Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 28, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001460

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

Appellant: Robert Strmota

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 71 William Bowes Blvd

Variance from By-law: 1-88

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: A-136/21

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001460

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001460

OLT Case Name: Strmota V. The City of Vaughan

Heard: March 7, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Robert Strmota (“Applicant”)

Counsel Paul DeMelo

Parties City of Vaughan (“City”)

Counsel Gurnick Perhar

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN AND C. HARDY ON MARCH 7, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant applied to the City of Vaughan (“City”) for minor variances (“Application”) to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 1-88 as amended (“Zoning By-law”) to validate the existing detached garage and loggia located on the east yard of 71 Williams Bowes Boulevard, in the City (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is the former owner of the Subject Property and is authorized by the current owner to proceed with the Application.

2The City’s Planning Staff recommended that the Application be denied, and the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) subsequently denied the requested minor variances on September 9, 2021.

3The Applicant appealed to this Tribunal, pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

4There were no Party or Participant requests presented to the Tribunal at the hearing.

5The City resolved to take no position on the Appeal, but did attend the hearing. The City requested that the following condition (“Condition”) be imposed if the Tribunal determined that the Appeal is allowed:

The Owner/Applicant shall submit the final Lot Grading and/or Servicing Plan to the Development Inspection and Lot Grading division of the City's Development Engineering Department (“DE”) for final lot grading and/or servicing. The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate appropriate Low-impact Development (“LID”) measures and include the measures in the lot grading drawing to the satisfaction of DE to mitigate the impacts of additional storm runoff.

6For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal will allow the Appeal in part and authorize the requested variances, subject to the Condition.

Subject Property

7The Subject Property has an approximate area of 566.4 square metres with an approximate frontage of 10.442 metres (“m”) on William Bowes Boulevard. The Subject Property contains an existing single-detached dwelling, a detached garage and a covered loggia. The Subject Property is located on the north side of William Bowes Boulevard with a municipal parkette abutting the Subject Property to the east (“Parkette”). To the north of the Subject Property is a wooded ravine and to the south and west is single-detached housing.

8The Subject Property is designated as “Low-Rise Residential” within the Vaughan Official Plan (“OP”). The City’s Zoning By-law No. 1-88 as amended (“ZBL”) zones the Subject Property as RD2, subject to the provisions of Exception 9 (1199).

Background

9The Subject Property was previously the subject of two (2) minor variance applications, both of which were approved by the COA.

10On October 11, 2012 the COA approved variances required in order to permit the construction of an inground pool (“2012 Approval”).

11Another minor variance application was applied for and approved by the COA on July 24, 2014 to permit the construction of a second driveway entrance and detached 1-car garage (“Garage”) on the east side of the property abutting the Parkette (“2014 Approval”). The 2014 Approval permitted reduced interior and rear yard setbacks and increased overall and accessory structure lot coverages to accommodate the new Garage.

12When the Applicant sold the Subject Property to the current owner, it was discovered that the Garage was not constructed in accordance with the 2014 Approval. The Garage was built with a different and larger footprint placing it closer to the east lot line than what had been proposed. In addition, the Garage was constructed with a flat roof whereas a peaked roof was permitted in the 2014 Approval. A covered loggia (“Loggia”) was constructed at the same time as the Garage, however, this was not part of the 2014 Approval.

13The Garage and the Loggia have been in use since 2015. A building permit is required to legalize the Garage and Loggia but cannot be issued until the requested variances are approved.

14In June 2021 the Applicant submitted an application to the City requesting the variances required to bring the Garage and Loggia into compliance. On August 12