Antonio Guglietti v. City of Vaughan, 2026 CanLII 16835

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 25, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000617

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Antonio Guglietti

Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description: Consent to facilitate creation of new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area

Reference Number: B014/24

Property Address: 11701 and 11801 Keele Street

Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000617

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000617

OLT Case Name: Guglietti v. Vaughan (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor Variance to facilitate creation of new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area

Reference Number: A165/24

Property Address: 11801 Keele Street

Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000618

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000617

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor Variance to facilitate creation of new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area

Reference Number: A166/24

Property Address: 11701 Keele Street

Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000619

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000617

Heard: December 3, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Antonio Guglietti

Adam Lifshitz

City of Vaughan

Max Rubin

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns appeals filed under ss. 45(12) and 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), by Antonio Guglietti (“Appellant”), regarding the decision of the City of Vaughan’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) which denied one consent application and two minor variance (“MV”) applications (together, “Applications”) for 11701 and 11801 Keele Street, in the City (“Site”).

2The Site is located on the east side of Keele Street, between Kirby Road and King Vaughan Road. It is 40.77 hectares (“ha”), with a 400.1 metre (“m”) lot width along Keele Street. A single detached dwelling and an accessory agricultural dwelling (“AAD”) are currently built on the Site. It is zoned A, A-ORM, and EP-ORM (Agriculture, Agriculture subject to Oak Ridges Moraine suffix code, and Environmental Protection subject to Oak Ridges Moraine suffix code, respectively) in the City’s Official Plan, 2010 (“OP”).

3The City’s Planning staff recommended refusal of the Applications, commenting that the proposed Applications will result in:

a. Two lots (3.4 ha and 37.3 ha) that are below the minimum lot size of 40 ha;

b. Two lots (39.3 m and 73.5 m) that don’t comply with the minimum frontage size of 100 m;

c. Inconsistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) criteria for lot creation/adjustment in prime agricultural areas;

d. Not meeting the lot creation policies of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2017 (“ORMCP”);

e. Not meeting the policy within the York Region Official Plan, 2022 (“YROP”).

f. Not meeting the lot creation policies of the OP;

g. Variances not being minimal and not meeting the intent of Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) No. 001-2021 (“ZBL2021”); and

h. Not satisfying the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act.

4On July 10, 2025, the CoA refused the Applications, citing as its rationale:

The proposal does not conform to Section 51(24) as required by Section 53(12) of the Planning Act.

APPLICATIONS / VARIANCES REQUESTED

5The following relief was requested in the Applications:

a. A severance of the Site into two lots:

1. Retained lot (A165/24); and

2. Severed lot (A166/24); and

b. Relief from ZBL2021, as follows:

1. Retained lot (A165/24):

A) Lot area: 37.3 ha from the required 40 ha; and

B) Lot Frontage: 73.5 m from the required 100 m; and

2. Severed lot (A166/24):

A) Lot area: 3.4 ha from the required 40 ha;

B) Lot Frontage: 39.3 m from the required 100 m; and

C) Permit a single detached dwelling after November 15, 2001.

Parties

6The Tribunal received no Party or Participant status requests prior to or during the Hearing.

EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES

7The Appellant filed a 23-page Witness Statement, which was marked as Exhibit 1, a 224-page and a 259-page pair of Disclosure Documents, which were marked as Exhibit 2 and 3 respectively, and an eight-page Response to Witness Statement, which was marked as Exhibit 7.

8Jonathan Sasso, a Senior Planner at Humphries Planning Group Inc., testified with respect to the evidence set out in his Witness Statement. Mr. Sasso was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters.

9The Municipality filed an 11-page Witness Statement, which was marked as Exhibit 4, a five-page document of policy excerpts, which was marked as Exhibit 5, and the witness’s Curriculum Vitae, which was marked as Exhibit 6.

10Alyssa Pangilinan, a Planner with the City, testified with respect to the evidence set out in her Witness Statement. Ms. Pangilinan was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters.

ANALYSIS

Site History

11According to Ms. Pangilinan’s witness statement, a building permit was issued in 2009 for the existing dwelling at 11801 Keele Street. Mr. Sasso confirmed this, stating that the dwelling was approved in 2009 to replace an existing use and rural residential dwelling.

12According to Mr. Sasso and Ms. Pangilinan, development of one additional dwelling was approved by the CoA on July 5, 2018, for the accommodation of farm labourers. The dwelling was to be located at the southwest corner of the Site, outside the ORMCP.

13The Site owner sought and received permission to move the location of the additional dwelling adjacent to the woodlands and wetlands at the northwest corner (within the ORMCP). On September 11, 2020, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) issued a permit for a second dwelling for on-farm labour. On October 5, 2020, the City issued a building permit (revoking the previous permit) for the new location of the second dwelling. The second dwelling was built and is now known as 11701 Keele Street.

Issue 1: Does the Consent Application meet the required legislative criteria?

Legislative Tests

14The legislative tests to be met for a consent to sever application include:

a. Having regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act;

b. Being consistent with the PPS under s. 3.5 of the Act;

c. Conforming with provincial plans (e.g., ORMCP) under s. 3.5 of the Act;

d. Having regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act; and

e. Having regard for the decision and materials used by the original Approval Authority under s. 2.1 of the Act.

Submissions

Provincial Interest

15Ms. Pangilinan stated that the proposed consent does not have regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act by not protecting ecological systems, natural areas, and the agricultural resources of the Province of Ontario (“Province”).

16Mr. Sasso stated that the proposed consent has regard for matters of provincial interests by protecting the natural features and the agricultural resources of the Province.

Provincial Plans

17Ms. Pangilinan said that the Site is designated as Prime Agricultural Land. She explained that the proposed severance would fragment the agricultural lands contrary to PPS Policy 4.3.3 which prohibits new residential lots in prime agricultural lands, except in the limited circumstances described in PPS Policy 4.3.3.1. She explained that the consent application fails PPS Policy 4.3.3.1 as follows:

a. The severance is not for agricultural uses but to create a new residential lot;

b. It is not a residential surplus to an agricultural operation as it is not due to a consolidation; and

c. It is not for infrastructure-related reasons.

18Mr. Sasso did not provide specific evidence as to how the consent application is consistent with the PPS and instead deferred to the ORMCP. He stated that Chapter 1 of the PPS explains that the ORMCP takes precedence over the PPS for overlapping matters and that being consistent with the ORMCP for topics covered in both plans satisfies the general requirements of the PPS:

Provincial plans are to be read in conjunction with the Provincial Planning Statement. They take precedence over the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement to the extent of any conflict, except where the relevant legislation provides otherwise.

Where the policies of provincial plans address the same, similar, related, or overlapping matters as the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, applying the more specific policies of the provincial plan satisfies the more general requirements of the Provincial Planning Statement. In contrast, where matters addressed in the Provincial Planning Statement do not overlap with policies in provincial plans, the policies in the Provincial Planning Statement must be independently satisfied.

19Ms. Pangilinan stated that lot creation, as outlined in the PPS, supports the policies of the ORMCP. She emphasized that the plans need to be read in conjunction with each other.

20Mr. Sasso stated that the Site is subject to ORMCP criteria as it is located within the Natural Linkage Area (“NLA”) designation of the ORMCP. He explained that NLAs are used to protect critical natural and open space linkages between the Natural Core Areas and along rivers and streams. He stated that existing uses and agricultural uses are two of the small number of permitted uses allowed in NLAs.

21According to s. 12(3) the ORMCP, permitted uses in the NLA are:

(3) The following uses are permitted with respect to land in Natural Linkage Areas, subject to Parts III and IV:

3. Agricultural uses.

22Mr. Sasso highlighted ss. 6(1) and 6(5) of the ORMCP to explain “existing uses”:

6(1) Nothing in this Plan applies to prevent,

a. the use of any land, building or structure for a purpose prohibited by this Plan, if the land, building or structure was lawfully used for that purpose on November 15, 2001 and continues to be used for that purpose; or

(5) Nothing in this Plan applies to prevent the reconstruction, within the same location and dimensions, of an existing building or structure that is damaged or destroyed by causes beyond the owner’s control, and the reconstructed building or structure shall be deemed to be an existing building or structure if there is no change in use and no intensification of the use.

23Mr. Sasso clarified that the references in the ORMCP to existing uses fall under Zoning By-law No. 1-88 (“ZBL88”), which was in force prior to 2021.

24Ms. Pangilinan explained that the ORMCP recognizes portions of the NLA have agriculture uses. She further stated that the Site is designated Prime Agricultural Land and within the Oak Ridges Moraine (“ORM”). She explained that the ORM is one of the most protected land classes and has restrictive policies that reflect that.

25Ms. Pangilinan stated that the ORMCP has specific lot creation policies based on limited situations and that the matter before the Tribunal does not meet those specific policies or scenarios.

26Mr. Sasso stated that s. 32 of the ORMCP describes the policies for “Lot Creation” within ORMCP and NLA lands.

27Both Mr. Sasso and Ms. Pangilinan stated that, under the ORMCP, s. 32(1).1-5 are not applicable to the proposed consent application because the consent:

a. Is not the result of farm consolidation;

b. Is not for agricultural uses where the lot size of the severed and retained lots are at least 100 acres;

c. Is not for the acquisition of land for infrastructure development;

d. Is not the result of a lot addition; and

e. Is not a result of facilitating conveyances to public bodies or non-profit entities for natural heritage conservation.

28Mr. Sasso explained that the relevant section of the ORMCP is s. 32(1).6, where a lot may be created in the following circumstances:

32(1).6 Severance from each other of parts of a lot that are devoted to different uses, but only if the uses are legally established at the time of the application for severance.

29Mr. Sasso stated that the proposed severed land, with an existing single detached dwelling, is clearly distinct and different from the existing agricultural uses and associated accessory agricultural use of the proposed retained land.

30Mr. Sasso indicated that a single detached dwelling is a permitted use that doesn’t require any association with agriculture. He opined that a permitted use is a main, or principal, purpose of a property, whereas an associated or accessory or secondary use is a related, subordinate activity that occurs in conjunction with the main purpose of a property.

31Mr. Sasso stated that the Site has two permitted uses: 1) agriculture for growing crops; and 2) single detached dwelling for residential living. He stated that the Site has a secondary permitted use which is an AAD for the accommodation of full-time farm labour. He defined the AAD as associated to the principal agriculture use and that it cannot exist independent of an agricultural use. His explanation of this used the definitions in the ORMCP for “agricultural uses”, “single dwelling”, and “accessory use”:

“agricultural uses” means,

(a) growing crops, including nursery, biomass and horticultural crops,

(b) raising livestock and other animals, including poultry and fish, for food, fur or fibre,

(c) aquaculture,

(d) apiculture,

(e) agro-forestry and maple syrup production, and

(f) uses associated with on-farm buildings and structures including,

i. livestock facilities,

ii. manure storage structures,

iii. value-retaining facilities, and

iv. accommodations for full-time farm labour;

“single dwelling” means a building containing only one dwelling unit and, in any area other than an area within a Natural Core or Natural Linkage Area, includes a building containing one primary dwelling unit and no more than one secondary dwelling unit;

“accessory use” means a use of land, buildings or structures that is normally incidental or subordinate to the principal use, building or structure located on the same lot;

32It is Mr. Sasso’s opinion that the single detached dwelling and the agricultural use are distinct and different uses, and therefore, a severance can be authorized under s. 32(1).6 of the ORMCP.

33Ms. Pangilinan stated that the scenario in s. 32(1).6 of the ORMCP needs two different uses on the lot at the time of a severance application. She said that the function of residential dwellings (in agricultural zones) is to support the agricultural use, and if a consent is approved, it would create a new lot with residential as its primary use. She explained that a standalone residence is not allowed according to the ORMCP.

34Ms. Pangilinan further explained that the uses of the two dwellings on the Site are different than what is listed in the severance application. Her description of the Site indicates that the AAD is the dwelling on the proposed severed lands and the primary residential dwelling is the one on the proposed retained lands.

35Ms. Pangilinan stated that an AAD is considered an accessory use that is normally incidental, or subordinate, to the principal use, building, or structure located on the same lot. She stated that the accessory dwelling would no longer be considered accessory if the proposed severance occurs. She stated that the accessory dwelling would become a primary dwelling.

36Ms. Pangilinan referenced s. 5.1 of ZBL2021 to define an AAD. She said this is the definition that was used when the original application to construct the accessory dwelling was submitted in 2020:

5.1 Accessory Agriculture Dwelling

1. An accessory agriculture dwelling shall only be permitted where agriculture is the principal use of a lot.

2. A maximum of one accessory agriculture dwelling per lot shall be permitted.

3. An accessory agriculture dwelling shall not be permitted on a lot with a lot area of less than 35.0 ha.

4. The maximum gross floor area of an accessory agriculture dwelling shall be 250.0 m2.

5. An accessory agriculture dwelling shall be subject to the same lot and building requirements as the principal dwelling.

6. Deleted 083-2025

7. An accessory agriculture dwelling shall not be permitted on any lands subject to Section 4.22 of this By-law.

37It is Ms. Pangilinan’s opinion that the proposed consent application does not satisfy the conditions of the ORMCP for lot creation.

38Mr. Sasso referred to s. 32(3) of the ORMCP for additional context when establishing new lots:

32(3) A lot may be created only if there is enough net developable area on both the severed lot and the retained lot to accommodate proposed uses, buildings and structures and accessory uses without encroachment on key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features.

39It is Mr. Sasso’s opinion that the proposed severance would create lots that continue to support their existing uses while consolidating all existing natural heritage features and their associated buffers to avoid fragmentation and/or impact.

40Mr. Sasso supported this assertion with reference to a comment received from the TRCA, dated March 17, 2025, which stated that: “The applicant worked with the TRCA to identify the Regional Storm flood plain hazard and establishes a lot boundary that is sufficiently setback and does not fragment the regulated natural hazards.”

Section 51(24) of the Planning Act

York Region Official Plan

41Mr. Sasso explained that the Site is located within the Agricultural System according to the regional structure of the YROP. He said that s. 5.1.12 of the YROP regarding new lot creation in the Agricultural System does not consider the scenario being proposed by the Appellant, which makes the YROP in conflict with the ORMCP. He stated that the ORMCP allows for severances within the NLA, and therefore the ORMCP takes precedence.

42Ms. Pangilinan stated that the consent application fails to meet s. 5.1.12 of the YROP for consents within the Agricultural System as the proposed severance does not conform to provincial plans, Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, and is not the result of any of the circumstances that would permit a severance, such as:

a. Infrastructure acquisition;

b. Conveyance for conservation purposes;

c. Minor lot adjustments;

d. Agricultural uses on minimum-sized lots;

e. Agriculture-related uses; or

f. Severance of a surplus residence following farm consolidation.

43It is Ms. Pangilinan’s opinion that the proposed consent application does not conform to the YROP.

City’s Official Plan

44Mr. Sasso stated that the Site is designated NLA, Natural Core Area, Agriculture, and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area according to Schedule 13 of the OP.

45Mr. Sasso highlighted s. 10.1.2.44(f) of the OP as follows:

10.1.2.44 That a consent(s) to sever lands designated on Schedule 13 Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core, Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Linkage, or Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside, may be permitted in the following instances:

f. Severance from each other of parts of a lot that are devoted to different uses, but only if the uses are legally established at the time of the application for severance.

46Mr. Sasso stated again that there are two distinct and different uses on the Site and a severance can be permitted in accordance with s. 10.1.2.44(f) of the OP.

47Ms. Pangilinan stated that s. 10.1.2.44 of the OP sets strict criteria for consents to sever land within Natural Core, Natural Linkage, or Countryside designations. She reiterated that the proposed severances do not meet the ORMCP lot creation policies and likewise does not meet the lot creation policies of the OP.

48Mr. Sasso introduced s. 10.1.2.38 of the OP which has the same intent as s. 32(3) of the ORMCP.

Other criteria within section 51(24) of the Planning Act

49Mr. Sasso explained that the proposed consent application has appropriate regard for the remaining criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act as follows:

a. It is not premature and is in the public interest because the Site is currently developed with an existing legal use and relies on existing services. No new development is proposed, there will be no impact on natural heritage features, and it will not impact the agricultural land.

b. The proposed severed land is of adequate size and configuration to accommodate the existing services.

c. Existing infrastructure is sufficient to service the proposed severed lands.

d. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed severed lands are appropriate to accommodate the single detached dwelling and existing services.

e. A report titled “Review of Impacts to Natural Heritage Features 11801 & 11701 Keele Street”, in Exhibit 2, states that existing natural heritage features will be preserved, and no new environmental impacts are anticipated.

f. No additional municipal services are required.

g. Site plan control is not applicable.

50It is Mr. Sasso’s opinion that the proposed consent meets the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act.

51Ms. Pangilinan stated that the proposed consent application fails to satisfy the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act as follows:

a. It is not in the public interest as it does not meet the criteria for lot creation in the PPS, ORMCP, YROP, and OP;

b. It creates a residential lot which is not permitted by the ORMCP and is not a suitable use of the land; and

c. It will create a severed lot that is undersized.

52It is Ms. Pangilinan’s opinion that the proposed consent application fails to meet the criteria of s.51(24) of the Act.

Findings

Provincial Interest

53The Tribunal finds that the requested consent application has some regard for matters of provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Act. The proposed consent application has addressed preventing adverse impacts to natural heritage features and ecological features. However, the submissions by the Appellant do not provide an explanation as to how the agricultural resources of the land will be protected.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 / Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2017

54While the Tribunal agrees with the Appellant that the ORMCP takes precedence when a conflict between plans exists, the PPS and the ORMCP work in conjunction. It is necessary to be consistent with the PPS and conform to the ORMCP. If a similar or overlapping matter exists, the policies of the ORMCP are generally considered to satisfy the requirements of the PPS.

55Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2 of the PPS state that it is a requirement to maintain and enhance a geographically continuous agricultural land base and that prime agricultural areas are to be protected for long-term use for agriculture. The Tribunal finds that fragmenting prime agricultural lands is not consistent with these policies.

56Section 4.3.3.1 of the PPS states:

Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted…provided that the lots are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use common in the area and sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type of size of agricultural operations.

The Tribunal finds that the proposed severed lands would not be consistent with this mandate as the small lot size of the proposed severed lands would not maintain flexibility for future changes.

57Both Parties agreed that the circumstances for lot creation under s. 32(1).1-5 of the ORMCP are not applicable in this matter. The issue before the Tribunal is with respect to s. 32(1).6 of the ORMCP.

58For the consent application to meet the criteria in s. 32(1).6 of the ORMCP (and s.10.1.2.44(f) of the OP), it is necessary for the Appellant to demonstrate that “parts of the lot are devoted to different uses” and that “the uses are legally established at the time of the application for severance”.

59Under s. 12(3) of the ORMCP, “agricultural uses” are listed as permitted uses in the NLA.

60Under s. 6(5) of the ORMCP, it is permitted to reconstruct an existing building “and the reconstructed building … shall be deemed to be an existing building … if there is no change in use…”, which supports the building of the primary dwelling (known as 11801 Keele St.) between 2009-2012.

61However, the matter is complicated by the secondary dwelling referred to as an AAD. Both Parties, in either their witness statement (Exhibit 4), or in their planning report (Exhibit 2), denote that the AAD was built in 2020 and is referred to as 11701 Keele Street (the proposed severed lands). This indicates that the legally established purpose of the dwelling on 11701 Keele Street is to be an AAD and not a primary dwelling or single detached dwelling.

62Mr. Sasso has stated that an AAD cannot exist without agriculture, yet the proposed consent seeks to separate the AAD from the agricultural operations.

63The AAD is not considered an “existing use” under s. 6 of the ORCMP as it was not in existence on or before November 15, 2001, nor is it a reconstruction of a previously existing building. That would classify the AAD under the ORMCP as accommodations under the “agriculture uses” definition.

64In s. 7.8 of ZBL88, single detached dwellings existing as of November 15, 2001 are allowed in ORM zones. Additional dwellings, under s. 8.3 of the ORMCP, are permitted uses in Agricultural zones, but not ORM zones. Neither of these apply to the AAD, built in 2020 in an ORM zone, so under ZBL88, the AAD would be an accessory building or accessory use.

65ZBL88 states that accessory buildings are not for human habitation and accessory use is a “use that is naturally or normally incidental, subordinate to and devoted exclusively to the main use on the same lot”. Given that Mr. Sasso has stated that the severed lands are not going to be used as agricultural lands and the AAD, under ZBL88, is on the proposed severed lands, it would not remain devoted exclusively to the main use on the same lot.

66The Tribunal, using the principles of modern statutory interpretation, finds that under the ORMCP, the use of an accessory building is “subordinate to the principal use, building, or structure” located on the same lot. This means that the AAD is neither the primary dwelling, nor is it considered a dwelling that may exist without being associated with agriculture. The AAD cannot be separated from the principal use of agriculture.

67Section 5.1 of ZBL2021 defines an accessory agricultural dwelling as:

a. Only permitted where agriculture is the principal use;

b. Only on lands larger than 35 ha;

c. Only one accessory agricultural dwelling per lot; and

d. Subject to the same lot and building requirements as the principal dwelling.

68Using the principles of modern statutory interpretation, the Tribunal finds that the ordinary meaning under ZBL2021 is that an AAD is secondary to a principal dwelling and secondary to the principal use of agriculture. Therefore, the AAD cannot be separated from the principal dwelling and it cannot be separated from the principal agriculture land use. Furthermore, an AAD cannot exist on lands smaller than 35 ha, such as the proposed severed lands of 3.4 ha.

69If the Site is split into two lots with the AAD no longer on the same property as the primary/principal dwelling and the agriculture use, the AAD would cease to be its legally established use and become a new use as a primary residential dwelling. Under s. 32(1).6 of the ORMCP, the uses need to be established prior to the severance application.

70The Tribunal finds that the uses of the two dwellings are linked and cannot be separated and that the uses, as described in the proposed consent application, are not the same as the legally established uses.

Section 51(24) of the Planning Act

71The Tribunal finds that the YROP does not consider the scenario applicable in this matter and defers to the ORMCP for this matter.

72The Tribunal finds that the consent application would not meet the criteria under the OP given that the s. 10.1.2.44(f) of the OP contains the same intent as s. 32(1).6 of the ORMCP.

73The Tribunal finds that the proposed severance is not in the public interest, nor appropriate dimensions/shapes as the proposed severance will fragment agricultural lands, will be undersized for agriculture common in the area and future flexible use, and will change the legally established uses.

74The Tribunal finds that adequate regard for the protection of natural features has been taken.

Prior Decision of the Committee of Adjustment

75The Tribunal has regard for the decision and materials considered by the CoA when they made their decision to deny the consent application. The materials before the CoA highlighted that:

a. The PPS only allows lot creation for agricultural or agricultural-related uses;

b. The PPS prohibits new residential lots in prime agricultural areas; and

c. The dwelling for full-time farm labour is an accessory use to the primary dwelling and cannot be separated from the primary dwelling.

76The Planning Justification Report (“PJR”) (in Exhibit 2) noted by the CoA states that the dwelling at 11701 Keele Street, based on their understanding of the materials submitted as part of the building permit application, clearly states that the dwelling is for farm labour accommodations. The PJR states that the dwelling would “not be lawfully permitted”, under ZBL88 or the ORMCP, as a second dwelling on the Site “if it is not being used” as an accessory dwelling to the agricultural operation and therefore “cannot be considered a separate use”.

