Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 3, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000850

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

Applicant/Appellant: Suncor Energy Products Partnership

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: to facilitate the proposed take-out restaurant use

Reference Number: A 118/25, Ward 8

Property Address: 2100 Burnhamthorpe Road W

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000850

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000850

OLT Case Name: Suncor Energy Products Partnership v. Mississauga (City)

Heard: March 12 and 13, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Suncor Energy Products Partnership (“Applicant”) Counsel Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan

Parties City of Mississauga (“City”) Counsel Raj Kehar Chantal Conroy

DECISION DELIVERED BY N. RODGERS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal pursuant to s. 45 (12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (“Act”) from the refusal by the City of Mississauga (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of an application for five Minor Variances (“MV”) for the property municipally known as 2100 Burnhamthorpe Road West (“Subject Lands”).

2The Applicant is a well-established national owner and operator of automotive gasoline stations (Petro Canada), where in many cases, other services including takeout food, convenience products and services that are available to catering the needs of the travelling public. The Subject Lands form part of the Applicant’s modernization initiative to upgrade their facilities. The Applicant (acting as the franchisee) will manage and operate a drive-through takeout restaurant on behalf of a national fast-food restaurant chain (“A&W”).

3The MV relief sought under the City’s Zoning By-law 0225-2007 (“ZBL”) is:

i. Gross floor area – take-out restaurant accessory to a gas bar/convenience retail and service kiosk and car wash revised to 58.6 square metres (“sq. m.”) whereas By- law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum gross floor area – restaurant of 30.0 sq m;

ii. A landscape buffer abutting Erin Mills Parkway of 2.70 metres (“m”) whereas By- law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum landscape buffer of 4.50 m;

iii. A landscape buffer abutting Burnhamthorpe Road West of 4.35 m whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum landscape buffer of 4.50 m;

iv. A landscape buffer abutting the sight triangle of 1.68 m whereas By- law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum landscape buffer of 4.50 m;

v. A landscape buffer abutting the east property line of 2.97 m whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum landscape buffer of 4.50 m.

4Sara Ukaj, a City land use planner, provided evidence during her examination in chief stating that MV (iv) listed above is not required. She confirmed that this was an administrative error made by City Zoning staff and was not originally flagged at the COA hearing. She qualified this by referring the Tribunal to Section 2.1.25 of the ZBL:

2.1.25.1 Landscaped Buffers (0181-2018/LPAT Order 2019 February 15)¹

2.1.25.1 The minimum depth of a required landscaped buffer abutting a sight triangle or a 0.3 m reserve that abuts a sight triangle may be reduced to 0.0 m (emphasis added).

5The Tribunal has confirmed with the Applicant and the City that this specific MV is redundant, and this item will be addressed in the Order accordingly.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND AREA CONTEXT

6The Subject Lands are located on the southeast corner of Burnhamthorpe Road West and Erin Mills Parkway. The Subject Lands have a site area of 0.53 hectare (“ha”) with road frontages of approximately 63.94 m on Burnhamthorpe Road West and approximately 65.65 m on Erin Mills Parkway.

7The Subject Lands are currently developed with a motor vehicle service station that includes fuel pump stations beside a one storey service kiosk structure and a carwash. The carwash has an existing dedicated queuing lane and has been in operation since the mid-1980s. Access to the Subject Lands is served by three access points. Two from Erin Mills Parkway and one from Burnhamthorpe Road West.

8The perimeter of the site along the road frontages has sparse tree planting and landscaping. Along the east and northern boundary there are existing trees and plantings, some of which will be removed for the redevelopment scheme.

9The Region of Peel (“Region”) requires a road widening and dedication along the frontage of Erin Mills Parkway, being the west property line and along the daylighting triangle at the corner of the property.

10The surrounding land uses consists of mainly two storey townhouses to the east and south; open space and high-rise residential condominium towers to the north and north-west and the South Common Centre – a large SmartCentres retail shopping centre to the west.

THE SUBJECT LANDS REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME

11The Applicant proposes an A&W takeout restaurant with a drive-through facility (“Take-Out/Drive-through”) on the Subject Lands. The existing convenience retail kiosk will be reconstructed to include in part the A&W take-out restaurant with a proposed dedicated drive-through lane. 10 cars will be stacked within this dedicated lane for customers to place their order and receive it at the pick-up window.

12Currently, there are 12 fuel pumps. The redevelopment proposal reduces the fuel pumps to 8. The existing three access points will be reduced to two – one from each of Burnhamthorpe Road West and Erin Mills Parkway, respectively. Extensive landscaping is also proposed across the Subject Lands perimeter boundaries.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

13In March 2025, the Applicant applied to the COA requesting relief from the minimum required widths of certain landscape buffers and to the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of a take-out restaurant that is accessory to a gas bar convenience and service kiosk. Initially, the GFA proposed for the take-out restaurant was 73.3 sq. m. In September 2025, the Applicant amended the MV Application (“MVA”) to reduce the GFA of the take-out restaurant to 58.6 sq. m.

14On October 9, 2025, the Applicant deputed before the COA in support of the City staff report recommending approval of the MVA. There were no letters of concern or objection filed, and no members of the public spoke to the MVA.

