Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 5, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000698
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant/Appellant: Rodrigo Di Fiore
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit an increase to the maximum width of a driveway on subject property
Reference Number: 540-02-A-072-2024
Property Address: 4641 Cornerstone Drive
Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000698
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000698
OLT Case Name: Di Fiore v. Burlington (City)
Heard: March 6, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Rodrigo Di Fiore | self represented* |
| City Of Burlington | Hannah Ruby |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI ON MARCH 6, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This matter was brought before the Tribunal regarding to an appeal filed by Rodrigo Di Flore (“Appellant” / “Applicant”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, relating to a Minor Variance application that was submitted to the City of Burlington (“City”) on September 6, 2024, to legalize a driveway that was widened in two phases between 2012 and present day, without approval. The application seeks Committee of Adjustment’s (“Committee”) approval due to the fact that the driveway exceeds the maximum permitted width.
2The Subject Property, municipally known as 4641 Cornerstone Drive (“Subject Property”), is a rectangular lot with an area of 286 square metres (“m²”) and approximately 11 metres of frontage on the west side of Cornerstone Drive. The surrounding area consists mainly of low-density residential uses with two-storey detached homes.
3The Subject Property contains a two-storey detached dwelling with an attached garage and covered porch. Access is provided by a pebble-finish concrete driveway that widens to a maximum of 10.15 metres, with a portion surfaced in permeable pavers. The driveway and garage provide the required two parking spaces, and no additional access is proposed.
4City Staff reviewed the application and recommended refusal of the requested variance to permit the maximum width of the driveway to be 10.2 metres instead of the maximum of 5.5 metres permitted by the Burlington Zoning By-law 2020. The Committee agreed and did not support the proposal, finding that the proposed driveway width conflicted with the intent of the Zoning By-law (“By-law”). The By-law’s objectives include preserving front yard landscaping, maintaining usable amenity space, supporting stormwater infiltration, preventing driveway dominance, and ensuring pedestrian safety.
5The Committee determined that the proposed design would overwhelm the front yard, significantly limit landscaping opportunities, and negatively impact the streetscape. Additionally, the Committee noted that the driveway could pose safety risks particularly to vulnerable pedestrians due to the potential for motor vehicle encroachment onto the sidewalk. While the applicant demonstrated that parking dimensions could technically comply with the By-law, the design was considered to enable future unsafe parking practices.
6Overall, the Committee concluded that the variance was neither minor in nature nor desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY OPINION
7The Tribunal was presented with the witness statement of Michael Barton a professional land use planner.
8Mr. Barton was affirmed and qualified to provide expert evidence in relation to land use planning.
9Mr. Barton informed the Tribunal that the Appellant and the City have entered without prejudice discussions to seek an opportunity to settle the appeal.
10Through without-prejudice discussions, the City and the Appellant have agreed to settle the appeal with the Minor Variance remaining as submitted to the Committee subject to the following conditions:
- the Applicant/Owner will not further widen the existing driveway or add any additional hard landscaping on the property or within the City's right-of-way; and,
- the Applicant/Owner will submit a complete Residential Driveway Widening/Curb Cutting Application to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services, or their designate.
11Mr. Barton opined that through the proposed conditions, the requested Minor Variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Region of Halton Official Plan, the Burlington Official Plans (2020 and 1997), and the Zoning By-law.
12Mr. Barton further provided that the variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Property, and is consistent with the matters of provincial interest identified in Section 2 of the Planning Act, as well as with the relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.
13Mr. Barton concluded that the variance represents good planning and is in the public interest.
FINDINGS
14The Tribunal concluded that:
- On the strength of the uncontested expert opinion evidence of Mr. Barton, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Minor Variance Has regards to matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act;
- Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024;
- Satisfies the four Statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act; and
- Is in good planning and in the public interest.
15Tribunal is of the view that the Settlement reached by the Parties is fair and reasonable and compliments the Parties in working collaboratively and engaging in productive discussions in order to reach a Settlement in these proceedings.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variance to Burlington Zoning By-law 2000 is authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARMINE TUCCI 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 1
- the Applicant/Owner will not further widen the existing driveway or add any additional hard landscaping on the property or within the City's right-of-way; and,
- the Applicant/Owner will submit a complete Residential Driveway Widening/Curb Cutting Application to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services, or their designate.