Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 27, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000250
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Polakala Mandadi
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
Minor Variance Refusal
Reference Number:
A746/22
Property Address:
654 Dodsworth Crescent
Municipality/UT:
Mississauga/Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000250
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000250
OLT Case Name:
Mandadi v. Mississauga (City)
Heard:
July 11, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Polakala Mandadi (“Applicant”)
Self-represented
City of Mississauga (“City”)
Did not appear
DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an application for a Minor Variance pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to the property Municipally known as 654 Dodsworth Crescent (“Subject Property”), in the City.
2The Applicant sought one variance:
a. To permit the existing non-conforming driveway width of 7 metres while 5.2 metres is permitted in the zoning by-law
3No other person sought Party or Participant status.
4Prior to the hearing, the City informed the Tribunal that it was not participating in the matter unless summoned.
EVIDENCE
5The Applicant did not call on any witnesses or summons City staff and did not provide the Tribunal with any quantified submissions. In the absence of any qualified evidence or submissions from the Applicant, the Tribunal relied on the Municipal Record and as such, the Tribunal entered the Municipal Record into evidence as Exhibit 1.
BACKGROUND
6The Applicant explained to the Tribunal that they wish to maintain the current driveway width, which was in place prior to the Applicant purchasing the property in August of 2014. In recent years, the Applicant converted the basement into a legal second unit and wishes to maintain the larger driveway width to accommodate the two rental units, which he had thought was formally approved through the basement conversion process.
7Unfortunately, it was determined through a by-law complaint process that the existing driveway was widened without a proper permit, hence the Minor Variance application being sought several years thereafter.
8The Subject Property is zoned RM1 in the City’s Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 (“ZBL”) which permits a maximum driveway width of 5.2 metres.
9The matter came before the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on February 23, 2023, where the COA approved the City recommendation from the staff planning report that the application be refused. The staff planning report further stated that:
The subject property is located in the Applewood Neighbourhood Character Area and is designated as Residential Low Density II in Schedule 10 of the Mississauga Official Plan (MOP). Section 9.1 of the MOP states that driveway widths and associated setbacks should respect the identity and character of the surrounding context.
The applicant is proposing a driveway width of 7.0m (23ft). The planned character of the area is that of residential dwellings serviced by appropriately sized driveways that can accommodate the parking required by the zoning by-law for each property. The intent of the driveway width regulations in the By-law is to allow a driveway that can accommodate two vehicles parked side by side, with the remainder of the front yard being soft landscaped area. The proposed driveway would represent significant hardscaping in the front yard, contrary to the intent of the zoning bylaw, and represents excessive width to facilitate the parking of two vehicles across.
Staff are of the opinion that, as currently proposed, the driveway does not meet the general intent or purpose of the zoning By-law and is not minor in nature. Staff therefore recommend that the application be refused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo. In this case, the Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met. The variance tests are as follows:
a. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
b. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
c. Is minor in nature; and
d. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
11The Tribunal comprehends the frustration of the matter before it being, an application in reply to a complaint, to remedy an error of a previous property owner.
12In rendering a decision, the Tribunal must consider the evidence that was presented. The Tribunal must also give regard to the decision of the COA and the items presented before the COA, including public comments both written and orally submitted.
13Upon the examination of all the evidence in totality, the Tribunal concurs with the decision of the COA. The Tribunal finds that the increased driveway width to accommodate three vehicles parking side-by-side-by-side which subsequently removes the majority of the landscape open space (leaving approximately two metres) is not minor in nature, is not desirable, and does not meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL or the OP.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed and the variance to By-law 0225-2007 are not authorized.
“Kurtis Smith”
KURTIS SMITH 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.