Mazzaferro v. King (Township), 2025 CanLII 103379

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 07, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000515

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

Applicant/Appellant: Mike Mazzaferro

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor Variances to facilitate the improvement of an accessory structure

Reference Number: A-25-13

Property Address: 27 McCutcheon Avenue

Municipality/UT: King/York

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000515

OLT Case Name: Mazzaferro v. King (Township)

Heard: September 23, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Mike Mazzafero	Gianluca Buzzanca
Township of King	Did not attend

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY Carmine TUCCI ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing was convened to consider the appeals by Mike Mazzaferro (“Applicant/Appellant”) of the decision of the Township of King’s (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) made on May 21, 2025, to refuse five of the seven minor variances requested. The Applicant is proposing the construction of an accessory building/structure to be utilized as a combined cabana and detached garage.

2The subject property is located north of King Road, east of 10th Concession, south of 15th Sideroad, and west of 8th Concession, and is comprised of a rectangular-shaped parcel of approximately 0.32 hectares (0.79 acres) in lot area. Neighbouring properties include residential lots to the north, south, east, and west.

3Existing land uses on the property include a detached dwelling (247.4 square metres (m²)) and a shed (16.7 m²). An accessory structure comprised of cabana/detached garage (180.6 m²) is contemplated on the northeast side of the subject property.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

4The following relief is requested from Zoning By-law No. 2016-71, as amended:

Variance	Section	Requirement	Proposed
1	3.2.3 a)	requires that in any Residential Zone, an accessory structure shall not exceed 4.5 metres in height.	to permit a maximum height of 4.88 metres on the west (front) elevation of the proposed cabana/detached garage.
2	3.2.3 a)	requires that in any Residential Zone, an accessory structure shall not exceed 4.5 metres in height.	to permit a maximum height of 4.87 metres on the east (rear) elevation of the proposed cabana/detached garage.
3	3.2.3 a)	requires that in any Residential Zone, an accessory structure shall not exceed 4.5 metres in height.	to permit a maximum height of 4.88 metres on the south elevation of the proposed cabana/detached garage.
4	3.2.3 a)	requires that in any Residential Zone, an accessory structure shall not exceed 4.5 metres in height.	to permit a maximum height of 4.86 metres on the north elevation of the proposed cabana/detached garage.
5	3.2.4 a)	requires that in any Residential Zone, the maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings and structures shall be 10% of the lot area or 120 m2, whichever is less.	to permit a maximum accessory lot coverage of 197.3 m2 (6.11%) to facilitate the proposed cabana/detached garage.
6	3.2.2 a) 6.5.1.7 e)	requires that no accessory building or structure shall be built closer to the front lot line or side lot line than the minimum distance required by the By-law for the main building on the lot. requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 5.0 metres.	to permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.8 metres for the proposed cabana/detached garage.
7	3.2.2 d)	requires no accessory building or structure shall be built within 1.8 metres of the main building.	to permit the proposed cabana/detached garage to be built 1.37 metres from the main building.

5The COA refused variance requests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

SUBMISSIONS

6Mr. Mazzaferro, the Applicant, was represented by Mr. Buzzanca.

7The Tribunal was informed that the Town would not attend the Hearing but was in receipt of the Planning Report prepared by staff of the Planning Division, dated May 21, 2025.

8The report fully supported the requested variances with the following condition:

That the Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformity with the Site Plan prepared for the Minor Variance Application.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

9Through Mr. Buzzanca and the Town’s staff report, the Tribunal was advised of the relevant criteria that was presented to support the requested variances against the four legislative tests described below.

1. Maintain the general intent of the Official Plan

10The Tribunal heard that the subject property is designated as a ‘Community Area’ within Schedule ‘1A’ (‘Land Use Designations’) of the Region of York Official Plan (2022), which allows for a variety of residential uses located near amenities and services.

11The subject property is identified as part of the ‘Established Neighbourhood’ designation in Schedule ‘D2’ (‘Village of Nobleton Land Use Designations’) of the Township of King Official Plan (‘Our King’) (2019). This designation supports low-density residential development, such as single-detached homes, along with related accessory buildings and structures.

12The proposed variances are needed to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (combined cabana and detached garage), which is a permitted use within the designation.

13The requested variances comply with the general intent of the Official Plans.

2. Maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law

14The Tribunal heard the subject property falls under the Residential Single Detached Exception (‘R1-7’) Zone, as shown in Schedule ‘A’, of the Township of King Zoning By-law No. 2016-71 (‘Nobleton Urban Area By-law’), as amended. This zoning designation permits single-detached residential dwellings, along with accessory uses, buildings, and structures, in accordance with the provisions of section 3.2 of the by-law.

15An ‘accessory building or structure’ is a detached structure located on the same lot as the main building, not intended for living purposes. Its function is typically secondary or supportive to the principal use of the property and may include features such as a standalone garage or carport.

16An ‘accessory use’ refers to a use that is customarily secondary to and supportive of the primary use on a property and is located on the same lot as the principal use.

Maximum Accessory Structure Height

17The Tribunal heard the Application seeks relief from the zoning by-law to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height for a proposed accessory structure, such as a cabana or detached garage. The proposed structure exceeds the permitted height of 4.5 metres (“m”) on all elevations, with heights of 4.88 m on the west (front) and south sides, 4.87 m on the east (rear), and 4.86 m on the north elevation.

18The proposed increase in height is minimal, with elevations generally exceeding the maximum permitted height by approximately 0.38 m. This minor increase is not anticipated to present significant massing impacts or adversely affect the visual character of the surrounding area.

Maximum Accessory Lot Coverage

19The Tribunal was informed that the Application proposes a Zoning By-law Amendment to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage for accessory structures from 120.0 m² to 197.3 m² (representing 6.11% of the lot area). The proposed coverage includes both an existing shed (16.7 m²) and a new accessory structure (180.6 m²). Although the overall lot coverage requirements of the Zoning By-law are met, the proposed cabana would exceed the permitted coverage specifically allocated for accessory buildings and structures.

Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback

20The Tribunal heard the Application requests relief from the Zoning By-law to reduce the minimum required interior side yard setback. The Application proposes a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.8 m to the proposed accessory structure, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 5.0 m.

21The purpose of the minimum interior side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings and structures is to maintain adequate space for property maintenance, ensure proper stormwater management and drainage, and reduce potential visual impacts on adjacent properties.

Distance Between Accessory Structure and Main Building

22The Application requests relief from the Zoning By-law to permit the proposed accessory structure within 1.37 m of the main building (existing dwelling). The by-law requires a 1.8 m distance.

23The proposed cabana is to be located in the rear yard of the property and will serve recreational and garage-related functions. A sufficient separation is maintained between the principal dwelling and the accessory structure, with the requested setback reduction of 0.43 m considered minor.

24The Tribunal heard the requested variances comply with and maintain the general intent of the zoning by-law.

3. Desirable development of the property

25The Tribunal heard the requested variances aim to support the development of an accessory structure (for use as a garage and cabana). The proposed structure is not contemplated for human habitation or use as a dwelling unit and is not expected to have a negative impact on the functionality or aesthetic appeal of the property.

26The Tribunal heard the variances are desirable for the development of the property.

4. Minor in nature

27The Tribunal was informed that the requested variances are considered minor and are not anticipated to result in adverse impacts on the subject property or surrounding properties.

FINDINGS

28The 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 Applicant.

29The Tribunal’s authority to authorize variances is given under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, which sets out the four above tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances.

30The Tribunal accepts and agrees with the testimony of Mr. Buzzanca and the Town’s staff report.

31The Tribunal finds that the proposed accessory structure is located in the rear yard and is intended for recreational and garage use. The height increase is minimal and distributed evenly across all elevations (ranging from 4.86 to 4.88 m), resulting in negligible visual impact on adjacent properties.

32The increase accommodates a functional and well-integrated cabana structure, enhancing the usability of the rear yard without compromising open space or neighbourhood character.

33The reduced interior side yard setback maintains sufficient separation from the principal dwelling and adjacent properties, ensuring space for maintenance, proper drainage, and minimizing any adverse impacts. The reduction is considered minor and does not affect the functionality or aesthetics of the site.

34The proposed development aligns with the intent of the ‘Established Neighbourhood’ designation in the Township of King Official Plan, which supports low-density residential uses and compatible accessory structures. The variances facilitate a modest enhancement to the property while respecting the surrounding built form.

35The Tribunal is further satisfied that the required Town’s conditions for approval, herein marked as Attachment “1”, will satisfy any discrepancies that may arise.

36Furthermore, the Town’s staff report not to oppose these variances provides added credibility to the appeal, and the Tribunal determines the appeal should be allowed.

37Finally, the Tribunal finds the proposed variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

ORDER

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2016-71 are authorized, subject to the condition set out in Attachment “1” to this Order, which shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Township of King.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

MEMBER

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.

Attachment “1”

“That the Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformity with the Site Plan prepared for the Minor Variance Application.”