Violet Schultz v. Township of Milton, 2026 CanLII 35712

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 17, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000807

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

Applicant and Appellant: Violet Schultz Subject: Minor Variance Description: MV to permit increased driveway width Reference Number: A25-046/M Property Address: 256 Scott Boulevard Municipality/UT: Milton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000807 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000807 OLT Case Name: Schultz v. Milton (Town)

Heard: March 11 & 17, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Violet Schultz	Amber Stewart
Township of Milton	Konstantine Stavrakos

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 (“Act”) by Violet Schultz (“Applicant”) regarding the decision of the Town of Milton (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) to deny the Minor Variance (“MV”) application for the property known as 256 Scott Boulevard in the Town (“Subject Property”).

2The Subject Property is located on the south side of Scott Boulevard, north of Pringle Avenue, in the Town of Milton. The Subject Property is irregularly shaped with a frontage of 18.91 metres (“m”) and a lot area of 375 m². The Subject Property contains a two-storey detached dwelling with an attached double-width garage. An Additional Residential Unit (“ARU”) is part of the Subject Property. The surrounding lands are primarily low-rise residential with detached dwellings.

3Between March 2024 and April 2025, the Applicant enlarged the paved driveway. The MV application seeks to legalize this expansion.

4The Applicant requested a minor variance from Zoning By-Law No. 016-2014 (“ZBL”) for a change in the maximum driveway width.

5The Town Staff Planning Report, dated August 29, 2025, recommended that the MV application be denied, citing the following rationale:

Planning staff object to the application, and do not believe the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the use of the land, or consistent with the intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law. The application seeks to permit a driveway width that spans the entire facade of the house, covers the majority of the front yard, and extends into the interior side yard. Consequently, the application entails excessive hardscaping, reduces permeable landscaped space, and severely limits the opportunity for vegetation or plantings. Development Engineering also objects to the application, as the additional paving appears to extend into the public boulevard.

6On September 5, 2025, the CoA denied the MV application, stating that the MV application failed the four tests of an MV.

STATUS REQUESTS

7The Tribunal did not receive any Party or Participant status requests prior to or during the Hearing.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

8The Applicant submitted six documents: a 15-page witness statement, which was marked as Exhibit 1, a 1165-page Document Book, which was marked as Exhibit 2, a revised site plan, which was marked as Exhibit 5, a seven-page staff report, which was marked as Exhibit 7, a photo of 232 Scott Boulevard, which was marked as Exhibit 8, and a photo of 256 Scott Boulevard, which was marked as Exhibit 9.

9Jonathan Benczkowski, a Principal Planner at Sol-Arch, testified with respect to the evidence set out in his Witness Statement. Mr. Benczkowski was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters.

10The Town submitted three documents: an 18-page witness statement, which was marked as Exhibit 3, a 397-page Document Book, which was marked as Exhibit 4, and a 76-page Registered Subdivision Agreement, which was marked as Exhibit 6.

11Olivia Hayes, a Planner at the Town, testified with respect to the evidence set out in her Witness Statement. Ms. Hayes was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

12The Applicant has appealed the CoA decision and requested the following relief:

a. Relief from s. 5.6.2 of the ZBL, Driveway Access to a Residential Dwelling – to permit an increased driveway coverage of 11.9 m where a maximum of 8 m for lot having a frontage greater than 11.5 m is permitted.

13The Applicant has submitted, in Exhibit 5, that they would be willing to modify the proposal to request relief to permit an increased driveway coverage of 10.98 m. The reduction of 0.92 m from their original relief request would involve the removal of a strip of paving on the east side of the proposed driveway expansion.

SectionS 2 and 3(5) of the Planning Act

Evidence and Submissions

14The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act when making a decision regarding an MV application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV application must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

15Mr. Benczkowski stated the proposed MV application has regard for matters of Provincial Interest. He did not provide additional reasoning on how.

16Ms. Hayes stated that the proposed MV application does not have regard for matters of Provincial Interest. She highlighted that the application does not meet the criteria in s. 2 of the Act:

1. The orderly development of safe and healthy communities (2h) because of the proposed the parking in front of and beside the dwelling;
2. The protection of public health and safety (2o) based on the concerns of the fire department regarding lack of access to the ARU; and
3. The promotion of built form that is well designed (2r(i)) because of the level of hardscaping, reduction in vegetation space, and encroachment on Town land.

17Mr. Benczkowski stated that the Subject Property is located in the Town’s settlement area, and the ARU is good for building complete communities. It is his opinion that the proposed MV application is consistent with the PPS.

18Ms. Hayes stated that the MV application is neither consistent nor inconsistent with the PPS. She is of the opinion that the high-level policy direction in the PPS is not directly applicable to driveway width.

Findings

19The Tribunal finds that the proposed MV application does not have regard for matters of Provincial interest. The safety concerns of Milton Fire and Rescue Service indicate that parking in close proximity to the ingress/egress point of the ARU does not promote the protection of public health and safety. If a driveway is present next to the ARU ingress/egress point, it is a public health and safety risk as it would impede access to the dwelling by emergency services.

20The Tribunal finds that the MV application is consistent with the PPS based solely on Mr. Benczkowski’s assessment that the ARU, that this driveway expansion is intended to serve, would contribute to a complete community by increasing available housing options through gentle intensification.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

21When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:

1. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
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.

22The Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.

General Intent and Purpose of the Town of Milton Official Plan

Evidence and Submissions

23Mr. Benczkowski directed the Tribunal to s. 2.8 (Urban Design) of the OP. He stated that the proposed MV application is compatible with the existing neighbourhood as required by s. 2.8.2.2 of the OP:

2.8.2.2 To achieve a consistently high standard of design in the built environment that is complementary to and compatible with existing development and the Town's natural and cultural heritage in all areas including site, building and landscape design

24Mr. Benczkowski opined that the expanded driveway is in line with the physical characteristics of other developments in the area.

25Ms. Hayes countered that the proposed MV application does not meet the criteria in s. 2.8 of the Act, specifically referencing s. 2.8.1:

2.8.1 To ensure that any development proposal from the individual site level, to the community level, is designed to achieve a high standard and to contribute positively in both form and function to the built and managed environment of Milton.

26Ms. Hayes stated that blocking walkways and driving on town land (e.g., sidewalk that is not considered part of the driveway or the Town’s road allowance) does not contribute positively to the managed and built environment of the Town. She stated that the Town has received complaints from the public regarding these issues. Referring to s. 2.8.2.2 of the OP, she stated that the driveway expansion results in excessive hardscaping, that is fully visible from the public realm, which makes it not compatible with existing development.

27Mr. Benczkowski used several photos of the neighbourhood to show that expanded driveways exist in the neighbourhood with some properties using walkways and paved pads for parking. On cross-examination, he was unable to state if those expanded driveways were legal or approved through minor variances.

28When Ms. Hayes was questioned about the properties in the photos, she stated that none of them have received an MV for driveway expansion to permit additional parking.

29Ms. Hayes stated that this leads to s. 2.8.3.51 of the OP:

2.8.3.51 The Town shall encourage landscape design that supports the maintenance of naturalized space, replacement of lost vegetation, use of native species, and enhancement of ecological stability.

30Ms. Hayes stated that the loss of soft landscaping does not enhance ecological stability.

31Mr. Benczkowski stated that no request has been made to reduce the open space required by the OP. The proposed MV application provides the required 30% open landscaped space.

32Mr. Benczkowski stated that the neighbourhood has a lack of parking availability. He pointed to the CoA policies in s. 5.8.3.1 of the OP, which indicate which criteria the CoA should evaluate when deciding on MV applications. He argued that site constraints exist because additional parking is needed but not available, that an alternative design has been proposed to revise the driveway proposal to remove the side lot parking, and that no undesirable precedent would be set by allowing the MV as irregular parking occurs in the area already.

33Ms. Hayes stated that the Subject Property has no site constraints that would necessitate varying the ZBL and prior to the driveway expansion, the Subject Property could park four vehicles. She stated that the ZBL only requires capacity for two vehicles. Ms. Hayes highlighted that paving over a large portion of the front yard and side yard removed space for plants and vegetation, which negatively affects the Subject Property and neighbourhood. It is Ms. Hayes’ opinion that allowing excessive hardscaping for a driveway that has not been demonstrated to be safe or functional sets a negative precedent.

34Mr. Benczkowski stated that the proposed MV application meets the criteria found in s. 5.8.3.2 of the OP. He opined that it is compatible with the nature of the neighbourhood with no impacts to neighbouring properties.

35Ms. Hayes disagreed and stated that the proposed MV application has negative impacts to neighbouring properties.

36Ms. Hayes directed the Tribunal to s. 8.3.1 of the OP:

C.8.3.1 To create a safe, liveable, attractive and healthy community in Sherwood Survey which has the strong sense of community and the environment evident in Milton today, and which is designed to be integrated with the Existing Urban Area and its Central Business District.

37Ms. Hayes stated that the proposed MV application does not contribute to a safe, attractive, and healthy community.

38Mr. Benczkowski testified that the proposed MV application is a high-quality design and is consistent with other properties in the neighbourhood. He is of the opinion that this meets the criteria in s. 8.3.2.2 of the OP.

39Ms. Hayes reiterated that s. 8.3.2.2 of the OP calls for a high standard of urban design and opined that the proposed MV application did not meet that standard. Ms. Hayes’ opinion is that the proposed MV does not meet the intent and purpose of the OP.

40Mr. Benczkowski’s opinion is that the proposed MV is complementary and compatible to the area and meets the intent and purpose of the OP.

Findings

41The Applicant has stated that they need additional parking, but the Town has shown that the Subject Property has capacity for four parking spots when the only requirement for the Subject Property is two parking spots.

42The Town explained during cross-examination that the policies in s. 5.8.3.1 of the OP setting out criteria the CoA should evaluate when deciding on MV applications are not applicable to this matter. The Town explained this is because the Subject Property has no site constraints and is capable of conforming to the ZBL requirements, so an alternative plan is not required and approving the MV would create a new by-law violation (i.e., approving the MV to expand the driveway would add perpendicular parking which violates a different ZBL not considered in this application) which would set an undesirable precedent.

43Although over 60 examples were shown of nearby properties with driveway expansions, only two showed properties where vehicles were parking perpendicular to the driveway and none showed parking in a side yard. Ms. Hayes testified that none of the nearby properties had permission to expand these driveways. The Tribunal is not compelled to use unapproved development to characterize an area.

44Given the extensive paving of the Subject Property to expand the driveway, which includes paving the Town’s road allowance without permission, the Tribunal finds that the MV application does not conform to the general intent and purpose of the OP.

General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

Evidence and Submissions

45Mr. Benczkowski addressed the concerns of the fire department by explaining that the revised site plan removes the driveway/parking in the side yard. He stated that the reduction in the driveway width to 10.98 m will separate the paved side yard area from the main driveway so that no vehicles will be parked there which addresses the blocking of the ARU access point.

46The Town pointed out that the reduction would still have a connected paved area from the front yard into the side yard and the side yard would still be considered driveway so this does not prevent the paved side yard from being considered a space where parking could occur. The Town directed the Tribunal to the definition of a residential driveway in s. 3 of the ZBL:

DRIVEWAY, RESIDENTIAL (050-2024)

Means a hard surface (consisting of, but not limited to, asphalt, concrete, patterned concrete, interlocking brick, or paving stone) on a lot having a residential use containing less than four (4) dwelling units, exclusive of any additional dwelling unit(s), upon which vehicles drive and park, and includes an adjacent hard surface, capable of being parked or driven upon by part or the whole of a motor vehicle, such as, but not limited to, walkways, banding, or curbing.

47Ms. Hayes clarified that the expanded paved areas all count as driveway even with the revised site plan that reduces a portion of the hardscaping. She stated that even though the Applicant may refer to the paved side yard as amenity space, it is considered a driveway under the ZBL.

48Mr. Benczkowski and Ms. Hayes stated that the driveway width in the ZBL is based on lot frontage and is proportional to lot width. Section 5.6.2.v) d) E) of the ZBL states:

5.6.2. v) d) No person shall permit a Residential Driveway exceeding a width of:

E) 8.0 m for lots having a frontage greater than 11.5 m;

49Mr. Benczkowski stated that the point of regulating driveway width is to ensure the streetscape character is maintained, ensure front yards are not dominated by parking, and to ensure proper drainage. He asserted that the Subject Property is larger than the average at 18.91 m, so an expanded driveway would not appear out of character. It would also not impact drainage as the open landscaped area is above the 30% required.

50Ms. Hayes stated that a driveway width beyond 8 m is not contemplated for lots of any size. She said the intent of the ZBL is to ensure that driveway widths remain proportional, do not visually overwhelm a property, and ensure that space is available for a permeable front lawn. Ms. Hayes stated that the proposed driveway expansion contravenes this intent, and the hardscaping overwhelms the Subject Property.

51Ms. Hayes discussed that there are multiple issues with the proposed driveway width. She explained that ZBL s. 5.6.2. xi) requires all parking spaces to be oriented towards the face of the attached garage and not more than 45-degrees offset from the garage face. She stated that the intent of this is to ensure orderly parking and to avoid having cars parked perpendicular to the driveway. Ms. Hayes asserted that the parking spot in front of the dwelling stairs violates this.

52Upon cross-examination, Mr. Benczkowski acknowledged that the proposed parking in front of the dwelling constituted a 90-degrees offset from the garage and that this would violate ZBL s. 5.6.2 xi) as it would result in parking perpendicular to the driveway. The Applicant provided visual evidence that a vehicle could be parked on a 45-degree angle in front of the dwelling. The Town argued that this would not be possible with the revised site plan and without the need to drive on the Town’s road allowance or the sidewalk.

