Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 24, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001970

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

Applicant and Appellant: API Development Consultants Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit construction of a new detached dwelling, driveways, landscaping and additional site works

Reference Number: A 074-21

Property Address: 14560 Mount Pleasant Road

Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001970

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001970

OLT Case Name: API Development Consultants Inc. v. Caledon (Town)

Heard: June 20, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Town of Caledon	Did Not Appear
API Development Consultants Inc.	Jeremy Teplinsky

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED C. HARDY AND P. TOMILIN ON JUNE 20, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1API Development Consultants Inc. (“Applicant”) applied to the Town of Caledon (“Town”) for minor variances (“Application”) to the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2006-50, as amended (“ZBL”) to permit construction of a new dwelling, driveways, landscaping and additional site works on the property located at 14560 Mount Pleasant Road, Caledon (“Subject Property”).

2The Town’s Planning Staff recommended that the Application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1. The Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) denied the requested minor variances on December 8, 2021. The COA was of the following opinion:

“In the opinion of the Committee, the variance is not minor in nature and is not considered appropriate and desirable development and does not meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.”

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.

5In advance of the hearing, the Town notified the Tribunal that it would not be participating in nor attending the hearing.

6For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal will allow the Appeal in part and authorize the requested variances, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1.

Subject Property

7The Subject Property is located on the west side of Mount Pleasant Road south of Castlederg Sideroad. It has an approximate area of 19.8 acres with an approximate frontage of 121 metres onto Mount Pleasant Road. The Subject Property currently contains a dwelling, accessory building, sports court and existing driveway.

8The Applicant has filed an Oak Ridges Moraine Site Plan Application to demolish the existing dwelling, sports court and driveways to allow construction of the proposed new detached dwelling, driveways, landscaping and additional site works (“Proposed Development”).

9The Subject Property falls within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”) and is designated “Countryside Area” and “Natural Linkage Area”. The majority of the Proposed Development falls within the Countryside Area which permits, among others, residential uses. Some of the driveway in the Proposed Development falls within the Natural Linkage Area which permits, among others, accessory uses, such as a driveway.

10The Subject Property is designated as “Environmental Policy Area” and “Prime Agricultural Area” within the Town of Caledon Official Plan (“OP”). Permitted uses within the Environmental Policy Area include, among others, legally existing residential uses. Permitted uses within the Prime Agricultural Area include, among others, residential uses (a single-detached dwelling).

11Pursuant to the ZBL, the Subject Property is zoned “Environmental Policy Area 2” (“EPA2”), Environmental Policy Area 2 – Oak Ridges Moraine” (“EPA2-ORM”) and “Agricultural – Oak Ridges Moraine” (“A1-ORM”). The Proposed Development is located on the EPA2-ORM and A1-ORM lands.

Proposed Variances

12The Proposed Development will require relief from the ZBL as follows:

a. A building area (maximum) of 15.3% in the lands zoned A1-ORM, whereas the ZBL permits the lesser of 5% or 0.8 hectares;

b. A building height (maximum) of 13.89 metres to the top of the ornamental roof structure, whereas the ZBL permits a building height (maximum) of 10.5 metres;

c. A driveway width (maximum) of 15 metres in front of the 4-car garage, whereas the ZBL permits a driveway width (maximum) of 8.5 metres;

d. A driveway width (maximum) of 12.19 metres in the driveway entry, whereas the ZBL permits a driveway width (maximum) of 8.5 metres.

13The four (4) requested variances will be referred to collectively as “Requested Variances”.

THE HEARING

14David Barnard was called by the Applicant and was the only witness providing evidence to the Tribunal. In response to questioning by the Tribunal, Mr. Barnard noted that he has been involved in minor variance hearings before the Tribunal in the past as a consultant. He also confirmed that he has been very involved in the Application and presented the Applicant’s case to the COA. He advised that he is not a land use planner and is not an expert. The Tribunal received evidence from Mr. Barnard as a lay witness.

15The Tribunal recognizes the fact that Town Planning Staff recommended approval with conditions, and there was no contradictory evidence presented to the Tribunal at the hearing.

16The Applicant advised the Tribunal that they were relying upon the content of the Town Staff Report dated December 8, 2021 (“Staff Report”) and the conclusions drawn therein. In adjudicating the matter, the Tribunal relied on the Staff Report, which was entered as Exhibit 3, and on the Applicant’s oral submissions and the sworn testimony of Mr. Barnard.

17The following documents were entered and marked at the hearing:

Exhibit 1 – Elevation drawings A3.1 – A3.3
Exhibit 2 – Site Plan MVr2
Exhibit 3 – Town Staff Report dated December 8, 2021
Exhibit 4 – Town letter to Tribunal dated June 1, 2022
Exhibit 5 – Town approval letter dated May 6, 2022
Exhibit 6 – Minor Variance Application Form
Exhibit 7 – Addendum list of variances
Exhibit 8 – Committee of Adjustment decision dated December 9, 2021

Legislative Regime

18Applications for a minor variances must satisfy four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, namely the requested variances must:

a. maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan;

b. maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;

c. be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and

d. be minor.

19In addition to the four tests, in making a decision under the Act with respect to minor variances, the Tribunal must also have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

20As stated above, the majority of the Proposed Development will be located in the area designated under the OP as Prime Agricultural Area which permits residential uses. A small portion of the Proposed Development will be located in the area designated as Environmental Policy Area, which permits minor expansions of existing uses, subject to applicable approval requirements of other relevant agencies. The Proposed Development is replacing an existing dwelling, albeit with a larger footprint. The Staff Report found that “(t)he scope of the subject application, within the context of the site and surrounding area, is considered minor”.

