Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 13, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000572
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Stuart & Savio Vaz
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit
Reference Number: MV 41/25
Property Address: 1315 Broadview Street
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000572
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000572
OLT Case Name: Vaz v. Pickering (City)
Heard: October 23, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Stuart Vaz & Savio Vaz (“Applicant”)
n/a
DECISION DELIVERED BY MATHIEU E. QUESNEL AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Stuart Vaz and Savio Vaz (“Applicant”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the City of Pickering (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in which an Application for Minor Variance (“Application”) was refused. The Application affects the land known as 1315 Broadview, Pickering (“Subject Property”).
2The Applicant is proposing a third dwelling unit within an existing detached dwelling but, in order to obtain the necessary permits, they need to request approval for minor variances.
3The Applicant is appealing the COA decision to refuse their application for minor variances.
4The Application for Minor Variances are for
a. to reduce the number of required parking spaces from four to three; and
b. to increase the maximum permitted width of the parking from 6 metres (“m”) to 9.25 m.
5Notice of Hearing was sent by email by the Tribunal on September 5th 2025, (Exhibit 1).
6No one from the City of Pickering attended the hearing on October 23, 2025.
SITE AND CONTEXT
7The Subject Property has a frontage of 16.7 m and a depth of 30.4 m. The property is a residential dwelling with one additional unit.
8The Subject Property is located at approximately 550 m north of the Durham Region Transit bus service along Krosno Boulevard.
9The Subject Property is located on Broadview Street in the City of Pickering and is zoned as Residential First Density (R1E) in the City of Pickering Zoning By-Law No 8149/24 (“ZBL”).
10Within the Region of Durham Official Plan (“RDOP”) the Subject Property is designated as a Community Area and located within the Built Boundary of the City.
11Within the City of Pickering Official Plan (“CPOP”) the Subject Property is designated as Urban Residential - Low Density Area.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
12The Tribunal’s authority to grant variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Appellant, when making an application for the authorization of variances. It must be noted that the 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. The legislative tests require that the variances:
a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (OP);
b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (ZBL);
c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
d. Be minor in nature.
PARTIES AND EVIDENCE
13The City was not present at the hearing.
14The Applicant was self represented and called one witness, Lisa Klets, from D.G. Biddle & Associates to give evidence in the areas of land use planning.
15After reviewing Lisa Klets’ qualification, professional experience and Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified her as an expert in land use planning and she was affirmed to provide expert opinion evidence. The expert witness background and qualifications and her statement were received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 2.
16The Applicant’s Book of Documents, which included the Application, the package provided to the COA, site and neighbourhood context images, the City Planning Staff Report (“staff report”), COA presentation and Decision were received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 3.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
Provincial Planning Statement 2024
17Evidence was provided by Lisa Klets that the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) promotes intensification, diversification of housing options, and efficient use of land and resources.
18Mrs. Klets testifies that the requested variances will permit the intensification of the property and will contribute to the diversification of housing options. It will optimize the existing infrastructure and public service facilities.
19Mrs. Klets opines that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS 2024.
REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN
20The Region of Durham Official Plan (“RDOP”) provides policy direction for how the growth and development in the Region of Durham.
21The RDOP also promotes the intensification of property by the redevelopment of a property and adding residential units. It is also supporting the increase of housing options.
22Mrs. Klets also presented many sections of the RDOP that support intensification and the support in offering housing options.
23It is Mrs. Klets opinion that the proposed development support is consistent with the intent of the RDOP.
THE FOUR TESTS
1. Do the variances meet the general Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan?
24The Subject Property is designated Urban Residential - Low Density Area in the CPOP and the proposed use is permitted.
25The Subject Property is located within Bay Ridges Neighbourhood.
26The CPOP, at section 3.9, speaks to maintenance and protection of the character of existing neighbourhoods. The immediate neighbourhood of the Subject Property consists of detached, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment dwellings.
27Mrs. Klets testifies that in the area there are many different sizes and types of driveways and that the proposed increase of parking spots and parking width would not change the character of the neighbourhood.
28Mrs. Klets opines that the request to reduce the minimum parking spaces from four to three and to increase the driveway width from 6.0 m to 9.25 m would still respect and maintain the character of the area.
29The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variances meet the general intent and purpose of the CPOP.
2. Do the Variances meet the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law?
30The City zones this site as a Residential First Density (R1E) Zone. In this zone, a detached dwelling and additional dwelling units are permitted. A maximum of two additional units are permitted as per section 4.3.
31The ZBL requires that the detached dwelling have two parking spaces and one additional space per additional unit. Since the Applicant is proposing to add a second additional unit, a total of four spaces are required.
32She also testifies that even if parking on the boulevard portion of the property cannot count as a minimum parking space, the property has a large portion in front that vehicles will be able to park on.
33She also testifies that there is a transit connection within the vicinity of the property which further supports the reduction of automobile use, thus the need for extra parking spaces.
34Mrs. Klets testifies that the requested variances meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL.
35The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variances meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL
3. Are the Variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
36Mrs. Klets testifies that the requested variances would not negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood and represent an appropriate intensification of an existing dwelling.
37She testifies that the widening of the driveway maintains the character of the neighbourhood while allowing for maintenance of appropriate landscaping area, grading and drainage.
38Mrs. Klets is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and are appropriate in the context of the existing surrounding uses and is considerate of the character of the neighbourhood.
39The Tribunal agrees that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
4. Are the Variances considered Minor in nature?
40The evidence provided by Mrs. Klets is that the requested variances are minor, will not have an impact on lands beyond the Subject Property and would not pose harm to the character of the area or the continued use of the adjacent properties for their current or future purposes.
41The Tribunal is satisfied that the requested variances are minor in nature.
FINDINGS
42The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mrs. Lisa Klets that the requested variances for the Subject Property will have a minimal impact on the neighbouring and surrounding properties.
43The Tribunal accordingly comes to the same conclusion as Mrs. Klets and as the City staff report and finds that the requested variances have regard for the provincial interests expressed in the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2024, both official plans and satisfy all four elements set out in the Act.
ORDER
44THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the variances are authorized.
“Mathieu E. Quesnel”
MATHIEU E. QUESNEL
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.