Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 10, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000584
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Julian Barone
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: MV to facilitate construction for a two-storey detached dwelling and covered patio
Reference Number: A-25-19
Property Address: 166 Elizabeth Grove
Municipality/UT: King/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000584
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000584
OLT Case Name: Barone v. King
Heard: December 8, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Julian Barone | Gerard Borean |
| Township of King | Did not attend hearing |
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 (“Act”) by Julian Barone (“Appellant”) regarding the decision of the Township of King (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) to deny the minor variance (“MV”) application for the property known as 166 Elizabeth Grove, King City (“Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property is located on the north side of Elizabeth Grove in the Village of King City. The Subject Property is surrounded by residential properties and the land is zoned R1D – Residential Single Detached. An existing one-storey single detached dwelling is on the Subject Property.
3The Appellant requested three minor variances from Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 (“ZBL”) to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling. The Appellant sought relief for interior side yard setbacks and lot coverage.
4On May 28, 2025, the CoA denied the MV Application citing that the requested variance(s):
a. Is not minor in nature; b. Does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan; c. Does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law; d. Is not considered desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; and e. Not large enough setbacks for the amount of lot coverage requested.
STATUS REQUESTS
5The Tribunal did not receive any Party or Participant status requests prior to or during the Hearing.
SUBMISSIONS
6The Appellant submitted a Book of Documents which included their Witness’ statement, which was marked as Exhibit 1.
7Bonnie Tang, a Registered Professional Planner, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
8The Town did not attend the Hearing nor did they submit any evidence or provide any witnesses.
APPLICATIONS/ VARIANCES REQUESTED
9The Appellant has appealed the CoA Decision and requested the following relief:
a. to permit a minimum interior side yard setback on the west side of 2.51 metres (“m”) whereas the by-law permits a minimum of 3.6 m where the building height is greater than 6.0 m; b. to permit a minimum interior side yard setback on the east side of 2.51 metres (“m”) whereas the by-law permits a minimum of 3.6 m where the building height is greater than 6.0 m; and c. to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41.76% whereas the bylaw permits a maximum of 30%.
SectionS 2 and 3(5) of the Planning Act
10The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act when making a decision regarding an MV application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV application must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).
11Ms. Tang stated that the MV application has regard for matters of Provincial interest as stated in s. 2 of the Act. They highlighted that the proposed development is:
a. An orderly development of a safe community; b. Is in an existing developed area; and c. Preserves the identity of the neighbourhood.
12Ms. Tang stated that the MV application is consistent with the PPS, highlighting some of the most applicable policies to support her opinion, including that the proposed development:
a. Is in a residential neighbourhood within the settlement area b. Is an efficient use of land in a built-up and fully serviced area; and c. Is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood.
OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONVERSATION PLAN
13As the Subject Property is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”) area, the proposed development and requested relief must conform to the ORMCP.
14Ms. Tang explained that the Subject Property is located within the settlement area which permits residential development.
Section 45(1) of the Planning Act
15When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:
- Maintains the general intent and purpose of the York Region Official Plan (“YROP”) and Township of King Official Plan (“OP”);
- Maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
- Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- Is minor in nature.
16The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.
General Intent and Purpose of the York Region Official Plan and Township of King Official Plan
17Ms. Tang stated that the YROP regional structure classifies the Subject Property within the Towns and Villages designation with its land use as Community Area.
18She explained that according to the s. 5.5 of the OP, the Subject Property is part of the Established Neighbourhood Designation which includes low-density residential as a permitted use.
19Ms. Tang stated that the built form of the proposed dwelling, which is a replacement for an existing dwelling, is in-line with the existing character of the neighbourhood. The Appellant shared visual evidence of the proposed dwelling design to highlight how the intended appearance would match the bungalow aesthetic of the area.
20Ms. Tang stated that the proposed development conforms with the land use classification and designations found in the YROP and OP.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
21Ms. Tang stated that the built form of the proposed dwelling will maintain the character of the neighbourhood. She explained that it is visually similar to the existing streetscape.
22Ms. Tang highlighted that although the lot coverage may appear high, it includes the garage and covered patio which are not considered living space. She explained that the covered patio is 6.3% of the lot coverage which would reduce the lot coverage of the proposed dwelling to 35.4% if not included. Ms. Tang is of the opinion that the rear yard with the proposed patio will still allow for adequate space for soft scaping.
23It is Ms. Tang’s professional opinion that the proposed dwelling conforms to the ZBL.
Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land
24Ms. Tang stated that the proposed dwelling is an appropriate use of the land that doesn’t hinder the use of the rear yard.
25Ms. Tang opined that the requested setbacks reflect a built form that is consistent with surrounding properties.
Is Minor in Nature
26Ms. Tang stated that the requested MVs are minor in nature and no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Summation
27To summarize, Ms. Tang and the Appellant stated that the MVs:
a. Will fit the neighbourhood character; b. Meet all policy requirements; c. Meet all requirements of s. 45(1) of the Act; and d. Are good planning and in the public interest.
REGARD FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DECISION
28The CoA was provided a staff report dated June 18, 2025. In the report, planning staff for the Township of King recommended approval of the MV application stating the following:
a. The MV maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan with the following reasons: i. The Subject Lands are designated for residential uses. ii. The proposed development meets the specific policies of the OP related to infill development and replacement dwellings. iii. The scale, proposed massing, and design meet the intent of the OP. iv. The requested relief is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. v. No negative impacts to natural heritage features, grading, drainage, servicing, or privacy are expected. Development Engineering staff have confirmed this.
b. The MV maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan with the following reasons: i. The side yard setbacks will maintain an overall distance between neighbouring dwellings on the east of 4.3 m and on the west of 7 m allowing for adequate separation which will provide for amenity space and drainage. ii. The proposed lot coverage will not impact amenity space, parking area, or infrastructure. iii. Development Engineering staff has expressed no concerns with the proposal.
c. The MV is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land with the following reasons: i. The proposed replacement dwelling is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
d. The relief sought is minor for the following reason: i. The requested relief is minor and not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the Subject Property or surrounding lands.
29The Tribunal did not receive any Participant/public statements for this appeal, but three public statements were considered by the CoA in its decision. Under s. 2.1(2) of the Act, the Tribunal shall have regard for any information and materials that were used by the CoA in making its decision.
30Concerns raised, to the CoA, by the public were:
a. The proposed lot coverage is excessive; b. The reduced east side yard setback would encroach on neighbouring property and increase shadows; c. Visual/character impacts on neighbourhood are negative; and d. Drainage impacts.
31Ms. Tang stated that modifications to increase the east side yard setback were made following these objections. She also stated that visual/character impacts have been taken into account to ensure that the proposed dwelling will fit within the character of the neighbourhood.
32Ms. Tang stated that the concerns regarding drainage were addressed in the Township Staff Planning Report where Development Engineering staff have stated that this will not be affected.
FINDINGS
33The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Appellant and finds that the requested variances have regard for the Provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and satisfy all four tests of s. 45(1) of the Act.
34The Tribunal finds that the concerns raised by the public have been properly addressed and that they have not raised sufficient reason to deny the appeal.
ORDER
35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2017-66 are authorized.
“A. Snowdon”
A. SNOWDON 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.