Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 25, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000941
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: St. Mary & St. John The Beloved Coptic Orthodox Church
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the construction of a 2,618 square metre addition to the existing easterly building, which is used as a place of religious assembly, and to expand the daycare use in the westerly building
Reference Number: City of Pickering File No. MV 51/25
Property Address: 980 & 984 Kingston Road
Municipality/UT: City of Pickering
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000941
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000941
OLT Case Name: St. Mary & St. John The Beloved Coptic Orthodox Church v. Pickering (City)
Heard: February 24th, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
St. Mary & St. John the Beloved Coptic Orthodox Church (“Applicant”)
Meaghan McDermid
DECISION DELIVERED BY MATHIEU E. QUESNEL AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by the Applicant under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the City of Pickering (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in which an Application for Minor Variance (“Application”) was refused. The Application affects the lands known as 980 and 984 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario (“Subject Property”).
2The Applicant is proposing an expansion of an existing building which is currently used as a place of religious assembly and increasing the capacity of the daycare use to accommodate more children, but in order to obtain the necessary permits, they need to request approval for minor variances.
3The Applicant is appealing the COA decision to refuse their Application for Minor Variances. The COA refused three requests and allowed three requests. Nevertheless, all six minor variance requests need to be addressed by the Tribunal.
4The Application for Minor Variances are for the following six variances:
Variance 1: Permit a place of religious assembly to occur in the existing easterly building and its proposed addition, with a maximum gross floor area of 3,693 square metres, whereas the by-law states that one place of religious assembly shall be permitted and shall only occur in the easterly building existing as of the day of the passing of this by-law, and shall not exceed a maximum gross floor area of 1,075 square metres.
Variance 2: Permit a day nursery to occur in the existing westerly building, with a maximum of 130 children and a maximum size of 574 square metres, whereas the by-law states that a one-day nursery shall be permitted and shall only occur in the westerly building existing as of the day of the passing of this by-law, and shall be restricted to a maximum of 54 children and shall not exceed 465 square metres in size.
Variance 3: Recognize an existing setback of 3.4 metres between the easterly building and the lot line abutting Kingston Road, whereas the by-law states that all buildings shall be setback 14 metres from the lot line abutting Kingston Road.
Variance 4: Recognize an existing building height of 8 metres for the westerly building and permit building heights for the easterly building and its proposed addition as follows:
a. a maximum of 30 metres to the top of the tower, and
b. for the portion of the building not located within the cross hatched area, a maximum of 15 metres to the top of the roof
whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres, except in the area cross hatched on Schedule II, where the maximum building height shall be 15 metres.
Variance 5: Permit a minimum of 195 parking spaces to be provided and maintained on the lands, whereas the by-law states that there shall be provided and maintained on the lands a minimum of 260 parking spaces.
Variance 6: Permit parking areas to be set back a minimum of 1 metre from the lot line abutting Kingston Road and 0.5 metres from the lot line abutting Merritton Road, whereas the by-law states that all parking areas shall be set back a minimum of 3 metres from all road allowances.
5The COA approved variances 3, 4, and 6 and refused variances 1, 2, and 5.
6Notice of Hearing was sent via email by the Tribunal on January 5, 2026 (Exhibit 1).
7No counsel or representative for the City of Pickering attended the Hearing on February 24, 2026.
SITE AND CONTEXT
8The Subject Property is a 1.53-hectare property located on the north side of Kingston Road and south of CN railroad. It is surrounded by lands containing commercial use, road, and rail transportation infrastructure. There is one single family dwelling on a large lot located immediately west to the Subject Property.
9The Subject Property is currently developed with two buildings; one used for a church and accessory uses and the second one contains a daycare and youth area.
10The Subject Property is located on Kingston Road in the City and is zoned as SC-26 and OS-HL in the City Zoning By-Law No. 3036, as amended by By-Laws No. 2498/87, 2923/88, and 7131/11 (“ZBL”).
11Within the Region of Durham Official Plan (“RDOP”) the Subject Property is designated as “Urban System – Rapid Transit Corridor” and located within a Strategic Growth Area.
12Within the City Official Plan (“CPOP”), the Subject Property is designated as the “Subject Site Kingston Mixed Corridor” and located within the Dunbarton/Liverpool Precinct Intensification Area.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
13The Tribunal’s authority to grant variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Appellant, when making an application for the authorization of variances. It must be noted that the Hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the Application meets these tests remains on the Appellant. The legislative tests require that the variances:
a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; and,
d. Be minor in nature.
14In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal’s Decision to be consistent with the Policy Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).
15The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as the Decision of the COA and the information considered in the course of making its Decision, as set out in sub-s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
PARTIES AND EVIDENCE
16The Applicant was represented by counsel Meaghan McDermid and called one expert witness, Martin Rendl, from Martin Rendl & Associates to give evidence in the areas of land use planning.
17The Applicant’s Book of Documents, which included the Application, the package provided to the COA, site and neighbourhood context images, the City Planning Staff Report (“staff report”), a Transportation and Parking Study, and the COA presentation and Decision were received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 2.