15The Staff Report dated October 6, 2025², cited the following comment:

“As per current zoning bylaw, the C5 designation does not specifically permit a restaurant use, however, under the definition of a ‘gas bar’ (section 1.2) a” convenience retail and service kiosk” is permitted which includes a take-out restaurant not exceeding a GFA of 30 sq. m (98.42 ft)”; [Emphasis added]; and,

“While the proposed gross floor area dedicated to the take-out restaurant does exceed the permitted GFA by 28.6 sq. m (307.84 ft²), it remains subordinate to the primary use being the gas bar. It is staff’s opinion that the variance being sought is consistent with the intent of zoning by-law [sic] and remains subordinate to the primary use.” [Emphasis added]

16The Applicant’s MV was refused by the COA at the October 9, 2025, hearing.

THE HEARING

17Extensive viva voce evidence was presented over the course of the proceeding. The Tribunal heard from five expert witnesses. The following persons were qualified by the Tribunal in their respective fields to provide expert opinion evidence.

a. On behalf of the Applicant:

i. Nick Pileggi, MCIP, RPP – Land Use Planner;

ii. Sara Ukaj – Land Use Planner (under Summons); and,

iii. Thomas Woodhall, P.Eng. – Transportation Planning

b. One behalf of the City:

i. Franco Romano, MCIP, RPP – Land Use Planner; and,

ii. Michael Tedesco, P. Eng. - Transportation Planning

1810 Exhibits were tendered during the Hearing, and the following are of consequence to the deliberations of this Hearing:

Exhibit 2 - Applicant’s Document Book;

Exhibit 3 - Witness Statement – Nick Pileggi;

Exhibit 6 - City Document Book;

Exhibit 8 - Dash Cam screenshots from Michael Tedesco evidence;

Exhibit 9 - Witness Statement – Franco Romano; and,

Exhibit 10 - Email from R. Kehar to I. Kagan (re: car wash use data from Applicant) dated March 9, 2026.

19During the course of the Hearing there was clarity needed to ascertain, which site plan was before the COA at the October 2025 hearing. It was confirmed that the site plan referenced in the Hearing, dated September 16, 2025 (Exhibit 2, Tab 6), in the Applicant’s Document Book and in the City’s Document (Exhibit 6, Tab 4) are the same (2025-09-16).

20During the City’s cross examination of Mr. Pileggi, there were inferences and questions directed as to the accuracy of the A&W take-out restaurants GFA variance of 58.6 sq. m. Per paragraph [18] above and with no witness called by the City to challenge the 58.6 sq. m MV request, the Tribunal accepts this number.

LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO SUBJECT LANDS

Region of Peel

21The Region Official Plan (“ROP”) was adopted in April 2022 and approved with modifications through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in November 2022. Through the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, and Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, effective July 1, 2024, land use planning responsibilities have been transitioned from the Region and now form part of the City OP.

22The ROP provides a high-level policy framework that promotes efficient land use, the optimization of existing infrastructure, and the accommodation of a range of land uses within existing built-up urban areas. The applicable policies in the ROP define the Subject Lands within the Urban System as per Schedule E-1.

City of Mississauga

23The Site is located within the City’s Neighbourhood Area as designated by Schedule 1B – Urban System – City Structure and is further designated Motor Vehicle Commercial by Schedule 10 – Land Use Designations.

24The Subject Lands are zoned “C5-3 – Motor Vehicle Commercial” under the City’s ZBL including an accessory take-out restaurant and car wash (including drive-through), subject to applicable performance standards as established by By-law 0018-2015

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

25When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest per s. 2 of the Act and be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

Section 45 - Minor Variance

26An appeal pursuant to s. 45 (12) of the Act is a hearing de novo. The Tribunal must have regard for the decision of the COA but is not bound by it. The Tribunal is required to hear submissions and evidence to decide whether to allow the MV based on the applicable legal tests. The Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four-part test set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely:

i. Does it maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP?

ii. Does it maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL?

iii. Is minor in nature?

iv. Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

ISSUE ONE: TAKE-OUT RESTAURANT - ACCESSORY OR PRINCIPAL USE?

27Both Parties presented distinguishable evidence in interpreting the ZBL on the grounds if the A&W take-out restaurant is an accessory use or does the MV sought for the take-out restaurant, elevate it to a principal use.

28There are several defined terms in the ZBL³ that were examined in significant detail during the hearing and they are reproduced below.

Convenience Retail and Service Kiosk

means a building, structure or part thereof, accessory to a motor vehicle service station, a gas bar, a motor vehicle wash facility - commercial motor vehicle or a motor vehicle wash facility - restricted, with a maximum gross floor area of 300 sq. m, and where goods may be stored or offered for sale, and may include as accessory thereto a banking machine and/or a take-out restaurant with or without a drive-through, excluding seating, and not exceeding a gross floor area of 30 sq. m. (0325-2008), (0379-2009), (0018-2015)

Restaurant

means a building, structure or part thereof, that shall not include a drive-through where food is prepared and offered for sale to the public for consumption within the building, structure or part thereof, or off the premises. (0018-2015)

Convenience Restaurant

means a building, structure or part thereof, with an accessory drive-through where food is prepared and offered for sale to the public for consumption within the building, structure or part thereof, or off the premises. (0018-2015)

Take-out Restaurant

means a building, structure or part thereof, that shall not include a drive-through where food, prepared on or off the premises, is offered for sale to the public with consumption of food on or off the premises, and a maximum of six seats shall be permitted. (0018-2015)

29It is the submission of the Applicant that the take-out restaurant is an accessory use to a Convenience Retail and Service Kiosk (“CR&SK”) and thus, the Applicant is rightfully permitted to operate an A&W restaurant, with a take-out and drive-through operation “accessory to” the Petro Canada motor vehicle service station/gas bar. The City’s proposition is that the A&W restaurant, with a take-out and drive-through operation is a principal use in the form of a Convenience Restaurant.

