Committee of Adjustment / Comité de dérogation
DECISION
CONSENT/SEVERANCE
Date of Decision: November 15, 2024
Panel: 2 - Suburban
File Nos.: D08-01-24/B-00195-00196
Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act
Applicants: Youssry Hussein and Eman Mohsen
Property Address: 9 Granton Avenue
Ward: 8 - College
Legal Description: Lots 2404, 2405, 2406 and 2407, Registered Plan 375
Zoning: R1FF [632]
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Heard: November 5, 2024, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS
1The Applicants want to subdivide their property into two separate parcels of land for residential development. It is proposed to construct one detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units on each of the newly created parcels. The existing dwelling and garage are to be demolished.
CONSENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING
2The Applicants require the Committee’s consent to subdivide the land and grant the use of and rights in land for easements. The property is shown as Parts 1 to 4 on a Draft 4R-Plan filed with the applications and the separate parcels will be as follows:
Table 1 Proposed Parcels
| File No. | Frontage | Depth | Area | Part No. | Municipal Address |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B-00195 | 15.37 m | 28.96 m | 444.5 sq. m | 1 and 2 | 9 Granton |
| B-00196 | 15.36 m | 28.96 m | 444.7 sq. m | 3 and 4 | 7 Granton |
3It is proposed to establish easements/rights of way as follows:
- Over Part 2 in favour of Parts 3 and 4 to provide driveway access
- Over Part 3 in favour of Parts 1 and 2 to provide driveway access
4Approval of these applications will have the effect of creating separate parcels of land that will not be in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and therefore, minor variance applications (File Nos. D08-02-24/A-00252-00253) have been filed and will be heard concurrently with these applications.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
5Jasmine Paoloni, Agent for the Applicants, provided an overview of the applications and responded to questions from the Committee. Ms. Paoloni questioned the applicability of condition 11 in the City’s Planning Report, requiring either a development agreement or a letter of undertaking relating to the collection of securities for tree planting.
6City Forester Nancy Young stated that the condition was standard for work being done in a critical root zone and ensures that tree protection is maintained throughout construction.
7City Planner Erin O’Connell explained that the option of a letter of undertaking is provided to applicants where a development agreement is not otherwise required, however other conditions requested by the City for this application would require a development agreement and therefore it would be the more appropriate option in this case.
8The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:
- Nancy Wilson, City View Community Association, raised concerns the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, stormwater management and drainage, with the impact of the proposal on the streetscape, and the incompatibility of rear yard parking with the existing pattern of development in the area.
9Ms. Paoloni addressed the concerns of the community association, stating that rear yard parking is permitted. She also highlighted that the conditions requested by the City will address drainage issues, once fulfilled.
10City Planner Elizabeth King confirmed that rear yard parking is permitted in the R1FF subzone.
11Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Applications Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
12Under the Planning Act, the Committee has the power to grant a consent if it is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Also, the Committee must be satisfied that an application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and has regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Act, as well as the following criteria set out in subsection 51(24):
Criteria
(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;
b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
j) the adequacy of school sites;
k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (