Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l'aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 30, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000259
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Joseph and Susan Papic
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit detached accessory additional dwelling unit building to be located in the front yard
Reference Number: A-071/23
Property Address: 10950 Riverside Drive E
Municipality/UT: Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000259
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000259
OLT Case Name: Papic v. Windsor (City)
Heard: August 8, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Joseph Papic Susan Papic (Applicant/Appellant)
Steven Pickard
City of Windsor
No one appeared
Roman Bajamic David Kirby (Added Parties)
James Ball
DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Joseph and Susan Papic, (the "Applicant/Appellant") are the owners of the property known municipally as 10950 Riverside Drive East, (the "subject property"). The Appellant is proposing to construct a detached additional dwelling unit ("ADU") building in the front yard of the subject property.
2The Appellant originally applied to the City of Windsor (the "City") for authorization of the two variances to Zoning By-law No. 8600 ("ZBL"): 1) to allow an accessory structure in the front yard and 2) to address a setback from the front lot line for the ADU.
3Following the application, a Committee of Adjustment ("COA") meeting was scheduled for November 30, 2023, which meeting was deferred for an amendment by the Appellant.
4At the deferred COA meeting on January 25, 2024, despite the City Planning staff recommending approval and the absence of the regulation on setback for the ADU in the front yard, the Appellant's variance for: "a Variance to permit a detached accessory additional dwelling unit (ADU) building to be located in the front yard", was denied by the COA ("refusal").
5The refusal was appealed by the Appellant.
6At the hearing of the appeal, two formally submitted Party status requests were considered by the Tribunal. Both requests were filed by immediate adjacent property owners, one to the east and the other to the west, of the subject property. Both requests were granted without objections i.e., to Roman Bajamic (east side – 10960) and to David Kirby (west side – 10930) ("Added Parties"). The City had written to inform that it will not participate in the hearing.
7The Parties' counsel agreed that filed affidavits and statements of witnesses are to be considered the evidence in chief of the respective witnesses. Documents were marked as follow: Jackie Lassaline's affidavit, Exhibit 1; Robert Brown's witness statement, Exhibit 2; Roman Bajamic's affidavit, Exhibit 3; and David Kirby's affidavit, Exhibit 4.
8It must be noted that an appeal to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act ("Act") is a hearing de novo and the onus of establishing that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act have been met remains on the Appellant. The four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act, require the Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the variance:
maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintains the