Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 25, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000164

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

Applicant/Appellant: Claudio Schioppo

Subject: Minor Variance Description: MV to permit two existing residential accessory structures, a residential accessory building and an existing 1-storey southern addition to the dwelling

Reference Number: A282/22

Property Address: 293 Castlehill Road

Municipality: City of Vaughan

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000164 OLT Case Name: Schioppo v. Vaughan (City)

Heard: May 15, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Claudio Schioppo	Self-represented*
City of Vaughan	Zaynab Al-waadh Laurence Esposito (articling student)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE ON MAY 15, 2025 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Fourteen years ago, Claudio Schioppo (“Appellant”) built several accessory structures at his property municipally known as 293 Castlehill Road (“Subject Property”). These accessory structures did not comply with the City of Vaughan’s (“City”) Zoning By-law 001-2021 (“ZBL”). To rectify this, in 2022, the Appellant applied for nine variances from the ZBL. The City’s Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) authorized all but three of the nine variances. Mr. Schioppo appealed the CoA’s decision.

2For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal allows the appeal in part. The variances which the CoA authorized are authorized, and the variances which were refused are not authorized.

SUBJECT SITE AND CONTEXT

3The Subject Property is a corner lot, with its west and north lot lines abutting Castlehill Road. The impugned accessory structures are all in the north-eastern corner of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is developed as a two-storey single detached dwelling, as are all surrounding properties.

4There are three accessory structures. Furthest to the east is the Appellant’s shed. Between the shed and the Appellant’s residence is the canopy structure. The canopy structure has a height of 2.92 metres and includes an outdoor fire-heated oven. Lastly, there is a “gate roof” to the west of the canopy structure, above a double wood gate entry along the fence. Figure 1 below shows how each variance relates to each accessory structure on the Subject Property.

Figure 1: Plans showing structures and requested variances, page 48 of municipal record

VARIANCES REQUESTED

5The variances requested are as follows:

1. to permit the gate roof accessory structure to be located closer to the exterior lot line than the principal building;
2. to permit the shed accessory building to be located closer to the exterior lot line than the principal building;
3. to permit the canopy roof accessory structure to be located closer to the exterior lot line than the principal building;
4. to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for a residential accessory building from 2.4 metres (“m”) to 0.43 m;
5. to reduce the minimum exterior yard setback for a residential accessory building (shed) from 4.5 m to 0.74 m;
6. to reduce the minimum exterior yard setback for a residential accessory structure (canopy roof) from 4.5 m to 0.16 m;
7. to reduce the minimum exterior yard setback for a residential accessory structure (gate roof) from 4.5 m to 0.60 m;
8. to reduce the minimum interior side-yard setback from 1.2 m to 0.95 m (house addition); and
9. to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40.7% when 40% is required.

6Variances 3, 6, and 9 were not authorized by the CoA. They relate to the canopy structure.

TEST FOR MINOR VARIANCES

7The Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) when making a decision regarding a minor variance (“MV”) application. The Tribunal’s decision on the MV must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

8To be authorized, proposed variances must:¹

1. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
2. maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
3. be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
4. be minor in nature.

Parties and evidence

9The Appellant represented himself and testified before the Tribunal. He said that he had built the canopy structure where it was the most suitable on his lot. He provided the Tribunal with a petition signed by neighbours in support of his variances. He also referred to decisions approving variances for 13 other residential properties, which he contends are like his matter. The Appellant did not address the four elements required for a minor variance in his evidence or submissions to the Tribunal.

10The City called their land use planner, David Harding, to testify. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Harding to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. Mr. Harding explained that the unauthorized variances were consistent with section 2 of the Act and the PPS. However, in his opinion, the unauthorized variances (3, 6, and 9) do not meet any of the four elements required for minor variances, because:

1. the Subject Property is a corner lot such that the impugned exterior side lot line contributes to the streetscape on Castlehill Rd. The visual and massing impacts posed by the canopy structure’s size, minimal setback, and placement are not minor and cannot be mitigated through spatial separation and/or vegetative buffering (variances 3, 6);
2. for variance 9, though the quantitative impact of an additional 0.7% lot coverage appears modest, the distribution of built form would permit the near-continuous stretch of built form along the length of the exterior side lot line near the rear yard, which is not minor;
3. for variances 3 and 6, the unmitigated massing and visual impacts result in the canopy structure not being desirable for the appropriate development of the land;
4. variance 9 is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, with the prevalence of soft landscaping in the surrounding area, and the other accessory structures on the Subject Property (gate roof accessory structure and shed accessory building);
5. all three unauthorized variances fail to maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP, specifically policies 9.1.2.1 and 9.1.2.2, by introducing a built form not in keeping with and disruptive of the established neighbourhood character; and
6. the unauthorized variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL as variance 3 is not in keeping with the intent that accessory structures should be placed in locations where they appear secondary to the function of the dwelling and variances 6 and 9 do not maintain the intent of the ZBL that there be more open and landscaped spaces, especially on corner lots.

11Conversely, Mr. Harding opined that variances 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are minor in nature, desirable, and appropriate for the use of the land, that they maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP, and are therefore appropriate from a land use planning perspective. Mr. Harding explained that, unlike the canopy structure, the smaller footprints of the gate roof accessory structure and shed accessory building mean that they can meet the minor variance tests.

12Mr. Harding did not agree that the Appellant’s examples of other CoA decisions were similar, since none were in the same area as the Subject Property. It is unnecessary to detail Mr. Harding’s opinion differentiating one of those examples – at 91 John Kline Lane, as the land use planning decisions of other properties are simply not relevant in determining whether to authorize minor variances at the Subject Property. Similarly, the Tribunal does not find the petition of neighbours relevant in assessing the variances against the s. 45(1) test.

13In rendering its decision authorizing all but three variances, the CoA imposed two conditions. The first relates to payment of a fee for the adjournment of the CoA hearing, and the second relates to the requirement to submit a lot grading plan. The Tribunal agrees with the City’s submissions and the CoA’s decision that these conditions are advisable.

FINDINGS

14The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Harding and finds that variances 3, 6, and 9 are not minor in nature, not desirable, and are not appropriate for the use of the land, nor maintain neither the general intent and purpose of the ZBL nor the OP. The Tribunal finds the remaining variances are minor in nature, desirable, and appropriate for the use of the land, and maintain both the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and the OP. Lastly, the Tribunal finds all variances have regard for provincial interests found in the Act and are consistent with the PPS.

15In other words, the Tribunal aligns with the CoA’s decision in its entirety.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and the variances 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 to By-law 001-2021 to permit the existing house addition, shed accessory structure and gate roof with reduced setbacks and to be located closer to the exterior lot line than the principal building, are authorized in accordance with the drawings and plans submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions:

1. that the Appellant submit the required adjournment fee to accommodate rescheduling from the August 31, 2023, CoA hearing; and
2. that the Appellant submit a lot grading and/or servicing plan to the development inspection and lot grading division of the City’s Development Engineering Department for final lot grading and/or servicing approval prior to any work being undertaken on the property.

17THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the variances 3, 6 and 9 to By-law 001-2021 are not authorized.

“f. lavoie”

f. laVoie

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.

Footnotes

1. 1Planning Act, RSO 1990 c. P.13, s. 45(1).