Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 09, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-21-001604
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant:
Isildo Manuel Raposo and Sandra Raposo
Appellant:
City of Mississauga
Subject:
Minor Variance
Property Address/Description:
6985 Second Line West
Variance from By-law:
0225-2007
Municipality:
City of Mississauga
Municipal File No.:
A157/21
OLT Case No.:
OLT-21-001604
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-21-001604
OLT Case Name:
Mississauga v. Mississauga (City)
Heard:
April 22, 2022, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Isildo Manuel Raposo and
William Oughtred
Sandra Raposo
City of Mississauga
Lia Magi*
Adrin Shojaie (Student-at-law)
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND S. deBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Isildo Manuel Raposo and Sandra Raposo (the “Owners”) own 6985 Second Line West (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Mississauga (“City”), a property zoned R1-32 – Residential under By-law No. 0225 2007, as amended (the “Zoning By-law”). On September 2, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment for the City (the “COA”) approved the Owner’s application for minor variances to permit the building of a new dwelling requiring variances related to the gross floor area, lot coverage, building height, driveway width, and building an at-grade patio where it is not permitted by the by-law (the “Minor Variance”).
2On September 22, 2021, the City appealed the COA Decision on the grounds that the four tests of a minor variance pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) were not met, including concerns regarding driveway size, loss of vegetation, and impacts on the adjacent Meadowvale Heritage Conservation District remained.
3The Subject Property is located on the east side of Second Line West, south of Old Derry Road and falls within the Meadowvale Village Neighbourhood Character Area of the Official Plan and forms part of The Village Precinct.
4In 2017, the land was severed from 6989 Second Line West (which remains vacant). The Subject Property has a lot frontage of approximately 19.94 metres (“m”) and a lot area of approximately 1,299.5 square metres (“m2”), as shown on the Site Plan and is also currently vacant.
5The larger surrounding context is primarily residential, featuring detached dwellings on lots of varying sizes with a school across the street.
THE PROPOSAL
6The proposal is to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling with an attached garage in the rear yard, as shown on the Site Plan, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” within the Affidavit (Attachment 1).
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
7Having been advised by the City that the Owners and the City have agreed to settle the Appeal and have signed Minutes of Settlement, the Tribunal heard uncontested land use planning opinion evidence of Alexander Davies, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the Settlement.
8He described the proposal’s regard for matters of Provincial interest; consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”); conformity with A Place To Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), as well as conformity with the policy direction of both the Region of Peel Official Plan (“ROP”) and the City Official Plan (“OP”) and meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act.
9In addition, he provided a comprehensive review of the agreed upon conditions of approval (Attachment 2), opining them to be appropriate for this development. Mr. Davies noted that the Owner has subsequently submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment to the City, which has been reviewed and accepted.
10The Tribunal heard that changes to the Site Plan result in the following changes from the original application:
8.1. Elimination of the variance for increased driveway width for the portion of the driveway extending from the street line to approximately the area that is adjacent to the patio attached to the garage, and a proposed driveway width of 2.6 m in this location.
8.2. The retention of one additional tree in the front yard.
11Mr. Davies opined that Exhibit “F” in his Affidavit (see Attachment 1), represents good planning subject to the condition that construction and tree preservation are undertaken in accordance with Exhibit “F”.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
12The Tribunal when making a determination on the changes made to the original appeal application filed, must determine pursuant to s. 45(18.1) and s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act whether the amendments being requested are minor. In this matter, the Tribunal finds that the changes as per paragraph [10] of this decision are both minor and that no further notice is needed.
13The Tribunal accepts the uncontested expert planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Davies and finds the proposed Settlement, subject to the conditions as agreed upon by the parties, meets all the relevant legislative tests as discussed above.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal be allowed, in part, and that the following minor variances are approved:
A gross floor area of 338.14 m2 whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum gross floor area 289.95 m2 in this instance;
A lot coverage of 25.76% whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum lot coverage of 25.00% in this instance;
A height of 8.35 m for highest ridge of a sloped roof whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum height of 7.50 m for highest ridge of a sloped roof in this instance;
A driveway width of 6.68 m for the driveway area within 6.62 m measured perpendicular from the garage face, whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum driveway width of 3.00 m in this instance;
An at grade paver patio above the below grade accessory storage structure whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, does not permit at grade paver patio above the below grade accessory storage structure in this instance;
A setback measured to window well of 11.07 m whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum setback measured to window well of 11.39 m in this instance; and
Two walkways attached to driveway whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, permits one walkway on each side of a driveway.
15THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the approval of the minor variances is subject to the following conditions:
- Construction and tree preservation related to these variances shall be undertaken in accordance with the revised development plans attached hereto as Schedule “A” of the Site Plan (Attachment 2).
“D. Chipman”
D. chipman
MEMBER
“S. deBoer”
S. deboer
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.
OLT-21-001604 – Attachment 1
OLT-21-001604 – Attachment 2