineering Section advised that the final grading for the Subject Properties has not been completed and advises that no works shall commence until such time as the final grading inspection for the Subject Properties has been approved by the Town.

27The Participant Statement raised concerns with the grading impact of the Applications as the final grading approval has not been issued. The Tribunal is satisfied that the municipal process will address any grading issues that may arise as a result of the Applications.

28The concerns raised in respect to access along the side yard and potential encroachment on to neighbouring properties identified in the Participant Statement can be mitigated by the installation of a hard surface walkway starting at the front of the dwelling, continuing along the side of the dwelling, to the rear yard stairwell. The Tribunal reasons that the pathway, located within the limits of the Subject Properties, will provide direction to users to access the side yard without encroaching onto adjacent properties. The side yards have a minimum width of 1.2 m, as shown on the site plans, and this is a sufficient width to accommodate a walkway, including window well encroachments, and the storage of refuse containers. The Town’s Emergency Services reviewed the Applications and raised no concerns with the proposed Accessory Unit or the ability to access the Accessory Unit. The Applicant has acknowledged that any air conditioning equipment located in the side yard will be relocated to the rear yard as shown on the site plan.

29A condition of this Decision requires a hard surface walkway is installed from the edge of the driveway in the front yard along the side of the dwelling, within the limits of the Subject Property, to the rear yard, terminating at the top of the below grade stairwell in the rear yard.

30The Tribunal finds that the requested proposed encroachment into the rear yard maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Reduced Parking

31The Tribunal finds that the purpose of the Zoning By-law is to provide parking on-site for each of the dwelling units located within the semi-detached dwelling. The proposal is to provide two parking spaces on-site, one in the attached garage and one on the asphalt driveway. The result is that each dwelling unit on the Subject Properties will have a parking space on-site.

32The existing driveway has a length that can accommodate two vehicles, even though one vehicle would be located within the portion of the driveway located within the municipal road allowance. The Tribunal recognizes that this additional parking on the driveway does not contribute to compliance with the Zoning By-law, however, practically it is an available parking space exclusive to the respective dwellings. Further, there is no municipal sidewalk on the north side of Montrose Boulevard and the use of the driveway within the boulevard area for parking will not create any impact in that regard.

33The Tribunal confirmed with the Applicant that the garage is to be available for parking a vehicle.

34The Participant Statement raised concerns with the impact of the reduced parking resulting in an increase of on-street parking. There is no on-street parking permitted along the north side of Montrose Boulevard and the Town has seasonal restrictions on overnight on-street parking.

35The Tribunal is satisfied that one parking space for each unit meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The Tribunal finds that the length of the driveway will provide an additional parking space and on-street parking is permitted on the south side of Montrose Boulevard to accommodate visitors and residents when necessary. The impact of on-street parking has been reviewed by the Town and the Town has not raised any concerns with road safety arising form the Applications.

3. Is the request desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure?

36The Tribunal finds that the proposed creation of an Accessory Unit is desirable development for the Subject Properties as provided for in the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The relief requested for the rear yard encroachment and the reduction of one parking space will not result in any negative impacts for the surrounding properties or the Town.

37The Tribunal is satisfied that the Town processes, including the building permit process and lot grading approval, will address the concerns raised in the Participant Statement with respect to emergency access, waste storage, and lot grading. Matters related to possible trespass and snow removal are matters between property owners, do not involve the Town, and are not within the purview of the Tribunal’s consideration in this instance.

38The Tribunal finds that the request is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Properties.

4. Is the request minor in nature?

39The Tribunal finds that the relief for the encroachment into to the rear yard is minor as the proposed stairwells are below grade and will not create any visual impacts. The Tribunal finds that the rear yard will be able to provide sufficient amenity areas for the Subject Properties.

40The access to the rear yard stairwells is proposed by way of walkways to be located wholly on-site of each of the Subject Properties, thereby mitigating the impacts and concerns raised by the Participant.

