Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 05, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000145
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Andrew Zacchigna
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To facilitate the development of a backyard additional dwelling unit
Reference Number: A-24-60
Property Address: 50 Ellis Avenue
Municipality/UT: Township of King/Regional Municipality of Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000145
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000145
OLT Case Name: Zacchigna v. King (Township)
Heard: April 30, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Andrew Zacchigna. | Carly Emmett |
| Township of King | Laura Dean |
DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a merit hearing, which the Tribunal converted to a settlement hearing, regarding an appeal filed by Andrew Zacchigna (the “Appellant”) pursuant to subsections 45(12) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13, in respect of the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for the Township of King (the “Township”) of the Appellant’s Minor Variance application. The application seeks to permit the development of a two-storey accessory structure subject to the three variances requested at the property municipally known as 50 Ellis Avenue in Nobleton (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellant and the City reached a proposed settlement on April 24, 2025, which they now seek to have approved by the Tribunal. The settlement requests the appeal be allowed and the variances authorized, subject to conditions.
The Minor Variance Application
3The Tribunal received from the Appellant an affidavit sworn by Amanda Newlove, dated April 30, 2025. Ms. Newlove is a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Appellant, whom the Tribunal qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. The following findings of the Tribunal are based on Ms. Newlove’s uncontroverted evidence, which the Tribunal accepts.
4The Subject Property has approximately 30.48 metres (“m”) of frontage on Ellis Avenue and a lot depth ranging from 92.66 m to 101.50 m, resulting in a lot area of approximately 0.298 hectares. It currently has a two-storey detached dwelling with an attached deck, garage, and two sheds, all in the southern half of the Subject Property. The proposed accessory structure would be located in the northern half of the Subject Property. All surrounding properties are single detached residential.
5The Appellant’s original application, dated December 6, 2024, sought the following variances from the corresponding Township Zoning By-Law 2016-71 (“ZBL”) provisions:
a. An accessory structure building height of 6.63 m, whereas Section 3.2.3 a) of the ZBL requires a height which shall not exceed 4.5 m (“Variance 1”);
b. A lot coverage for accessory buildings of 140.74 squared metres (“m2”) or 5%, whereas Section 3.2.4 a) of the ZBL requires a maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings and structures of 10% of the lot area or 120.0 m2, whichever is lesser; (“Variance 2”) and
c. A combined width of all driveway entrances/egress of 10.66 m, whereas Section 4.4.2 d) of the ZBL requires that where a circular, secondary or dual driveway is provided in any Residential zone, the maximum combined width of all driveway entrance/egress shall be 9.0 m. The Subject Property contains an existing driveway width of 7 m, and the proposed secondary driveway would have a width of 3.656 m (“Variance 3”).
6The Township’s planning report, dated January 7, 2025, opined the application met the legislative test for Minor Variances and recommended approval, subject to the condition that the plans submitted for a Building Permit be in substantial conformity with the Site Plan prepared for the application.
7The CoA refused the application on January 15, 2025. In refusing to grant the application, it reasoned the height and scale of the proposed accessory structure was excessive, was not suitable for the community, and suggested such proposals should be before council and not the CoA. Though the CoA minutes do not indicate the substance of the objections heard, the minutes indicate several neighbours objected to the application being approved.
8The Appellant appealed the CoA’s refusal on January 27, 2025.
9Following discussions between the Parties, a revised application amended the first variance to seek a building height of 6.48 m instead of 6.63 m. The other variances are the same as the original application. The Parties also agreed to additional conditions, in regard to fencing, relocating the secondary driveway, and plant screening.
Legal Test for Minor Variance Applications
10Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Planning Act, an application for a Minor Variance may be granted if the following four tests are met:
a. The application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
b. The application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law;
c. The requested variance is minor in nature; and
d. The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
Submissions in Support of Proposed Settlement
11The Appellant filed a Document Book (“Exhibit 1”), which contained Ms. Newlove’s affidavit. They also filed Schedule A (List of Variances and Conditions) and Schedule B (Site Plan) of the Minutes of Settlement entered between the Parties (“Exhibit 2”).
12Ms. Newlove’s affidavit and testimony justified the variances as follows:
a. For variance 1, the 4.5 m maximum for accessory structure building height requirement is to ensure the built form remains clearly accessory to the primary use on the lands, and to minimize any potential impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed development will be an accessory due to its location in the rear yard and smaller floor area to the primary use. The proposed development also minimizes any potential impacts through the existing vegetation and proposed Minor Variances conditions requiring additional landscaping and fencing. Further, the proposed development’s location exceeds all required setbacks, being approximately 7.62 m from the northern lot line, 6.35 m from the eastern lot line, and 6.45 m from the western lot line.
b. For variance 2, the maximum lot coverage provisions is to prevent overdevelopment of a lot and ensure the primary use is not dominated by accessory uses. For this proposal, the only reason the development exceeds this requirement is because of the attached deck with an area of 20.9 m2. Moreover, although the proposed accessory building and attached deck will exceed 120 m2, it will only result in a lot coverage of 5% for accessory buildings and structures on the Subject Property, well below the 10% alternative maximum.
c. For variance 3, the requirement of a maximum combined driveway width is to ensure space is reserved along the frontage for landscaping, garbage pick-up, on-street parking, and snow storage so that an entire lot frontage is not comprised of only asphalt. As the Subject Property has 30.48 m of frontage on Ellis Avenue, the proposed secondary driveway will still allow sufficient space along the lot frontage, with approximately 20 m remaining as pervious surfaces.
13Ms. Newlove testified that, in her opinion, all three variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Region of York Official Plan, Township of King Official Plan, and Zoning By-Law 2016-72. She also opined the variances were minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Indeed, the proposal and variances are not anticipated to result in impacts to adjacent properties and are compatible with surrounding land uses.
14Ms. Newlove summarized her opinion that the requested Minor Variances, as modified by the settlement, have regard to matters of Provincial Interest under the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, conform with the Greenbelt Plan, 2017, meet the general purpose and intent of the Region of York Official Plan, Township of King Official Plan, and Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and building, and are minor in nature. Further, the proposal constitutes good planning and is in the public interest.
15During the Hearing, the Tribunal noted the height of the existing primary use was not provided by the Appellant. The Tribunal requested this be provided to assist it in determining whether the height of the proposed accessory use would be less than the primary use, which could be relevant in assessing Variance 1. The Appellant provided a second affidavit from their planner, dated April 30, 2025, which stated the height of the primary use as 6.59 m, measured in accordance with the Zoning By-law, from the established grade to the mid-point of the roof. The Tribunal is satisfied with the height of the accessory structure being lower than the height of the primary use, in addition to the other land use planning evidence heard in support of Variance 1.
16On the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Newlove, the Tribunal finds that the requested Minor Variances have regard to matters of Provincial Interest under the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, conform with the Greenbelt Plan, 2017, meet the general purpose and intent of the Region of York Official Plan, Township of King Official Plan, and Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and building, are minor in nature, constitutes good planning and are in the public interest.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the Township’s Zoning By-Law 2016-71, are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
18The Tribunal may be spoken to if the parties have any difficulty in implementing this Order.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE 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.
ATTACHMENT 1