Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 29, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002833
(Formerly PL180828)
OLT-22-002751
(Formerly MM180072)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Slavica Petrovski and Pece Petrovski
Subject:
Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.:
270-2004
Property Address/Description:
7573 Creditview Road
Municipality:
City of Brampton
Municipal File No.:
A18-149
OLT Case No.: Legacy Case No.:
OLT-22-002833 PL180828
OLT Lead Case No.: Legacy Lead Case No:
OLT-22-002833 PL180828
OLT Case Name:
Petrovski v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 42(7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Slavica Petrovski and Pece Petrovski
Subject:
Appeal of the Decision of Council to refuse to issue a permit to erect a building or structure
Property Address/ Description:
7573 Creditview Road
Municipality:
City of Brampton
OLT Case No.: Legacy Case No.: OLT Lead Case No.: Legacy Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002751 MM180072 OLT-22-002751 MM180072
Heard:
June 24, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Brampton
Matthew Rea
Slavica and Pece Petrovski
J. Meader
(“Applicants” or “Appellants”)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D.S. COLBOURNE ON JUNE 24, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1A hearing was conducted on June 24, 2022, dealing with City of Brampton (“City”) Council’s refusal to issue a Heritage permit and the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment of a minor variance for a heritage structure in the Heritage Village of Churchville.
2The Appellants had obtained a Heritage permit for an addition in 2014, which included an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling, the construction of a large, covered porch across the front of the dwelling and a detached garage (accessory structure) in the rear yard. Minor Variance approvals were granted for the side yards, the accessory structure area, and for height and habitable space within that accessory structure.
3The build out added additional area to the rear and to the east of the existing dwelling.
4Subsequently in 2018, applications were made which revised the approvals granted in 2014. Both the application for permit and related minor variance application were refused, and are subject of this hearing.
5Since that time, the matter has been the subject of discussion and the Parties have reached a settlement.
6The Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) heard the viva voce evidence of William Oughtred, a professional planner, and have also reviewed his affidavit in support of the settlement (Exhibit 1).
7Mr. Oughtred described the context of the Heritage Village of Churchville:
The neighbourhood is comprised of a mix of housing stock including old, new and renovated homes some of which are identified as being of heritage significance, including the subject dwelling.
The houses are a mix of one storey, one and half storey and two storey with brick veneers or wood or vinyl siding. There are a further mix of attached and detached garages. There are also many large accessory structures located in rear yards.
The subject property has a lot area of 1.048 ha and a lot frontage of 41.3 m. It is one of the largest lots in the village as shown on the Location Map 10.6-10.
8The Applicants/Appellants have made significant restoration, adding a two-storey addition to the rear, replacing the front windows with wood sash windows, replacing the shutters with historically appropriate ones, replacing bay windows, restoring the front entrance and bay window on the south elevation and enlarging the porch to a wrap around.
9Mr. Oughtred reviewed all Provincial, Regional and Local Statements, and Official Plans including the specific Churchville Heritage Conservation District Plan (“Churchville HCD”) and the various reports from those authorities and has concluded that all support the proposal.
10He has also concluded that the proposal meets the four tests with respect to the Minor Variances and the development is appropriate.
11Philip Evans is a registered architect, and a Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (“CAHP”). His affidavit is in Exhibit 2 and also gave evidence in support of the Heritage aspects of the settlement proposal.
The property at 2573 Creditview Road is located within the village of Churchville Conservation District. The purpose of designating a heritage conservation district is to protect and enhance the cultural heritage value and character of a specific area over time. The dominating rural character that provides a distinctive context for the streetscapes and scenery found in the District is defining the Village of Churchville. The rural setting and modest vernacular buildings are characteristics that must be maintained over time for ensuring the conservation and continuation of Churchville’s distinctive character. The preservation of the unique setting found in Churchville depends on limiting the following:
a. The size and configuration of lots;
b. The size, height and design of buildings; and
c. Opportunities to change to the roadway, the open space character, natural features and the rural landscape.
12Mr. Evans was retained to assess the differences between the approved 2014 Heritage Permit and the construction work being undertaken in 2018.
13He determined that changes between the 2014 and the Revised Design have no significant impact from a heritage perspective. Overall, the Revised Design is in keeping with the character of the Churchville HCD and the intent of the Churchville plan guidelines.
14He reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement and its cultural heritage resources framework, the Growth Plan, the City Official Plan and all the heritage policies and concluded that the Revised Design is appropriate and is in keeping with all. None of the views will be impacted.
ORDER
15The Tribunal orders that:
(a) Based on the evidence of Mr. Oughtred, the Planner, and Mr. Evans, the heritage architect, in support of the appeals, the Tribunal orally allowed the appeal of the Heritage Permit and authorized the appeal of the Minor Variance as being minor in nature with a maximum gross floor area of 296.07 square metres only to the extent of the dwelling building area in accordance with the Revised Plans and Site Plan attached to the Minutes of Settlement (as Schedules A and B in Exhibit 4), and are now attached as Appendix A (“Revised Plans”) and Appendix B (“Site Plan”) to this Decision.
(b) That the owner shall apply for a building permit consistent with the Revised Plans within 90 days of the date of issue of the OLT Decision and Order, or within an extended period of time at the discretion of the Chief Building Official;
(c) The Heritage Permit is approved pursuant to s.42(8)(b) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following condition:
i. The alterations to the dwelling on the Subject Lands shall be consistent with the Revised Plans.
16There are other commitments undertaken by the owner in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, which are between the Parties and therefore do not form part of this Order.
“D.S. Colbourne”
D.S. COLBOURNE
VICE CHAIR
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.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B