Summary

77The Tribunal finds that the consent application does not meet the required legislative criteria.

Issue 2: Do the Minor Variances meet the required legislative criteria?

Legislative Tests

78The legislative tests to be met for a minor variance application include:

a. Having regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act;

b. Being consistent with the PPS under s. 3.5 of the Act;

c. Conforming with provincial plans (e.g., ORMCP) under s. 3.5 of the Act; and

d. Consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act.

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;

2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;

3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and

4. Is minor in nature.

79The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.

Submissions

Provincial Interest

80Neither Mr. Sasso nor Ms. Pangilinan provided any specific evidence as to how the proposed MVs have regard for matters of provincial interest beyond what they stated with respect to the consent application.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 / Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2017

81Neither Mr. Sasso nor Ms. Pangilinan provided any specific evidence as to how the proposed MVs are consistent with the PPS or conform to the ORMCP beyond what they stated with respect to the consent application.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

Test 1: General intent and purpose of the official plan

82Mr. Sasso stated that the MVs conform to the general intent and purpose of the OP under s.10.1.2.44 (f). Mr. Sasso stated that the proposed retained land is currently occupied by an agricultural use as well as an AAD. He described the proposed severed land as occupied by a single detached dwelling unrelated to agricultural use.

83Mr. Sasso did not provide any specific evidence as to how this justifies the MV applications relating to lot area or lot frontage.

84It is Mr. Sasso’s professional opinion that the requested MVs maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.

85Ms. Pangilinan’s professional opinion is that the requested MVs do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP as the OP has specific criteria to allow for changes in agricultural lands that are ORM lands. She stated that the AAD is located on the proposed severed lands and not the proposed retained lands. She explained that this can be verified by looking at the development history, as outlined in her witness statement and the Appellant’s planning report.

Test 2: General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

86Mr. Sasso stated that the general intent and purpose of ZBL2021 relating to lot size and lot frontage criteria is to protect productive farmland from fragmentation, promote efficient farming operations, and prevent conflicts with incompatible non-agricultural land uses. He opined that the proposed severed lands have been delineated to minimize agricultural fragmentation and do not remove or alter any existing agricultural land from production.

87Mr. Sasso stated that the reduction in minimum lot size for the proposed retained lands will not impact the viability of the existing agricultural uses and activities.

88Regarding the variance related to the date of construction of the single detached dwelling occurring after November 15, 2001, Mr. Sasso stated that the dwelling was approved in 2009 to replace an existing use and rural residential dwelling, which is permitted under s. 6 of the ORCMP.

89Mr. Sasso stated that ZBL88 is the ZBL to measure against as both dwellings were built prior to the enactment of ZBL2021, and both lawfully existed under the previous ZBL.

90It is Mr. Sasso’s professional opinion that the requested MVs maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBLs.

91Ms. Pangilinan stated that the proposed MVs fail to maintain the intent of the ZBLs as the minimum lot area and frontage requirements exist to preserve the integrity of agricultural lots and prevent fragmentation.

92It is Ms. Pangilinan’s professional opinion that the requested MVs do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Test 3: Desirable for the appropriate development or the use of land

93Mr. Sasso stated that the proposed development is consistent with the permitted uses of the ORMCP, the YROP, the OP, and the ZBLs.

94Mr. Sasso explained that, in scenarios where parts of a lot are devoted to different uses, the proposed MVs are appropriate and will maintain the predominant agricultural uses of the lands while ensuring the protection of the existing natural heritage features.

95It is Mr. Sasso’s professional opinion that the requested MVs are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Site.

96Ms. Pangilinan stated that the proposed lot configuration fragments agricultural land and compromises its long-term viability.

97It is Ms. Pangilinan’s professional opinion that the requested MVs are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Site.

