Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000005
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sonya Torres
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a maximum lot coverage of 44.4%
Reference Number: CA-24-47
Property Address: 45 Lloyd Street
Municipality/UT: Whitchurch-Stouffville/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000005
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000005
OLT Case Name: Torres v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)
Heard: March 14, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Sonya Torres
Counsel
Martin Mazierski
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON MARCH 14, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Sonya Torres (“Appellant”) against the decision of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment to deny a Minor Variance (“MV”) Application, pursuant to ss. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the property located at 45 Lloyd Street (“subject property” / “site”).
2The City’s Staff Planning Report was in support of the development proposal and recommended that the MV Application be approved.
3The purpose of this Application is to permit 47.81 square meter (“m2“) covered accessory porch that is located in the rear yard of the subject property attached to the existing dwelling.
4The site is located on the east side of Lloyd Street, between Main Street and Burkholder Street, has frontage of approximately 12.5 meters (“m”) along Lloyd Street, a lot depth of approximately 40.1 m and a lot area of 500.93 m2.
5The subject property is currently occupied with a two-storey single detached dwelling that was created through the consent process, together with the northerly-abutting property of 43 Lloyd Street.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
6Prior to the Hearing, the City advised the Tribunal that it will not be taking a position on the Appeal and will not participate in the Hearing. The City’s Planning Report was in support of the proposed development.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
7In advance of the Hearing, the Tribunal received two Participant Status requests. The concerns identified in their request forms are related to privacy/overlook. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to the following individuals:
Michael Luciano
Julie and Thien Vu
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
8The Appellant is seeking to construct a 47.81 m2 covered rear yard accessory porch.
9The MV Application seeks to facilitate an increase in lot coverage to 44.39%, whereas currently only a 35% lot coverage is permitted.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
10An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a Hearing de novo, and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in ss. 45(1) of the Act has been satisfied:
The intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”) is being maintained;
The intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) is being maintained;
Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
Is minor in nature.
HEARING
11Jim Kotsopoulos, a registered Land Use Planner, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. Kotsopoulos was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.
12Mr. Kotsopoulos proffered a detailed planning analysis in support of the requested MV Application. In that regard, he addressed the four tests for the requested MV.
Is the intent and purpose of the OP is being maintained?
13Mr. Kotsopoulos explained that due to the Whitchurch-Stouffville OP (2023) not having been approved at this time, the Town’s OP (2004) is still applicable. In addition, the subject property falls under the Community of Stouffville Secondary Plan.
14Mr. Kotsopoulos opined that the proposed development does not result in increased residential density, nor in increased residential gross floor area. The proposed development is consistent with the existing residential use and would provide a low-intensity private recreational activity space. Further, in his opinion, the proposed porch will not result in any land use conflict and it maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and Secondary Plan.
Is the intent and purpose of the ZBL is being maintained?
15Mr. Kotsopoulos provided that the setbacks and height of the proposed porch are in compliance with the ZBL. In addition, he stated that coverage requirements are put in place to ensure that overdevelopment does not occur and that landscaped areas and permeable surfaces are maintained.
16He brought to the Tribunal’s attention that if the proposed porch was not covered, it would be permitted as of right. It is Mr. Kotsopoulos’s opinion that the proposed porch would be consistent with the existing mass of the dwelling and will result in minimal additional overlook on abutting lots.
17Overall, it is his opinion that the proposed development maintains the intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Is the proposed development desirable use of land, building or structure?
18In the opinion of Mr. Kotsopoulos, the proposed increase in lot coverage would create an outdoor recreational space designed to accommodate low-intensity recreational uses, and in doing so, it remains compatible with the site’s existing low-rise residential land use.
19Mr. Kotsopoulos stated that the proposed development is comparable and compatible with lots in the surrounding area, which also contain sizeable rear yard amenities such as pools and accessory structures, as demonstrated in his visual evidence (Exhibit 3).
20In Mr. Kotsopoulos’ view, the proposed development is desirable.
Is it minor in nature?
21Mr. Kotsopoulos proffered that “minor” has to be considered not just from numerical assessment, but also from the overall impact on the surrounding properties.
22He testified that the MV is seeking to increase lot coverage from the permitted 35% to 44.39%. The existing dwelling is in compliance with the required lot coverage. If the proposed development was not covered by the roof, it would comply with the lot coverage requirement as of right. The addition of the roof, in Mr. Kotsopoulos’ opinion, does not result in a visual impact on the surrounding properties.
23Mr. Kotsopoulos brought to the Tribunal’s attention two properties located about 250 m away at 140 and 142 Rose Avenue that have similar conditions as the subject property. To mitigate privacy and overlook, those properties have privacy screening attached to the sides of their covered backyard porches.
24In summary, Mr. Kotsopoulos stated that the proposed development would facilitate the construction of a well-designed rear yard porch that will not have any negative impact on the public realm due to its location in the rear yard. The increased lot coverage would be compatible with the surrounding lots, will maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and Secondary Plan, will be in compliance with the ZBL and will not have any visual impact on the Lloyd Street public realm.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
25This Hearing was a Hearing de novo of the MV Application. In making its Decision, the Tribunal relied on the Town Planning Report, considered the professional expert evidence of Mr. Kotsopoulos and took into consideration the concerns identified in the Participant Status statements of Michael Luciano and Julie and Thien Vu.
26The Tribunal finds that the requested variance satisfies the four tests of s. 45(12) of the Act, is consistent with the OP and the ZBL and represents good planning.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 2010-001-ZO is authorized subject to the following condition: The Appellant shall construct a solid wood panel along both the north and south sides of the porch.
“P. Tomilin”
p. tomilin
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.