30Based on the evidence proffered by the Applicant, the A&W take-out restaurant on the Subject Lands, pursuant to terms above, cannot strictly be a Restaurant or Take-out Restaurant as defined because the Applicant proposes a drive-through to serve customers and no indoor seating is proposed.

31The Restaurant and Take-out Restaurant definition prohibits a drive-through where food is prepared and offered for sale to the public for consumption within the building, structure, or part thereof, on or off the premises, and in case of a Take-out Restaurant would be restricted to a maximum of six seats.

32The CR&SK definition permits a maximum GFA of 300 sq. m building or structure where goods may be stored or offered for sale to allow within such building, structure, or part thereof accessory to the following including:

a. a motor vehicle service station,

b. a gas bar,

c. a motor vehicle wash facility - commercial motor vehicle or a motor vehicle wash facility - restricted,

d. may include as accessory thereto a banking machine and/or a take-out restaurant

33The City’s opening submission was that the definition of accessory has imbedded tests that render the proposed A&W take-out restaurant a principal use. The City’s case is that when applying the definitional tests to the A&W take-out, it functions not as an accessory but as a principal use. Mr. Romano’s evidence relies on the application and interpretation of the criteria (see underlined words) in the definition of accessory use pursuant to the City’s ZBL, reproduced below:

Accessory Use

means a use that is naturally and normally incidental, subordinate and exclusively devoted to and is located on the same lot as the permitted use.”

34The City’s Closing Submission stated that “Importantly, all four of these criteria must be met for the use to be considered an accessory use under the ZBL. If even one of these criteria are not met, then the use is not an accessory use.”⁴[Emphasis added]. It was conceded by the City, that the “on the same lot” criterion is not in dispute.

35Mr. Romano opines that the proposed A&W take-out restaurant is not “naturally associated” with the permitted use and that it involves products that are “not derived from the permitted use and has no meaningful attachment in form or function” and thus, “is not exclusively devoted to the permitted use.” His evidence stated that the proposed A&W restaurant does not represent a minor portion or occupation of the Subject Lands.

36Mr. Romano opines that the proposed A&W restaurant has a “form and function” that are separate and independent from the permitted principal use and therefore is not exclusively devoted to the permitted use.

37To support Mr. Romano’s proposition of how the proposed A&W restaurant fails the “accessory” test, the City directed questions to Mr. Pileggi and Mr. Romano who gave testimony to some factors that may be determinable in addressing the accessory definition test. These included the following of note for the Tribunals consideration:

a. The sale revenues derived from the A&W restaurant exceed the gas bar and convenience commercial use revenues.

b. What appropriation of GFA is devoted to the A&W restaurant vis-à-vis the gas bar and kiosk space?

c. Is the A&W restaurant its own destination – meaning will customers only use the A&W facility and not the gas station in the same trip?

CAN SALES REVENUE DETERMINE A PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY USE?

38The proposed A&W take-out restaurant will be operated by Petro Canada under a franchisee agreement with A&W.

39The City’s issue on this matter rests with the proposition that does the proposed A&W sales revenue add to the operating profits of the gas bar. Under cross-examination, Mr. Pileggi had no data/information to address the questions. Similarly, Ms. Ukaj under examination had no opinion if the A&W sales revenue was a determinative factor in meeting the accessory test under the ZBL from a land use planning perspective.

40The City did not address this question to Mr. Romano and did not call any expert witness that the A&W operations revenue would be greater than the principal gas bar use. Based on the lack of supporting evidence, the Tribunal cannot rely on this test proffered by the City to define the A&W restaurant use as a principal use.

THE PROPORTION OF A&W GFA RELATIVE TO GAS BAR/KIOSK GFA

41The City’s assertion in the cross-examination of Mr. Pileggi regarding the “accuracy” of the GFA for the A&W was not rooted in any evidence. No evidence was proffered by the City to challenge the accuracy or assignment of the floor space of certain components (i.e. storage room, etc.) and, therefore, the Tribunal adopts the GFA per Exhibit 2, Tab 6 and as previously stated in paragraph [19] above.

42The 58.6 sq. m proposed A&W take-out restaurant represents approximately 25 percent of the total CR&SK (238.6 sq. m) GFA. Mr. Pileggi opines that the A&W take-out restaurant component remains subordinate to the CR&SK structure and that nothing about the proposed take-out restaurant use alters the CR&SK as the principal land use. It is his opinion, that the A&W use must be judged contextually, considering factors such as proportional in size to the principal use(s), land‑use compatibility, and adverse impacts (if any).

43Mr. Romano’s opinion is that once the accessory take‑out restaurant exceeds the 30 sq. m ZBL limit, the use can no longer properly be treated as accessory and instead becomes a primary restaurant use. In effect, the exceedance changes the use not just a performance standard.

44Mr. Romano stated that the 30 sq. m GFA limit in the ZBL is a “control mechanism” and not simply a performance standard subject to MV relief. Mr. Romano opines that an increase to 58.6 sq. m crosses a qualitative threshold that cannot be cured via the MV process. He opines that exceedance beyond the ZBL threshold fundamentally alters the nature of the use and requires OP and ZBL amendments.

45Mr. Romano emphasized that a) the restaurant could operate independently of fuel sales; b) customers could use the restaurant without accessing the gas bar; and c) the restaurant contains a full commercial kitchen capable of being a standalone operation. In his opinion, when assessed with the increased GFA beyond the ZBL standard, the amalgam (in whole or in part) of these characteristics represent a self‑contained primary use.

46The Tribunal heard evidence that multiple accessory A&W take‑out restaurants, ranging in size from approximately 53 sq. m to 69 sq. m, were approved by the COA in recent years – with an average of approximately 26 percent of the total CR&SK footprint. These approvals have demonstrated that the 30 sq. m standard have been treated consistently in practice by staff and the COA and capable of MV relief rather than a robust policy amendment process as proffered by Mr. Romano.

47The Tribunal is of the opinion that previous COA approvals support a conclusion that acceptable increases in accessory restaurant GFA within the C5-3 zone, where no adverse planning impacts are exhibited, can be appropriately addressed through the MV process particularly in light that building permits were issued and the facilities/uses are operating without any enforcement action.

ISSUE ONE: IS THE A&W ITS OWN DESTINATION AND A PRINCIPAL USE

48The City submits that the proposed A&W take‑out restaurant functions as its own destination, separate and independent from the CR&SK permissions and, therefore, should not be characterized as an accessory use. Mr. Romano’s evidence focused on what he described as an operational independence test, asserting that because the restaurant can operate without reliance on fuel sales and may attract patrons who do not otherwise use the gas bar, it no longer remains accessory in function and in nature.

49Mr. Romano testified that the presence of a commercial kitchen preparing typical fast‑food menu items, implies a level of operational intensity equivalent to a standalone restaurant supporting a reclassification of the use as a principal restaurant rather than an accessory one.

50Under cross‑examination, Mr. Romano distinguished between restaurants preparing food on site and facilities offering pre‑packaged products. Mr. Romano acknowledged that the ZBL does not expressly differentiate between accessory and principal restaurant uses based on menu content, food preparation methods, or the presence of a commercial kitchen. His evidence relied primarily on operational characteristics and customer behaviour rather than on planning impacts such as odor, servicing demands, and land use compatibility.

51Mr. Pileggi testified that the ZBL’s approach to accessory take‑out restaurants is function‑based and regulates matters such as GFA, seating, and physical integration, rather than the type of food prepared or how it is cooked. He emphasized that the CR&SK definition expressly permits take‑out restaurants, with or without drive‑through facilities, and does not restrict on‑site food preparation.

52Mr. Pileggi opines that the presence of a commercial kitchen does not, in itself, alter the land use classification of the take-out restaurant, provided the use remains subordinate in scale, and integrated with the principal operation.

53Mr. Pileggi testified that accessory use analysis must be contextual and grounded in land use planning principles, focusing on proportionality, physical integration, and impacts on surrounding lands. He concluded that the proposed A&W restaurant remains subordinate in scale, is fully integrated within the kiosk building, and does not displace or dominate the primary function(s).

54The Tribunal concludes that the ZBL does not require an accessory use to serve only customers of the principal use, nor does it condition accessory status on whether patrons purchase fuel as part of their visit. To adopt reasoning based on customer motivation would introduce behavioural criteria not contemplated in the ZBL and be inconsistent with accepted land use planning practice.

55The Tribunal finds that Mr. Romano’s evidence on this issue, conflates operational characteristics, such as menu type and food preparation, with land use regulation. Absent of evidence qualifying demonstrable adverse land use planning impacts, these considerations do not provide a reliable basis for determining accessory versus principal use status.

56For these reasons, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Pileggi and finds that the nature of food preparation, the presence of a commercial kitchen, and the ability of patrons to access the restaurant independently do not undermine the accessory relationship between the proposed A&W take‑out restaurant and the principal use.

ISSUE TWO: ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WARRANTED?

57The Tribunal heard submissions as to the appropriateness to impose conditions of approval to the MV. The Applicant submits that no conditions should be imposed. The City submits that if the Tribunal were to grant the MV, the conditions listed in Appendix 2 of its Closing Submission should be imposed.⁵ The principal issues are (i) the noise emanating from the audio speaker at the drive-through order board; (ii) the landscaping treatment along the Subject Lands perimeter road frontages and adjacent neighboring residential properties; and, (iii) the enforcement of the site plan drawings dated September 16, 2025.

58The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant is concurrently pursuing a SPA application (File No. SP-25-15). That matter is not before the Tribunal.

59Mr. Romano’s evidence in favour of conditions was framed primarily as a precautionary enforcement mechanism. He stated that the conditions could assist the City should the Applicant fail to implement the recommendations of its technical consultants. However, under cross‑examination, Mr. Romano acknowledged that he had not consulted with any City staff responsible for the SPA file to determine whether such concerns existed in practice or whether staff shared his opinion.

60The City Staff Report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15), did not recommend any conditions, however, it did identify in the Appendices that matters of concern or requirements for the proposed development will be addressed through the SPA. Ms. Ukaj confirmed in her oral evidence that staff identified certain technical matters particularly noise and landscaping but contemplated that those matters would be addressed through the SPA process.

61Neither Party called an expert witness in the fields of landscape architecture or acoustical engineering.

62Elements of potential noise sources arising from the Subject Lands are identified in the Noise Assessment Report (“Noise Report”) prepared by YCA Engineering Limited.⁶ The Noise Report identifies specific mitigation measures, including acoustic fencing, rooftop parapets, minimum surface density standards, and limits on speaker sound levels. Mr. Pileggi testified that this report was filed as part of the SPA and that its recommendations are reflected in the architectural and landscape plans currently under the City’s SPA review.

63The Applicant has proposed a landscape design scheme that seeks to improve upon the existing landscaping and public realm features while minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. Mr. Pileggi informed the Tribunal that the Applicant per Exhibit 2, Tab 8 is committing (as part of the SPA) to planting over 400 new trees, shrubs, and grasses. It is his conclusion that the quantity of plantings and the proposed improvements from existing site conditions will be sufficient to screen the proposed on-site activities from adjacent residential uses.

64The City in their Closing Submission also requested that should the Tribunal seek to grant the requested MV to include a condition of approval that “the property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plan prepared by K. Paul Architect Inc. dated 2025-09-16”⁷ (“SPA Plan”). [Exhibit 6, Tab 4].

65The City, other than making the request in Closing Submissions, proffered no demonstrable reasoning that the conditions sought to be imposed must reasonably relate to the MV requested. The Tribunal is mindful that conditions attached to MV must relate to the variances themselves and must not serve as a substitute for site plan control. The MV at issue relate to accessory take‑out restaurant floor area and landscape buffer widths. They do not relate to building height/setbacks, massing, or other built‑form attributes where a specific plan configuration is fundamental to the variance analysis

66The Tribunal adopts Mr. Pileggi’s evidence that the SPA process provides greater enforcement tools than MV conditions. The Tribunal concludes that the City’s concerns do not justify departing from standard practice or from staff’s recommendation that technical matters be addressed through site plan control. For all of these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the imposition of conditions on the MV approval is neither necessary nor appropriate.

ISSUE THREE: THE PROXY SITES

67The Tribunal heard evidence concerning the relevance of several comparable Petro Canada sites incorporating A&W take‑out restaurants. These sites share common MV characteristics, including requests for increased accessory take‑out restaurant GFA and similar OP and ZBL contexts. Collectively, six such sites (“Proxy Sites”) were included in the Applicant’s Book of Authorities (Tab 11) with the consent of the City. For the purposes of this section, the Tribunal is comparing only the six Petro Canada with A&W Take-Out/Drive-through restaurant locations.

68Between May 2021 and November 2025, the City and the COA reviewed six MVAs. With the exception of 5835 Airport Road that is designated Business Employment, the Proxy Sites are generally designated Motor Vehicle Commercial under the City OP and zoned in comparable commercial or employment categories permitting accessory uses. Three MV applications were approved by the COA during the 2025 calendar year (1175 Hurontario and 6536 Winston Churchill (with conditions) and 7015 Kennedy Rd).

69Ms. Ukaj, a City land use planner under summons, authored Planning Staff reports for five of the six Proxy Sites. In each case, City staff supported GFA relief in excess of the ZBL’s 30 sq. m cap for accessory take‑out restaurants. She confirmed that the City staff concluded that the proposals met the four‑part test under s. 45(1) of the Act and remained accessory to the principal gas bar use.

70The COA approved four of the Proxy Sites (two with conditions (1175 Hurontario and 6536 Winston Churchill)) and in doing so determined that they met the four part test pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Act. Mr. Pileggi opined that the Proxy Sites demonstrate a consistent interpretation and application of the ZBL by City Planning Staff and the COA, namely that accessory take‑out restaurants exceeding 30 sq. m may remain accessory where they are subordinate in scale/size and integrated into the principal use.

71Mr. Pileggi opines that the Proxy Sites demonstrate that four of the COA approved sites meet both the accessory take‑out restaurant definition (as varied from the ZBL for GFA) and at least one other restaurant definition in the ZBL:

a. The A&W at 1175 Hurontario (53 sq. m) and 6356 Winston Churchill (61 sq. m) meet the definitions of Restaurant and Take‑out Restaurant.

b. The A&W at 7015 Kennedy Road (69 sq. m) and 5835 Airport Road (69 sq. m) meet the definition of Convenience Restaurant.

72Mr. Romano disagreed, asserting that a restaurant use must be characterized under only one zoning definition and that once a use meets the characteristics of a primary restaurant, it cannot also be considered accessory. He rejected the proposition that a restaurant could simultaneously fall within an accessory definition and another restaurant classification under the ZBL.

73While the Tribunal acknowledges that prior approvals are not binding precedent, it finds the Proxy Sites relevant in assessing consistency of interpretation, administrative practice, and reasonable expectations under the City’s planning framework. The Tribunal finds that the requested relief falls within the range of outcomes reasonably contemplated by the ZBL and the MV regime.

74The Tribunal acknowledges the operational reality of the Proxy Sites, their approval through the MV process, and their continued lawful operation supports the conclusion that the City has recently and consistently treated the increases in accessory take‑out restaurant GFA as matters appropriately addressed through the MV process rather than policy‑led amendments.

