Grant Gorchynski v. City of Mississauga, 2024 CanLII 9781

ISSUE DATE: February 06, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000456

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

Applicant and Appellant: Grant Gorchynski

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit relief from required number of parking spaces.

Reference Number: A34.23 W2

Property Address: 1692 Lakeshore Rd. West

Municipality/UT: Mississauga

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000456

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000456

OLT Case Name: Gorchynski v. Mississauga (“City”)

Heard: September 22, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Grant Gorchynski

Jim Witty*

City of Mississauga

Did not attend

DECISION DELIVERED BY Carmine TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing was convened to consider the Appeals by Grant Gorchynski (“Appellant”) of the decision of the City of Mississauga (“City”) Committee of Adjustment made on Thursday, April 27, 2023, to refuse the minor variances.

SUBMISSIONS / RELIEF SOUGHT

2The Tribunal heard the Subject Lands is home to a medical hyperbaric oxygen therapy centre.

3The Appellant requested the following variances:

97 parking spaces whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum of 135 parking spaces in this instance (“Variance 1”);
Three (3) accessible parking spaces whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum of five (5) parking spaces in this instance (“Variance 2”); and
To allow the main front entrance to face the rear parking lot whereas By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, does not allow the main front entrance (non-residential) to face the rear parking lot in this instance (“Variance 3”).

4At the onset of the Hearing, the Tribunal was in receipt of a letter from the solicitor for the City, Ms. Lia Magi, that the Parties would advise the Tribunal that;

Variance 1 is no longer required in light of the current, updated parking regulations in Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 applicable to the property;
With respect to Variance 2, a minimum of four (4) accessible parking spaces are required for compliance with both Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. The Appellant has committed to re-allocating one of the on-site surplus parking spaces as an accessible parking space to ensure this requirement is met, and proof of same will be required in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the City’s Zoning division;
Accordingly, the City understands that the Appellant will be amending their Application to remove Variances 1 and 2; and
Variance 3 is still required. The City takes no position on Variance 3 and will not be tendering any evidence at the Hearing.

5The Tribunal heard from Mr. Witty, agent for the Appellant. Mr. Witty fully supported the correspondence from Ms. Magi, and the amendments to the Applications whereby removing Variances 1 and 2. Pursuant to s. 18.1.1 of the Planning Act (“Act”), the Tribunal determined that the amendments to the original Application were minor, and no notice was deemed necessary.

6Regarding Variance 3, as the City would not attend nor tender any evidence to this variance, Mr. Witty provided the Tribunal with the reasoning that the request for the main front entrance would face the rear parking lot, would serve to provide privacy for its Patients and those arriving through medical transport means.

FINDINGS

7The Hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the Application meets these tests remains on the Appellant.

8The Tribunal’s authority to authorize variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an Application for the authorization of variances.

9The tests require that the variances:

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 in nature.

10The Tribunal accepts and agrees with the unchallenged statement of Mr. Witty.

11The one outstanding variance request before the Tribunal is appropriate for the Subject Lands, as it will add to the privacy and comfort of the Patients that will attend the facility.

12The Tribunal finds that the requirements required of the four tests in the Act are met, including that they are minor, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, that they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

13Furthermore, the City’s decision not to oppose this variance provides added credibility to the Appeal.

Bill 150

14Since the conclusion of the Hearing held by the Tribunal, and before the issuance of this Decision, the Tribunal reached out to the Parties to seek input if the passing of Bill 150, Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, which enacts the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 (“OPAA”), which received Royal Assent on December 6, 2023, had any impacts on the potential outcome of this matter. Parties have not provided any responses as of the date of the issuance of this Decision.

ORDER

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part, and the variance to By- law No. 0225-2007 to permit the main front entrance to face the rear parking lot is authorized.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

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.