Liu v. Pickering (City), 2022 CanLII 1611

ISSUE DATE: January 14, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001032

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

Appellant: Wei Liu

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road

Variance from By-law: Zoning By-law No. 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: P/CA 42/21

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001032

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001032 OLT Case Name: Liu V. Pickering (City)

Heard: November 17, 2021 by Video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Wei Liu

Counsel Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1This was a hearing regarding the refusal of a minor variance application by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the City of Pickering (the “City”). Wei Liu (“Applicant/Appellant”) has property located in the City which is municipally known as 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road.

2The Applicant/Appellant proposes to build a garage for recreational purposes in the rear of the property. In order to construct this garage, the Applicant/Appellant requested two variances to increase lot coverage to 23 percent whereas 20 percent is allowed and to increase the height of the proposed garage to 4.5 metres when 3.5 metres is allowed.

PARTIES, WITNESSES, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

3The City did not appear at the hearing. No one else requested party or participant status and none were so granted.

4The Applicant/Appellant attended and presented Xudong Tang, an engineer, as a lay witness.

5The Tribunal, if it were to allow the appeal, must be satisfied that the necessary statutory tests per s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) are met. The tests are for each variance separately as well as collectively that they;

maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land building or structure; and,
are minor.

6Mr. Tang referred to the communication of Deborah Wylie, City planner, to the COA dated May 12, 2021. Ms. Wylie’s report cites the variances requested as;

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law No. 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88 to permit:

a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent; and
an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone and 4.5 metres in any commercial zone.

7Mr. Tang further referred to the recommendation of City planning staff which states;

The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition:

That these variances apply only to the proposed detached garage, as generally sited and applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3).

Mr. Tang further reviewed the City’s staff report and submitted his concurrence with its analysis and conclusions.

8Mr. Tang testified that based on his assessment and the report of City planning staff as per Ms. Wylie’s communication to the COA;

a) The proposed variances conform to the intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and the Zoning By-law; and

b) The variances represent appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature.

9Mr. Tang also submitted that any concerns raised by the COA regarding commercial use of the garage by the Applicant/Appellant are not based in fact. He stated that the Applicant/Appellant has adequate commercial space leased and owned appropriately for the conduct of his glass company. He added that the Applicant/Appellant is upgrading the property for family residential uses and the garage for his hobby car storage and recreational activities as part of their retirement plans.

10The Tribunal having regard for material that was before the COA when it made its decision and the unopposed testimony of Mr. Tang finds that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, represent appropriate development of the land and are minor.

ORDER

11The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed and the following minor variances to City of Pickering Zoning By-law No. 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88 are authorized:

A maximum lot coverage of 23 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent; and
an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone and 4.5 metres in any commercial zone.

12The Tribunal further Orders that the proposed garage shall be generally situated as shown in the draft drawing per Attachment 1 to this order.

“Jatinder Bhullar”

JATINDER BHULLAR

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.