Manning v. Markham (City), 2026 CanLII 22806

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 12, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000669

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tyler Manning

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a 2-storey dwelling

Reference Number: City of Markham File No. A/048/25

Property Address: 65 Hawkridge Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Markham

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000669

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000669

OLT Case Name: Manning v. Markham (City)

Heard: February 11, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Tyler Manning ("Appellant")

Marcin (Martin) Mazierski

City of Markham ("City of Markham")

Maggie Cheung-Madar (In absentia)

DECISION DELIVERED BY l.p. you ON February 11, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 ("Act"), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the City's Committee of Adjustment's ("COA") refusal of the application for minor variances ("Application") to permit a reduction to a combined interior side yard setback and a reduced roof projection to facilitate a two-storey dwelling on the lands municipally known as 65 Hawkridge Avenue ("Subject Lands").

2The Parties informed the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement to approve revised plans subject to conditions agreed upon by the Appellant and the City.

3The City notified the Tribunal in writing that they would not attend the hearing. The Appellant was advised by the Tribunal that the hearing would focus on how the revised proposal and conditions satisfied the four tests as set out in the Act.

CONTEXT

4The Subject Lands have an area of approximately 8222.24 square meters ("m²") with a frontage of 19.39m and a lot depth of 42.67m. The Subject Lands are located on the east side of Hawkridge Avenue, south of Bullock Drive and west of Main Street Markham North.

5The Subject Lands, occupied by an existing detached dwelling and mature vegetation, are located within an established residential neighbourhood consisting of a mix of one and two storey detached dwellings and are fully serviced by the City. The surrounding area is undergoing a transition with infill developments being proposed and constructed.

6The City's Official Plan 2014 (partially approved on November 24, 2017 and updated on July 17, 2024) ("City OP") designates the Subject Lands "Residential Low Rise", which permits low-rise housing forms including single detached dwellings.

7The Subject Lands are zoned RES-ENLR (Residential Neighbourhood Low Rise) within the City's Zoning By-law 2024-19, as amended ("City ZBL").

8The original application proposed four variances listed as follows:

1. s. 6.3.2.2(i): a combined interior side yard of 3.65m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum combined interior side yard of 4.85m;
2. s.6.3.2.2(c): a maximum main building coverage of 20.42% for any storey above the first, whereas the by-law permits a maximum main building coverage of 20% for any storey above the first;
3. s. 4.8.9.2(a)(i) - a minimum soft landscaping strip of 1.24 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum soft landscaping strip of 1.5 m;
4. s. 6.2.1(b) - a roof with a slope less than 25 degrees to project 1.64 metres above the maximum outside wall height, whereas the by-law permits a maximum projection of 1 metre above the maximum outside wall height.

9Following the recommendation of the City's staff, the COA refused variance #1 with the approval of the remaining variances in the original application.

10In the settlement, the Parties agreed to the following variances to facilitate the two-storey dwelling on the Subject Lands subject to the conditions.

Variances:

1. s. 6.3.2.2(i): a combined interior side yard setback of 3.95m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum combined interior side yard of 4.85m;
2. s.6.2.1(b): a roof with a slope less than 25 degrees to project 1.64m above the maximum outside wall height, whereas the by-law permits a maximum projection of 1m above the maximum outside wall height.

Conditions:

1. That the variances apply only to the proposed development for as long as it remains.
2. That the variances apply only to the proposed development, in substantial conformity with the site plan and elevations drawings in the attached plan(s) revised for OLT approval, dated October 6, 2025, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Supervisor of the Committee of Adjustment or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to their satisfaction.
3. That the Applicant satisfies the requirements of Metrolinx, financial or otherwise, as indicated in Metrolinx's letter to the Secretary-Treasurer attached as Appendix "C" to the City Staff Report dated July 25, 2025, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of Metrolinx.

STATUS REQUEST AND CONCERNS OF PARTICIPANTS

11The Tribunal did not receive any request for Party Status or Participant Status prior to or during the Hearing.

EXHIBITS

12Following materials were marked as exhibits during the Hearing:

• Joint Document Book marked as "Exhibit 1"; and,
• Supplemental materials marked as "Exhibit 2".

NOTICE OF HEARING

13There is no issue with notice of this Hearing.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

14The Tribunal qualified Mr. Jonathan Benczkowski, a registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners ("CIP"), to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.

15Mr. Benczkowski provided an overview and history of the Application to the Tribunal at the beginning of the Hearing. He stated that the Appellant originally proposed four variances for the new dwelling for COA's consideration. In the receipt of the COA's decision, he worked with the Appellant to revise the plans. Now the matter before the Tribunal is the Appellant's request to conditionally approve two variances related to the combined interior yard setback and the projection of the roof as described in Para.[9].

16In the view of Mr. Benczkowski, the revised plans represented the effort of the Appellant to narrow down the proposal scope and to minimize the impacts to neighboring properties.

17Mr. Benczkowski opined that the Application accommodated an appropriate range and mix of housing, which was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 ("PPS 2024").

18Further, Mr. Benczkowski demonstrated his assessment of the relevant policies of the City OP and in his opinion, the Application maintained the intent and purpose of the City OP to ensure the infill development to be compatible with the character of established neighborhood and pattern of adjacent and surrounding development.

19Mr. Benczkowski stated that the intent of the City ZBL, under the directions of the City OP, was to ensure the built form of new developments to be compatible with the existing neighborhood and to avoid causing unacceptable undue negative impacts to the adjacent properties. Particularly, the general intent of the combined side yard provision is to ensure the neighborhood character will be maintained and proper separation will be provided between dwellings.

20Mr. Benczkowski presented the Tribunal with his calculation of the combined interior side yard setback and the final number in the revised Application ends up with 3.95m, which is increased by 0.3m compared to the originally proposed 3.65m. Also, he noted that many dwellings along Hawkridge Avenue were built prior to the passing of this City ZBL and had interior side yard setbacks of 1.2m or below while the Application provided 2.14m on the north side and 1.81m to the south. In his opinion, the combined interior side yard setback variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.

21According to Mr. Benczkowski, the intent of the provision related to the outside wall height is to ensure an appropriate main wall height relative to the overall roof height and to limit dwellings to being two storeys where storeys are regulated. He indicated that the portion of the roof projection above the maximum outside wall height would be invisible from Hawkridge Avenue and neighboring properties. Therefore, Mr. Benczkowski concluded that the roof projection variance also maintained the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.

22Mr. Benczkowski indicated that the revised Application had eliminated two variances and would not create any unacceptable impacts on adjacent properties nor on the streetscape. He added that the revised Application reflected the indication of appropriateness for the proposed dwelling within the immediate and broader neighborhood. Mr. Benczkowski expressed his opinion that the proposed variances were considered minor in nature from both numerical and qualitative aspects and facilitated development that would be a desirable appropriate use of the land.

23The Tribunal recognizes that the final plans of the Application and conditions of approval reflect the Appellant's effort to minimize impacts to adjacent properties and further to ensure the Application to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. Benczkowski and finds that the proposed approval conditions are reasonable and acceptable.

CONCLUSION

24In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the Application is consistent with the PPS 2024 and meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act are as follows:

• The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP;
• The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
• The minor variances are considered desirable for the appropriate use of the lands.
• The minor variances are considered minor in nature.

ORDER

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the variances, listed in Appendix A, to the City's Zoning By-law No. 2024-19 are authorized subject to the Conditions of Approval, Attachment 1 to this Order.

"L.P. You"

L.P. YOU

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.

Appendix A

List of variances

1. s. 6.3.2.2(i): a combined interior side yard setback of 3.95m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum combined interior side yard of 4.85m;
2. s.6.2.1(b): a roof with a slope less than 25 degrees to project 1.64m above the maximum outside wall height, whereas the by-law permits a maximum projection of 1m above the maximum outside wall height.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Approval

1. That the variances apply only to the proposed development for as long as it remains.
2. That the variances apply only to the proposed development, in substantial conformity with the site plan and elevations drawings in attached plan(s) revised for OLT approval, dated October 6, 2025, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Supervisor of the Committee of Adjustment or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to their satisfaction.
3. That the Applicant satisfies the requirements of Metrolinx, financial or otherwise, as indicated in Metrolinx's letter to the Secretary-Treasurer attached as Appendix "C" to the City Staff Report dated July 25, 2025, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of Metrolinx.