18After reviewing Mr. Rendl’s qualification, professional experience, and Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified him as an expert in land use planning, and he was affirmed to provide expert opinion evidence. The expert witness background and qualification and his statement were received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 3.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
Matters of Provincial Interest
19Section 2 of the Act sets out a number of provincial interests and land use planning decisions are required to have regard to those relevant matters of provincial interest.
20Mr. Rendl reviewed s. 2 of the Act and opined that the requested variances have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in the Act. Based on his uncontested evidence, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances have regard to matters of provincial interest.
Provincial Planning Statement 2024
21Evidence was provided by Mr. Rendl that the PPS is a high-level provincial policy document that is implemented at the local level.
22Mr. Rendl testified that the requested variances are consistent with the PPS policies for managing and directing land use to achieve efficient and resilient development and land use patterns.
23Mr. Rendl testified that the proposed development will:
a. support the achievement of complete communities and be planned as focal areas for commercial and cultural uses (PPS policy 2.4.1.2);
b. be an efficient use of land (PPS policy 2.3.1.2.(a));
c. optimizes existing infrastructure and public service facilities (PPS Policy 2.3.1.2.(b));
d. support intensification for the achievement of complete communities (PPS Policy 2.3.1.2.3); and
e. support the achievement of compact, transit supportive, and complete communities (PPS Policy 2.9.1.(a)).
24Mr. Rendl opined that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS for managing and directing land use to achieve efficient land use patterns in a strategic growth area as part of achieving complete communities.
25The Tribunal adopts Mr. Rendl’s uncontested evidence and accordingly finds that the requested variances are consistent with the PPS.
Region Of Durham Official Plan
26The RDOP provides policy direction for how the growth and development in the Region of Durham.
27The designation “Urban System – Rapid Transit Corridor” is intended to provide for a full range and mix of uses including commercial and institutional uses.
28Mr. Rendl testified that a church and day care are permitted uses under the RDOP.
City of Pickering Official Plan
29The CPOP designates the Subject Property as “Kingston Mixed Corridor” and within the “Dunbarton/Liverpool Precinct Intensification Area”. Official Plan Amendment 38 further designates the Subject Property as “Residential Community”.
30Mr. Rendl testified that a church and day care uses are permitted by the CPOP.
THE FOUR TESTS
1. Do the variances meet the general Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan?
31The designation of the Subject Property in the CPOP permits the existing use.
32The Official Plan Amendment 38 of the CPOP, at s. 11A.9(f), encourages the establishment of community services and facilities including educational and cultural services in the Kingston Mixed Corridor to serve community needs. At s. 11A.12.4(a), the CPOP requires development with appropriate parking spaces on site and the Transportation and Parking Study and the City staff report, included in the Exhibit 2, demonstrated that 195 parking spaces are adequate to meet the parking needs of the proposed development. It is further indicated in s. 11A.12.4 (b)(iii) of the CPOP that shared parking shall be encouraged in mixed use areas to minimize land devoted to parking. Mr. Rendl testified that the proposed development contains shared parking, and it is consistent with this policy.
33Mr. Rendl further testified that Table 6 of the CPOP permits a Maximum Floorspace Index (“FSI”) in the Kingston Mixed Corridor of over 0.75 and up to 2.5 FSI, and that the proposed development would result in a 0.32 FSI, which remains lower that the intended minimum. Mr. Rendl testified that while the proposed FSI remains lower than the intended minimum FSI contemplated in Table 6, the proposed development represents intensification and is a positive step towards achieving the level of density envisioned by the CPOP.
34Mr. Rendl opined that the requested variances to permit the expansion of existing permitted uses maintain the general intent and purpose of the CPOP.
35The Tribunal adopts Mr. Rendl’s uncontested evidence and accordingly finds that the requested variances meet the general intent and purpose of the CPOP.
2. Do the Variances meet the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law?
36Mr. Rendl testified that the general intent and purpose of a zoning by-law includes setting out development standards suited to uses and buildings to achieve appropriate development that fits its planned context.
37Mr. Rendl testified that over the years the ZBL was amended to have the zoning standards match the uses and buildings proposes at the time. A zoning by-law tends to be generally and municipally wide in their scope. They do not address unique issues, and the minor variance process provides flexibility to relax zoning standards based on the planning merits of the proposal.
38The ZBL was amended in 2011 to permit one place of religious assembly in the easterly building and one day nursery only in the westerly building restricted to a maximum of 54 children and not to exceed 465 square metres in size. It was also requiring a minimum of 260 parking spaces.
39Mr. Rendl addressed all six requested variances in relation to the ZBL.
40In relation to Variance 1 and Variance 2, Mr. Rendl opined that both variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. He testified that churches and day care centres are desirable and key components of complete communities. They both contribute to the quality of lives of residents.
41He testified that the proposed expansion of these uses meets the needs of the growing population of the Pickering community.
42He also testified that the Subject Property is regulated by the lot coverage regulations of the ZBL. He opined that the proposed development complies and conforms with the lot coverage density and that it is not an overdevelopment of the Subject Property.
