Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 06, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000606
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant and Appellant: Tiffany Canzano & Russell Drew
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the construction of a pool cabana
Reference Number: A-24-21
Property Address: 151 Kingslynn Drive
Municipality/UT: King/York
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000606
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000606
OLT Case Name: Canzano et al. v. King (Township)
Heard: August 28, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Tiffany Canzona & Russell Drew | Chris Barnett |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K. Hewitt ON August 28,2024 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal is brought by Tiffany Canzona and Russell Drew (“Appellants”), the owners of the lands municipally known as 151 Kingslynn Drive (“Subject Property”). The file relates to the Township of King (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”), refusal of a Minor Variance application seeking relief from Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 (“ZBL”) to facilitate the construction of a proposed cabana.
2Mr. Chris Barnett, counsel for the Appellants, introduced Mr. Dan Stone, a Registered Professional Planner who was affirmed with no objections. Prior to Mr. Stone making his expert witness statement, Mr. Barnett confirmed that Town staff would not be present. Still, their report to the Committee supported the Appellants’ application for a Minor Variance.
3Mr. Stone, whose qualifications are within his Affidavit, marked as Exhibit 1, highlighted the three Minor Variances that were sought from the Appellants.
a. To permit a decrease in the side yard setback to 0.85 metres (“m”), whereas the ZBL is 3.6 m;
b. To permit a decrease from the minimum interior side yard setback to 0.85 m, whereas the ZBL is 1.2 m; and
c. To permit an overall lot coverage of 36.82%, whereas the ZBL is 30%
4Mr. Stone provided the Tribunal with some background on the application, highlighting that the staff report submitted was in support of the proposed Variances and that there were no written or oral submissions in opposition.
5The Subject Property is designated as an established neighbourhood in the Town Official Plan (“OP”), further designated as Towns and Villages with the Region of York (“Region”) OP. The Subject Property is zoned Residential – Single Detached “D” (R1D) to the ZBL for the Schomberg and King City Urban Areas.
6The cabana is an accessory used for the principal residential use under the permitted Zoning “D” (R1D). Mr. Stone’s opinion is that the proposed cabana and increase in maximum lot coverage meet the general intent of the OP.
7Mr. Stone highlighted Section 3.2.2a of the ZBL. He stated that his opinion was that the intent of the ZBL was to create a more uniform visual of the streetscape and to mitigate privacy concerns. The proposed cabana is to be located on the rear corner of the Subject Property and is mainly buffered from the streetscape by the existing privacy fence in the side yard. The location of the structure will allow for proper stormwater drainage. Therefore, the reduction of the inside yard setback does not significantly impact the streetscape and continues to meet the intent of the ZBL.
8Mr. Stone also indicated that two other properties within the area recently received similar Minor Variance consents for the same purposes as this application.
9Mr. Stone concluded that in review of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Region and Town OPs, in his expert opinion, the proposed cabana is consistent with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Furthermore, the proposal also conforms to the Growth Plan and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) as the proposed cabana and its use maintains the current intent of the residential zoning “D” (R1D).
CONCLUSION
10After a review of all materials. The Tribunal recognizes the sworn affidavit and oral evidence provided by Mr. Stone and that the application does meet the four tests to support a Minor Variance. The Tribunal finds that this application is consistent with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the PPS, conforms with the OPs of both the Region and the Town and the Growth Plan, and reflects principles of good land use planning.
ORDER
11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Variances to Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 are authorized.
“K. Hewitt”
K. HEWITT
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.