53Ms. Hayes stated that the Applicant will need to drive over parts of the sidewalk (that are not within the driveway defined by the curb cut) to reach the proposed driveway expansion. She stated that this raises safety concerns and shows that the driveway design is not functional for use in this manner. Additionally, Ms. Hayes stated that this would not be possible if the Applicant had not paved over the Town’s road allowance. The Town has a road allowance of 0.3 m beyond the edge of the sidewalk onto the Subject Property.

54Ms. Hayes explained that Table 5E (*2) of the ZBL only requires a minimum of two parking spaces for the Subject Property. The Subject Property had the capacity for four vehicles to park prior to the driveway expansion.

Findings

55Even though the Applicant has suggested that the side yard paved area would not allow future parking and only be used as an amenity space, the Town has shown that all adjacent paved areas are considered driveway. Therefore, if approved, it would be a driveway. The Town’s position is that even with the reduced paved area in the revised site plan, the side yard could be used for parking. The Applicant has suggested erecting a fence near the front of the dwelling to prevent the side yard from being used as a driveway, however a fence was not included in the original nor the revised site plan. The Town did not agree to the erection of a fence, but Ms. Hayes did agree that it would prevent the side yard from being used as a driveway.

56The ZBL doesn’t propose driveway width variations for properties with frontages above 11.5 m. The Applicants have shown that the percentage of frontage used by the revised site plan driveway width is within the range of allowed usage found in the ZBL even if it is a larger width than the ZBL contemplates.

57A core component of this matter rests on the intended usage of the expanded driveway. The Applicants have shown that they intend to park perpendicular to the original driveway, which is not permissible under the ZBL. The visual evidence that it may be possible to park a vehicle in front of the dwelling on the expanded driveway on a 45-degree angle does not convince the Tribunal that this could be accomplished if the driveway is reduced to match the revised site plan or without being required to travel on the Town’s road allowance and the sidewalk. It has not been proven that the suggested parking configuration is functional without violating other Town by-laws.

58The Tribunal finds that the MV application does not conform to the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land

Evidence and Submissions

59Mr. Benczkowski stated that the proposed MV application implements the planning framework at the municipal and provincial level. The driveway expansion facilitates the ARU and improves the desirability of that ARU. Even if the expansion is only used as an amenity space, he said this contributes to the liveability and desirability of the ARU. He explained that there is no need for street parking, and it does not increase the curb cut. Finally, he stated that it leaves plenty of greenspace, which is desirable.

60Ms. Hayes stated that the proposed MV is not desirable as the parking configuration requires entering and reversing along Town land (e.g., the sidewalk and Town’s road allowance) violating Town By-law No. 1984-1. She also stated that the proposed driveway width prevents safe entrance and egress of the ARU under s. 37 of the Property Standards By-law No. 113-2012. She reminded the Tribunal that Milton Fire and Rescue Services has raised concerns about this impeding emergency personnel and vehicles from accessing the doorway.

61Ms. Hayes stated that an MV application cannot authorize an encroachment onto the Town’s road allowance. Ms. Hayes noted that even though fire services have not raised concerns about the front entranceway, if a vehicle were parked in front of the dwelling without parking on the Town’s road allowance, there would be a more profound obstruction of the front entrance.

62Finally, she stated that it not desirable to approve an MV that will undermine other by-laws as discussed in the previous section.

Findings

63While an increase in available housing via an ARU is desirable, the encroachment of this MV onto the Town’s road allowance and the potential safety risks (to pedestrians and to residents) makes this undesirable. The Tribunal finds that the MV application is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of land.

Is Minor in Nature

Evidence and Submissions

64Mr. Benczkowski stated that the MV application is minor in nature both numerically and qualitatively. He said it provides ARU parking and exterior amenity space. Mr. Benczkowski stated that there are no adverse impacts expected from the MV application.

65Mr. Benczkowski stated that there are no safety concerns expected for a vehicle to enter the property and that it is not necessary to enter into or cross Town land while parking. He stated that it would be possible to use the widened driveway without being on the Town’s road allowance.

66Ms. Hayes stated that there are negative and adverse impacts to the Subject Property. These impacts are negative visually and impact the urban area. She said that the MV creates a disproportionate amount of hardscaping that is visible from the public realm, reduces the permeable area, reduces vegetation space, and seeks to create a driveway that wraps around the dwelling. Ms. Hayes’ opinion is that the proposed MV is not minor.

Findings

67The proposed MV application creates a largely hardscaped front yard that is visually not appealing and a driveway that wraps around the dwelling. The Tribunal finds that this is not minor.

ORDER

68THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed and the variance to By-law No. 016-2014 is 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.