ISSUE FIVE: TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

75The Tribunal heard that there are no MVs associated with traffic/transportation ZBL performance standards on the Subject Lands such as parking spaces, loading and queuing/car stacking capacity for the existing car wash and proposed A&W drive through.

76The Tribunal heard from two experts in transportation planning. Mr. Woodhall for the Applicant and Mr. Tedesco for the City. Mr. Woodhall and his firm (BA Group) have prepared multiple memoranda (“Traffic Studies”) (Exhibit 2, Tab 11) dating back to October 2023. Mr. Tedesco did not prepare a transportation/traffic study. His opinion evidence, observation and interpretation was reliant on a series of dash cam screenshots taken on January 31 and February 1, 2026 (Exhibit 8). The Tribunal also heard information concerning the deficiency of certain car wash operational data requested by the City (Exhibit 10) shortly before the hearing and accepts that this was due to timing constraints rather than any lack of diligence or effort by the Applicant.

77Mr. Tedesco’s oral evidence concentrated around his observation of the queuing and amount of time taken to enter the car wash facility per the Exhibit 8 screenshots. The Tribunal finds that Mr. Tedesco’s testimony regarding queuing conditions, car wash usage patterns, and potential conflicts were not supported by detailed reported analysis and a limited sample size of two days of observations. Moreover, based on his evidence, he was unable to demonstrate any material operational deficiencies that would compromise traffic circulation or vehicle/pedestrian safety on the Subject Lands.

78With respect to traffic generation, Mr. Woodhall’s evidence demonstrated that the addition of the proposed A&W drive‑through results in a marginal increase in site traffic. The Traffic Studies identifies a net increase (adjusted by A&W traffic also buying gas) of approximately four vehicles in the morning peak hour, fourteen vehicles in the afternoon peak hour, and twelve vehicles during the Saturday peak hour. These increases, in his opinion are minor and are further offset by the reduction in gas fuel pump capacity. Importantly, Mr. Woodhall concluded that the projected traffic associated with the A&W would not dominate internal site circulation patterns and would remain proportional to the overall activity levels on the Subject Lands.

79Mr. Woodhall opines that from a transportation planning perspective, the Subject Lands will operate as a unified development with multiple trip generators, none of which individually dominates the overall traffic profile. In his opinion, the A&W use fits within the established pattern of co‑located convenience‑oriented uses and does not alter the fundamental operating character of the site.

80Mr. Tedesco opines that traffic circulation conflicts will occur in the proximity of the car wash entrance and A&W drive through exit route. Based on this assessment, Mr. Tedesco’s opines that the Applicant’s redevelopment scheme disregards the City’s Drive Through Stacking Lanes Design Reference Note (Exhibit 6, Tab 14) and further intimates that the entirety of the proposed site plan requires a full redesign. The Tribunal heard no evidence from the City that planning staff or other experts in City departments such as transportation, building or emergency services who have any concerns with the matters, which Mr. Tedesco opines.

81The Tribunal also finds the City’s position advocating for conditions of approval while relying on Mr. Tedesco’s transportation evidence that more significant design changes are required to be in conflict as it is noted that are no specific conditions related to traffic stated in Appendix 1 of the City’s Closing Submissions The Tribunal is not persuaded that either tactic supports refusal of the MV.

ISSUE SIX: LANDSCAPE VARIANCES

82It is important to recall that of the five MV subject to this appeal, four are related to landscaping provisions in the ZBL. As noted in paragraph [3] iv., the landscape buffer abutting the sight triangle is no longer required.

83The Applicant submits that two of the three landscape MV are technical variances. To summarize, they are:

i. A landscape buffer abutting Erin Mills Parkway of 2.70 m (ZBL requires a minimum landscape buffer of 4.50 m);

ii. A landscape buffer abutting the east property line of 2.97 m (ZBL requires a minimum landscape buffer of 4.50 m)

84Mr. Romano opines that the landscape MV fails to provide adequate buffering, are nominal in scale and functionally do not enhance the public realm.

85Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement proffered that landscaping related MV fail to meet the four-part under s. 45 (1) of the Act as follows:

a. OP - Sections 9.5.1.1, 9.5.4.1, 9.5.4.2 and 9.5.5.3 (h) [Exhibit 6, pgs. 255, 262, 263);

b. ZBL – refers to the City Staff Report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15, pg. 482] “The applicant, in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the reduced landscape buffer against the residential properties has proposed vegetative landscaping and a 2 m acoustic wall along the east and south lot line.” Mr. Romano disagree with this comment.

c. Minor – (Exhibit 9, paragraph [68 d], pg. 12) - The order of magnitude of the landscape buffers substantially reduces the swath of land to accommodate landscaping and augment the public realm;

d. Desirable – (Exhibit 9, paragraph [71 k], pg. 13) - It is not desirable to diminish the intended substantial landscape buffers. The reduced landscape buffers assist to facilitate the undesirable development of the Subject Lands.

86Ms. Ukaj supports the landscape MV request given the minimal impacts to the separation between the public right of way and the subject site to maintain sufficient landscaping features. Ms. Ukaj further opines that the landscape buffer abutting the east property line is an existing condition and the Applicant proposes landscaping mitigation measures that are being address through SPA process.