43In addressing Variance 3, Mr. Rendl testifies that the when the Region of Durham purchased a portion of the Subject Property adjacent to Kingston Road to accommodate the planned Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit project, it created a reduced setback of the existing church from Kingston Road and loss in parking spaces. The existing setback is not being reduced and was solely created by the purchase of a portion of land by the Region of Durham.
44Variance 4 is in relation to the maximum height of the building. Mr. Rendl testified that the proposed height of 30 metres for the church tower and a 15 metre-height for the roof of the church will not have a negative impact, and he agrees with the City staff report that the tower height and roof height are technical matters rather than substantive in nature.
45Mr. Rendl continued and offered his testimony on Variance 5. He testified that the reduction of parking spaces is supported by a Transportation and Parking Study. Essentially, he testified that the unique operational characteristics of the church and the day care centre support a variance from the standard parking requirement. The church’s main service only occurs on Sunday while the day care operates from Monday to Friday.
46Mr. Rendl testified that the Transportation and Parking Study considered the distinct operation and that the 195 parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate both the church attendees and day care users, employees and visitors.
47Mr. Rendl added that the sharing of parking spaces avoids inefficient land use associated with excessive parking supply.
48Variance 6 is dealing with the setback of the parking areas and Mr. Rendl testified that the parking along Kingston Road consists primarily of drive aisles rather than parking spaces that would contain parked vehicles.
49Mr. Rendl opined that the 1 metre and 0.5 metres setbacks from Kingston Road and Merritton Road respectively maintain appropriate setbacks of the parking areas from Kingston Road and Merritton Road.
50Mr. Rendl opined that all six variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
51The Tribunal adopts Mr. Rendl’s uncontested evidence and accordingly finds that the requested variances meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL
3. Are the Variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure?
52Mr. Rendl testifies that the requested variances permit the expansion of an established place of religious assembly and allow for more children to be accommodated within the existing building where the day care is now located and currently operates. He added that churches and day care centres are desirable and key components of communities, and by allowing the variances it would allow the Pickering community to meet the needs of its growing population.
53Mr. Rendl is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and are appropriate in the context of the existing surrounding use.
54The Tribunal agrees that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure.
4. Are the Variances considered Minor in nature?
55The test for considering if the variance is minor is not a mathematical test based on a percentage by which the variance differs but a test of whether the variance is minor in nature and extend any undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The evidence provided by Mr. Rendl is that the requested variances are minor, will not have an impact on lands beyond the Subject Property, and would not pose harm to the character of the area or the continued use of the adjacent properties for their current or future purposes.
56Mr. Rendl reviewed this part of the test for all six requested variances and concluded that they will not create adverse impacts of a land use nature.
57Having reviewed all six requested variances and carefully considered if any of them could be considered not minor in nature, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence presented demonstrate that all requested variances are minor in nature.
CONCLUSION
58The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Rendl that the requested variances for the Subject Property will have a minimal impact on the neighbouring and surrounding properties.
59The Tribunal finds that the requested variances have regard for the provincial interests expressed in the Act, are consistent with the PPS, and satisfy all four tests of s. 45(1) of the Act. The proposed development represents good planning.
ORDER
60THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
61The appeal under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act is allowed and the following variances to the City of Pickering Zoning By-law No. 3036, as amended by By-laws No. 2498/87, 2923/88, and 7138/11 are approved:
a. Permit a place of religious assembly to occur in the existing easterly building and its proposed addition, with a maximum gross floor area of 3,693 square metres, whereas the by-law states that one place of religious assembly shall be permitted and shall only occur in the easterly building existing as of the day of the passing of this by-law, and shall not exceed a maximum gross floor area of 1,075 square metres;
b. Permit a day nursery to occur in the existing westerly building, with a maximum of 130 children and a maximum size of 574 square metres, whereas the by-law states that a one-day nursery shall be permitted and shall only occur in the westerly building existing as of the day of the passing of this by-law, and shall be restricted to a maximum of 54 children and shall not exceed 465 square metres in size;
c. Recognize an existing setback of 3.4 metres between the easterly building and the lot line abutting Kingston Road, whereas the by-law states that all buildings shall be setback 14 metres from the lot line abutting Kingston Road;
d. Recognize an existing building height of 8 metres for the westerly building, and permit building heights for the easterly building and its proposed addition as follows: a maximum of 30 metres to the top of the tower, and for the portion of the building not located within the cross hatched area, a maximum of 15 metres to the top of the roof, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres, except in the area cross hatched on Schedule II, where the maximum building height shall be 15 metres;
e. Permit a minimum of 195 parking spaces to be provided and maintained on the lands, whereas the by-law states that there shall be provided and maintained on the lands a minimum of 260 parking spaces; and
f. Permit parking areas to be set back a minimum of 1 metre from the lot line abutting Kingston Road and 0.5 metres from the lot line abutting Merritton Road, whereas the by-law states that all parking areas shall be set back a minimum of 3 metres from all road allowances.
62The approved variances apply only to the existing easterly building and its proposed addition and the existing westerly building, as generally sited and outlined on the Applicant’s submitted plans attached hereto as Attachment A.
“Mathieu E. Quesnel”
MATHIEU E. QUESNEL
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 A