21The Subject Property is located within the area of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”). It is important to note that the TRCA reviewed the Application and did not have any concerns.

22It was Town Staff’s opinion that the Requested Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and the Tribunal finds the same. The Proposed Development is replacing a residential dwelling, which is a permitted use. Given the large size of the Subject Property, the Tribunal finds that the increase in size of the proposed dwelling maintains the intent of the OP.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

23The Staff Report noted that the purpose of regulating maximum building area in the ZBL is to ensure buildings are not too large for lots. This allows for proper drainage and ensures that septic beds and/or wells function safely.

24Mr. Barnard testified that the Subject Property is a very large lot which falls within two (2) zones of the ZBL, as can be seen in Exhibit 2. It is important to note that in accordance with the ZBL, lots that are divided into more than one (1) zone have the maximum building area calculated as a percentage of the zoned area, not the total lot area.

25The Applicant is proposing to build the dwelling primarily on the property zoned A1-ORM due to site constraints resulting form the adjacent natural and environmental features at the rear of the Subject Property. As such, the Applicant requires relief from the ZBL which stipulates that the building area should be the lesser of 0.8 hectares or 5%. The Staff Report provided a helpful comparison. It noted that if the entire Subject Property were used in the building area calculation, the building area for the Proposed Development would be less than 2%, thereby eliminating the need for a variance relating to building area.

26Mr. Barnard testified that if the Proposed Development was built further back on the Subject Property into the EPA2 zone it would have complied with the building area restriction set out in the ZBL. However, this would have resulted in a more significant environmental impact.

27Mr. Barnard testified that the Proposed Development is also in compliance with the ZBL with respect to building height, except for the ornamental roof structure (cupola). He noted that the dwelling is a one-storey building in compliance with building height restrictions, but for the cupola, which simply enhances the design.

28The Staff Report noted that the requested building height variance is limited to the ornamental roof structure as the remainder of the Proposed Development complies with the ZBL height restrictions.

29The Applicant is requesting 2 variances related to driveway widths. The first is in front of the proposed garage and the second is at the landscaped driveway entry. Mr. Barnard testified that due to the design of the Proposed Development, they are unable to comply with the restrictions contained in the ZBL.

30The Staff Report noted that the expanded driveway width in front of the garage will not be visible from the street due to screening proposed by the Applicant. The requested driveway variance at the entry to the Subject Property is limited to the entry only and will not expand the full extent of the street line.

31The Proposed Development would comply with the building area limit if it were built further back on the Subject Property, or if the size of the whole of the lot were used in the building area calculation. Similarly, the Proposed Development complies with the building height restrictions in the ZBL, except for the decorative cupola. Finally, the requested driveway width variance will facilitate a wider driveway in front of the garage that will not be visible from the street. The Tribunal agrees with the conclusions drawn by Town Staff that the Requested Variances meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building or Structure

32Mr. Barnard testified that the Proposed Development is located on the Subject Property in the location that has the least environmental impact.

33The Staff Report noted that the Proposed Development expands on the current legally existing residential use. Additionally, the expanded driveway width at the garage will be screened from view of the street. Staff also noted that TRCA reviewed the Application and did not note any concerns.

34The Tribunal agrees with the conclusions drawn in the Staff Report and finds that the Requested Variances are appropriate development.

Are the Variances Minor

35Mr. Barnard testified that the Requested Variances are all minor in nature. The Proposed Development would comply with building area restrictions if the entire area of the Subject Property were used in the building area calculation. Due to the fact that the Subject Property is located in a dual zone, a building area variance is required. Similarly, the building height of the Proposed Development is in compliance with the ZBL, but for the decorative cupola. Finally, according to Mr. Barnard, the width and shape of the proposed driveway width is necessary given the size of the Subject Property and the size of the Proposed Development.

36The Staff Report did not determine that there would be any adverse impacts to allowing the Requested Variances. As stated above, Staff noted that if the area of the whole Subject Property were used in the calculation of building area, the Proposed Development would occupy under 2% of the lot and would comply. In addition, the height variance is limited to the decorative cupola as the remainder of the Proposed Development complies with the height restrictions within the ZBL. Finally, Staff noted that any adverse impacts resulting from the requested driveway width variances are mitigated by the screening which will be installed by the Applicant and by limiting the expanded driveway width to the entry of the Subject Property.

37The Tribunal finds that the Requested Variances are minor. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal agrees with the Staff Report that the Requested Variances would not result in any undue adverse impacts.

Matters of Provincial Interest

38The Staff Report notes that the ORMCP designation which the Subject Property falls within permits residential uses and accessory uses, such as driveways.

39The Tribunal finds that the Requested Variances have regard to matters of Provincial interest including the protection of natural areas, features and functions. The Applicant is replacing an existing residential dwelling and has worked with TRCA to locate the Proposed Development in a location that would cause the least amount of environmental impact.

CONCLUSION

40The Tribunal is satisfied based on the documentary record before it that the Requested Variances should be allowed and authorized, subject to the Conditions set out in Attachment 1.

41For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Requested Variances satisfy the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the ORMCP, and constitute good planning. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and the decision of the City’s COA and the information that the COA had before it.

ORDER

42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to the Town’s By-law No. 2006-50, as amended, are authorized subject to the Conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY
MEMBER

“P. Tomilin”

P. TOMILIN
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.

ATTACHMENT 1

1. That the Secretary-Treasurer receives written confirmation from the TRCA that the applicant has submitted the TRCA application fee.

2. That the Secretary-Treasurer receives written confirmation from the TRCA that the applicant has obtained a TRCA permit.

3. That the Secretary-Treasurer receives written confirmation from the Development and Design staff that a satisfactory site plan application has been received and processed for the subject lands.