87The Applicant tendered Exhibit 2 Tab 14 (Road Widening Reference Plan), delineating multiple parts that also delineate a daylighting triangle at the corner of the Subject Lands. The Region’s need for the dedication is not contested by the Parties.

88Under cross-examination, Mr. Romano did not concede to counsel’s questions that the two landscape buffer MV in paragraph [83] are technical variances, instead relying on his opinion evidence that the landscaping MV are deficient. The Tribunal finds that based on the Applicant’s submissions and the evidence of Mr. Pillegi and Ms. Ukaj, that the landscape MV are technical variances and do not present any adverse impacts to the surrounding land uses.

THE PROVINCIAL INTEREST

89Tribunal decisions shall have regard to s. 2 of the Act and be consistent with the PPS.

90Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 9, pg 5) in broad terms adopts that the “Subject Lands are located within a Settlement Area which are areas that are intended for growth and development in a manner that utilizes infrastructure and land resources effectively. The 2024 PPS relies on municipal official plans and ZBL’s for implementation and coordination” (Exhibit 6, Tab 10, pg 185-186) and in his expert opinion the City’s OP and ZBL are consistent with the PPS⁸.

91Mr. Pileggi’s Witness Statement is more comprehensive in its analysis that the proposed MV is consistent with the PPS. He asserts that the applicable policies of the PPS include Policies 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2 (a) and (b), 3.1.1, 3.1.2 (a) and 3.6.1.

92Mr. Pileggi opines that the Applicant’s redevelopment proposal has regard to s. 2 (g), (h), (k), (l), (n), (p), and (r) of the Act, all of which generally encourage the efficient and orderly development of healthy communities, provision of employment opportunities, the appropriate location of growth and development and built form that is well designed.

93The Planning Staff report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15, pg. 481) state that Section 9 of the City’s OP promotes development with appropriate urban form and the proposed development is compatible with existing site conditions. The Tribunal finds that this language is complimentary to the overarching provincial interests stated in s. 2 of the Act and aligns with Mr. Pileggi’s evidence.

94Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement adopts a distinctly different assessment of the MV proposal without citing specifically s. 2 of the Act but instead states that “In my opinion the proposal does not have appropriate regard to the matters of Provincial Interest described in Section 2 of the Planning Act, involving appropriate location of growth and development.” He further intimates that “the proposal seeks to inappropriately facilitate a non-accessory use on the Subject Lands. The proposal represents a substantial and dominant land use on the Subject Lands. This is inconsistent with the existing and planned context for the Subject Lands”⁹.

95Mr. Romano’s evidence on matters of provincial interest was largely derivative of, and dependent upon, his conclusion that the proposed development fails the tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The Tribunal notes that he did not adequately nor independently assess the provincial interests under s. 2 of the Act or the PPS. He simply opines that for the OP to be “in force” its policies must have regard to s. 2 of the Act and be consistent with the PPS.

96Alternatively, the Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant’s Closing Written submission, that Mr. Romano “did not treat these as separate tests from s.45 of the Act and simply concluded that because he believed that the proposed developments failed the four tests of minor variance (and required an OPA and ZBLA), that they failed these other independent tests.”¹⁰

97Based on the above, the Tribunal concludes and is persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Pileggi that the MV has regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS.

MINOR VARIANCE REVIEW – FOUR TESTS

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the OP

98The Subject Lands must meet the intent of both the ROP and the City’s OP for the MV to meet the tests under s. 45(1) of the Act.

99There was no contested evidence with respect to the proposed MV conformity to the ROP.

100Mr. Pileggi’s Witness Statement states that the applicable policies of the ROP define the Subject Lands within the Urban System as per Schedule E-1. He opines that the proposed redevelopment does not undermine the planned function of the area, is consistent with the OP objectives, optimize existing municipal infrastructure and does not require the expansion or extension of regional services. It is Mr. Pileggi’s expert land use planning opinion that the MVA conforms to the ROP. The Tribunal agrees.

101Section 11.2.10 of the City OP establishes the policy framework for lands designated Motor Vehicle Commercial. Within this designation the following uses are permitted: i) gas bar; ii) motor vehicle repair; iii) motor vehicle service station; and iv) motor vehicle wash.

102The following City OP policies are relevant to the Subject Lands:

• 11.2.10.2 Retail stores and take-out restaurants which may include a drive-through facility will be permitted accessory to Motor Vehicle Commercial uses.

• 11.2.10.4 Motor Vehicle Commercial uses will be discouraged as single uses at important intersections and should be integrated with other commercial development. [Emphasis added].

103Mr. Romano aptly states in his Witness Statement that the term “accessory” is not defined in the City OP. To this end, the entirety of his planning opinion rests on his interpretation of the ZBL definition of “accessory” and its relationship to the general intent and purpose of the OP.

104Ms. Ukaj’s evidence and the staff report she authored (Exhibit 2, Tab 15) states that the City OP supports restaurants as accessory uses in Motor Vehicle Commercial designations provided that the restaurant remains subordinate to the primary use of the site being the existing gasoline fuelling station. She testified that City Planning Staff had no objections with MV and were satisfied that the MV will not create any undue impacts to the surrounding community and that it met the four-part test of s. 45(1) of the Act.

