Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 27, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000644
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Michael Sadkowski
Subject: Consent
Description: Consent for the creation of a new lot
Reference Number: B18.25
Property Address: 1345 Festavon Court
Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000644
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000644
OLT Case Name: Sadkowski v. Mississauga (City)
Heard: January 21, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Michael Sadkowski | Jessica De Marinis Jennifer Meader (in absentia) |
| City of Mississauga | Baiqing Luo |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 21, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Michael Sadkowski (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Mississauga (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to impose conditions on the approval of a Consent Application, pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 1345 Festavon Court (“subject property / site”).
2The Appellant objects to Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7 and associated comments.
3The City staff report supported the development.
4Prior to the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved their issues.
5There were no status requests for this Hearing.
6David Riley, a Registered Professional Planner and a Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute with over 18 years of experience, provided a Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit 1), and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal. Mr. Riley delivered a detailed, contextual, land use planning rationale in support of the settlement proposal in his written affidavit and viva voce evidence.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
7In 2021, the Appellant filed a Consent and Minor Variance (“MV”) applications (“Applications”) proposing to divide the lot into two parcels to facilitate the development of two single detached dwellings. At that time, the zoning for the subject property permitted single detached dwellings. However, the lot size and lot frontage requirements in effect at the time did not permit the development proposal due to the proposed lot sizes. As a result, the MVs were required to facilitate smaller lots than would otherwise be permitted. Those Applications were refused by the Committee of Adjustment and subsequently upheld by the Tribunal.
8In April of 2025, the City passed By-law No. 0048-2025 (“ZBL”), amending Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 to consolidate a number of low-density residential zone categories, and to broaden permissions within the City’s low density residential areas for a greater variety of dwelling types to support the creation of more housing.
9As a result of the ZBL, the site was rezoned to RL-4 zone, permitting both single detached and semi-detached dwellings as-of-right, and smaller lot size and lot frontage requirements for semi-detached dwellings.
10Following the passing of the ZBL, the Appellant filed a new application to sever the subject property into two lots, each proposed to contain one half of a new semi-detached dwelling to be constructed in compliance with all applicable zoning standards. The MV application is no longer required.
CONSENT
11The Appellant is seeking the following lot characteristics:
| New West Lot | New East Lot | |
|---|---|---|
| Lot Area (square metres) | 676.84 | 652.13 |
| Lot Frontage (metres) | 9.30 | 9.30 |
| Lot Depth (metres) | 74.75 | 69.39 |
PLANNING RATIONALE
12Mr. Riley explained to the Tribunal that as a result of settlement discussions, the Appellant accepted Condition 6 as is.
13He noted that, s. 51 of the Act is applicable to Consent applications. S. 51(25) of the Act addresses the types of conditions that may be imposed by an approval authority, providing that those conditions are “reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed”.
14Condition 4 had a requirement for an Acoustical Report to be prepared. Through the settlement discussions the condition was revised to say:
“An agreement between the City and the Owner shall be executed and registered on title of both the severed and retained lot, to the City’s satisfaction. The agreement shall require a warning clause to be inserted into all Agreements of Purchase and Sale, Offers to Lease, and lease agreements, for addressing noise issues associated with the adjacent CN/Metrolinx tracks.”
15Mr. Riley testified that an Acoustical Report would only be imposed in situations where a new sensitive land use, such as residential, or redevelopment of a greater scale than the proposal is being introduced on lands in proximity to rail tracks, where potential land use compatibility issues may arise. The subject lands have already established residential use, and the ZBL maintains the restriction on land use to low-density residential use. The north part of the site is located approximately 230 metres (“m”) from the railroad tracks. He noted that there is a significant number of residential lots in the City that are located much closer to the rail tracks than the subject property.
16Mr. Riley opined that the revised comment balances the need to address noise issues. The proposed agreement on title eliminates the need to prepare an Acoustical Report, while ensuring that future owners of both the severed and retained lot are aware of proximity to the CN/Metrolinx tracks and the potential related noise issues.
17Regarding Condition 5, Mr. Riley proffered that the revised condition maintain the condition to dedicate lands below the top-of-bank to the City and to have a 3 m vegetation protection zone (“VPZ”) to be preserved on both the retained and severed parcels, along with a requirement to register a maintenance easement on title, in favour of the City. The revised comments conform to Policy 6.3.25 of the City.
18In January of 2026, a scoped Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) was prepared. The EIS concludes that the proposed development would not result in any negative impact to natural features or their functions. The City’s initial comments also required a record of site condition (RSC) to be undertaken to support the proposed consent.
19Mr. Riley stated that an RSC is required when there is a change of proposed use on a property, moving from a certain land use to another land use that is considered to be more sensitive, such as residential use. The proposed use is the same as before - residential.
20Through settlement discussions, comments applicable to Condition 7 have been revised as follows:
“The owner shall submit to the City a receipt from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority indicating that the “Review Fee” has been paid. The owner shall submit a plan that is to the satisfaction of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority that there will be no development within the three-meter-wide VPZ.”
21Mr. Riley provided that the EIS concludes that the creation of a new lot will not have any negative impacts on any natural features or their functions and recommends a 3 m VPZ from the top of the bank. The proposed revised comments ensure that no development will take place within the VPZ, that the area be naturalized, and that an environmental easement be granted in favour of the City.
22In his opinion, these measures will ensure compliance with the revised comments of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, which are appropriate and align with the City’s revised comments.
23Mr. Riley stated that the development proposal has regard to the matters of the provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act. The development proposal, subject to the revised conditions, has regard for all applicable and development, provides for broader housing choice and makes efficient use of existing infrastructure. It does not negatively impact ecological systems in the area, including associated natural areas, features and functions.
24He said that the subject property is located within the settlement area of the City. It is designated in the Region of Peel Official Plan (“ROP”) and City Official Plan (“COP”) to permit residential development and the creation of a new lot for residential purposes on the site is consistent with the settlement area policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2024) (“PPS”).
25Mr. Riley mentioned that a scoped EIS has been prepared to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the identified natural features at the northern portion of the subject property. EIS has determined that the proposed development, where it is subject to the revised conditions, would not result in a negative impact to natural features or their functions, and mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented. Based on that analysis, Mr. Riley believes that the proposed development conforms to the ROP.
26Mr. Riley reviewed the schedules and policies of the COP. He said that schedules 1A, 1B, 3 and 10 are applicable to the subject property. They permit the proposed semi-detached dwellings, and as such, the proposed residential use of the site conforms to the COP.
27It is Mr. Riley’s professional planning opinion that the proposed conditions of provisional approval associated with the consent application for the subject property, as modified through settlement discussions with the City, are appropriate.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
28Having reviewed the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. Riley, the Tribunal finds that the revised conditions are reasonable pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act, have regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the ROP and COP, represent good planning and are in the public interest.
ORDER
29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and conditions to the Decision of the Committee dated July 17, 2025, are amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“P. Tomilin”
p. tomilin
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