Test 4: Is Minor in Nature

98Mr. Sasso stated that the MV applications are minor in nature and do not create any unacceptable impact on the inventory or supply of agriculture or the viability of agriculture on the Site and do not impact natural heritage features.

99Mr. Sasso stated that the Site uses lawfully exist and no new buildings or uses are proposed.

100It is Mr. Sasso’s professional opinion that the requested MVs are minor in nature.

101It is Ms. Pangilinan’s professional opinion that the proposed MVs are not minor as the proposal fundamentally alters the character and function of the Site.

Findings

Provincial Interest

102The Tribunal finds that the MV applications do not have regard for matters of provincial interest as the MVs would result in an undersized lot area in the proposed severed lands that promotes a fragmentation of agricultural lands.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 / Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2017

103The Tribunal finds that the MVs are not consistent with the PPS as the undersized lot would disrupt the geographically continuous agricultural land base. No evidence was submitted with respect to the ORMCP regarding the MV applications.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

Test 1: General intent and purpose of the Official Plan

104The Tribunal finds that the MVs do not meet the general intent and purpose of the OP. Section 9.2.2.20 of the OP specifically states that ORM NLA is permitted to have agricultural uses, which includes accommodations for full-time labour but does not specifically include single detached dwelling as a permitted use. The proposed severed lands would be, according to paragraph 79 of Mr. Sasso’s Witness Statement, a single detached dwelling and not related to the agricultural use. No evidence was submitted regarding how the MVs meet the intent and purpose of the OP. Therefore, the MVs for frontage and area do not meet the intent and purpose of the OP.

Test 2: General intent and purpose of the zoning by-law

105The Tribunal finds that the request MVs for lot frontage and lot area do not meet the intent and purpose of the ZBLs. The minimum frontage and minimum lot area are intended to preserve agricultural integrity and prevent fragmentation. The requested MVs intentionally fragment agricultural lands and carve out a small parcel that is less than 10% of the minimum for lot size under ZBL2021 and 34% of the minimum lot size under ZBL88. While the lot frontage of the proposed retained lot is close to the requirement under the ZBLs, the frontage of the proposed severed lot is well below the requirement of the ZBLs. The MVs for frontage and area do not meet the intent and purpose of the ZBLs.

Test 3: Desirable for the appropriate development or the use of land

106The Tribunal finds that the MVs requested are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of land as the Site is zoned for agricultural use and the proposal seeks to use the proposed severed lands for residential with no affiliation to agriculture. The Tribunal finds that the reduction in lot area would make the proposed severed lands unable to support agriculture, thereby compromising the long-term viability of the land. The MVs for frontage and lot area are not desirable.

Test 4: Is minor in nature

107The Tribunal finds that the requested MVs would fundamentally alter the character and function of agricultural land. This would potentially cause an adverse impact to the use of the land by reducing its long-term viability and availability for use as part of the provincial agricultural supply. The MVs for frontage and lot area are not considered minor in nature.

Single detached dwelling after November 1, 2001 Minor Variance

108The single detached dwelling MV states that: “A single detached dwelling is not permitted unless existing as of November 15, 2001. The proposal seeks to permit a single detached dwelling existing after November 15, 2001 on the Severed Lands.”

109The Tribunal finds that the dwelling known as 11801 Keele Street is a re-construction under s. 6(5) of the ORMCP and is deemed an existing building.

110The Tribunal finds that the AAD on the lands known as 11701 Keele Street is either an accessory structure (under ZBL88) or an AAD (under ZBL2021) and is not a single detached dwelling. It was permitted by a development permit and is linked to the agricultural use of the Site.

111The Tribunal finds that no evidence was submitted to support a proposed single detached dwelling on the severed lands.

Summary

112The Tribunal finds that the MVs, for frontage and lot area, do not meet the required legislative criteria. The Tribunal finds that the single detached dwelling MV is not justified.

ORDER

113THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. The appeal to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act is dismissed; and

b. The appeals to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act are dismissed and the variances to the City of Vaughan’s Zoning By-Law No. 001-2021 are not 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.