41The reduction in parking will result in one parking space being available for each semi-detached dwelling unit and for each of the Accessory Units. The Tribunal finds that the proposed parking is sufficient and notes that there is a further parking space available within the driveway, albeit located within the municipal boulevard, to accommodate any additional parking demand that may be generated by the use of the Subject Properties.

42The Tribunal finds that the request is minor in nature.

Additional Planning Act Considerations

43The Tribunal reviewed the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and finds that these matters are not directly applicable to the Applications before the Tribunal.

44The Tribunal reviewed the decisions of the Committee and the reasons provided. The Tribunal finds that the reasons cited are unfounded and the proposal to introduce an Accessory Unit is a use permitted by the Zoning By-Law.

45In consideration of the PPS 2024, the Tribunal finds that these matters are not directly applicable to the Applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the approval of the Applications is consistent with the PPS 2024.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

46The Staff Reports recommended conditions be imposed on an approval of the Applications.

47Conditions #1 and #2 are summarized as follows:

1. That the requested variance for a reduced parking space apply only to the property municipally known as 56 Montrose Boulevard or 58 Montrose Boulevard, respectively, in respect of the minor variance application as per the site plans filed.

2. That the requested variance for a reduced rear yard setback apply only to the property municipally known as 56 Montrose Boulevard or 58 Montrose Boulevard, respectively, in respect of the minor variance application as per the site plans filed.

48The Tribunal finds these conditions to be redundant in that the Applications were filed with respect to the Subject Properties and would only be applicable to the Subject Properties. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the imposition of such conditions are unnecessary.

49Conditions #4, #5, and #7 are summarized as follows:

4. That should any future drainage issues arise as a result of this minor variance, it will be their sole responsibility to address the drainage matter under the Drains and Swales By-law.

5. That any proposed grading alterations will be subject to a grading review as part of their building permit process.

6. That the Town retains a legal right of access over this easement, and therefore, no structures, improvements, or permanent installations may be erected, placed, or maintained.

46The Tribunal finds that these three conditions could be accurately described as notes. A condition requires some action on the part of an applicant or a municipality prior to the exercise of the relief granted by way of a minor variance. Should the Town, or the Committee, find that an applicant be required to acknowledge these matters, then the condition should be framed such that it requires an acknowledgement of some form be provided. The matters contained in the three conditions were raised with and acknowledged by the Applicant.

47The Tribunal finds that the imposition of these three notes as conditions is inappropriate.

48Condition #3 requires the payment of outstanding property taxes prior to the approval of the Minor Variances. The Tribunal finds that upon issuance of its Order with respect to this matter, the Minor Variances will be approved. Condition #3 will be revised to require the payment of the outstanding property taxes prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Accessory Unit.

49Condition #6 is in the form of a statement advising that the final lot grading has not been completed and states that no works shall commence until the final grading has been passed. Condition #6 will be revised to require that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Accessory Unit, the Applicant shall provide the Building Department confirmation the final grading inspection has been completed and passed.

50The Tribunal adds two further conditions. The first condition requires that a hard-surface walkway be provided from the driveway along the side yard into the rear yard, terminating at the top of the proposed rear stairwell. The second condition requires that a building permit shall be obtained for the Accessory Unit.

CONCLUSION

51The Tribunal, having considered the evidence presented and the concerns raised through the Participant Statement, is satisfied that the Applications meet the tests of a minor variance and allows the appeals. The Applications are approved subject to conditions set out in the Order.

ORDER

52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2010-050 are authorized subject to the following conditions:

1. The Applicant shall obtain the required building permit(s) for the Accessory Dwelling Units and the exterior stairwells.

2. The Applicant shall pay any outstanding property taxes prior to the issuance of the building permit(s) required in Condition #1.

3. The Applicant shall provide confirmation to the Building Department that the final lot grading has been passed prior to the issuance of the building permits required in Condition #1.

4. The Applicant shall provide a hard-surface walkway commencing at the driveway of each property, continuing along the side yard and into the rear yard, terminating at the top of the proposed rear stairwell.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

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.