105The City Staff report in assessing whether the redevelopment proposal meets the City OP test relies on Section 9 (Build a Desirable Urban Form). The relevant policies of this Section in the City OP per Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement and testimony are found in 9.2.2 Non-Intensification Areas and 9.5 Site Development and Buildings.

106To place Section 9.2.2 of the City OP into context it must be read in conjunction with Section 5.3 – City Structure and the functions of Neighbourhoods in the overall City fabric. Mr. Romano’s evidence maintains Intensification within Neighbourhoods is appropriate if the development proposal is compatible in built form to surrounding land uses and enhances the existing or planned development. His opinion also gives weight to Section 5.3.5.6 where development should be sensitive to the existing and planned context and provides for appropriate transition in built form, density, and scale.

107Under cross examination Mr. Romano opines that the take-out and drive-through restaurant is deficient in landscape treatment to buffer adjacent roads and neighbouring residential uses. The adverse impacts of the site are compounded by the noise emanating from the drive-through order speaker.

108The City OP policy in Section 9.2.2 states that non-intensification areas will experience limited growth and change and proposed development in Neighbourhoods will be context sensitive and respect the existing or planned character and scale of development. This policy direction is supported in Section 9.5.1, Section 9.5.4 and 9.5.5.3 (h). The aforementioned Sections general direction and intent is to enhance the urban design, desirable street edges, attractive and comfortable public realm, and compatibility with the surrounding context or planned character of the area.

109Mr. Romano’s opinion is best summarized that the take-out restaurant does not represent a minor representation to the permitted principal use, has a form and function that are separate and independent from the permitted principal use and, therefore, is not exclusively devoted to the permitted use.

110The Planning Staff Report prepared by Ms. Ukaj states that the proposed MVA will not result in undue impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm and maintains the intended function of the Subject Lands.

111The proposed redevelopment of the Subject Lands remains largely similar to its existing physical appearance. Mr. Pileggi opines that the redevelopment scheme maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP by preserving the planned Motor Vehicle Commercial function of the Subject Lands improves site design and functionality (including reducing traffic access points) and landscaping by having regard to the arterial/collector road context of the site.

112Mr. Pileggi opines that the primary use remains a car wash, gas bar with an accessory convenience store, all of which are long-established, permitted, and unchanged by the proposal. The proposed take-out restaurant is accessory to the gas station, does not introduce an independent or freestanding commercial use and contains no seating area. Mr. Pileggi opines that the Subject Lands meet the policy application in Section 9.5.1.1 of the City OP whereas the proposed redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding context and planned character of the area.

113In Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 9, paragraph [37]), he states that the “general intent and purpose of the official plan as it relates to the accessory land use is to ensure that there is a meaningful attachment, small scale relationship between the permitted use and the proposed accessory use.” Conversely, Mr. Pileggi opines that the Applicant’s redevelopment scheme maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP (i.e. Section 11) by permitting modest, accessory commercial services that support the primary Motor Vehicle Commercial use.

114The Tribunal concludes, the proposed MV is complimentary and compatible to the policy intentions of the City OP and particularly planned the Motor Vehicle Commercial uses (Section 11.2.10.1) which may allow take-out restaurants (and may include a drive-through). The redevelopment scheme also modestly intensifies the Subject Lands with employment uses and services generally already on-site, enhances the streetscape with substantially improved landscaping features, optimizes existing infrastructure assets, and does not introduce new significant built form than what currently exists.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL

115The Subject Lands is zoned “C5-3 – Motor Vehicle Commercial” (“C5-3 zone”) under City’s ZBL. The C5-3 zone permits a gas bar with accessory uses, including an accessory convenience and retail kiosk and a take-out restaurant (including a drive-through). The Applicant does not propose any indoor seating.

116The MV relief sought applies specifically to the ZBL performance standards related to the maximum permitted GFA of the accessory take-out restaurant and minimum required landscape buffer requirements along the perimeter of the Subject Lands. Therefore, the Tribunal will assess each MV distinctly as it relates to the s. 45(1) of the Act test of maintaining the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

117With respect to the Burnhamthorpe Road West and Erin Mills Parkway frontage requiring a minimum landscaped buffer of 4.50 m and 2.70 m respectively, Mr. Pileggi opines that while the width of the landscape buffer is reduced, the overall landscape design demonstrates significant landscaping enhancements to beautify the streetscape. He testified that the landscape drawings (Exhibit 2, Tab 8) propose over 400 new plantings will be incorporated as part of the Applicant’s redevelopment and SPA submission.

118The Tribunal was advised by City Counsel in their opening submission that the landscape buffers were not a significant concern to the City’s position in this Hearing.

119Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the general intent of the landscape buffer standard is to augment and improve the public realm. In his opinion, the MV with respect to landscaping buffers fails because the “nominal strip provided provides a limited amount of land that is also overwhelmed by the abutting hard surface features.”¹¹

120Ms. Ukaj’s evidence in chief was that she has consulted with City staff, and they have no objections to the reduced width of the landscape buffers.

121Based on the evidence of Mr. Pileggi, the review of comments of the City’s landscape architect as part of the SPA process, and Ms. Ukaj’s oral evidence, the Tribunal finds that the MV related to landscape buffers meets the general intent and purpose of the City’s ZBL.

122The Applicant also seeks relief to increase in the GFA of the accessory take‑out restaurant from 30 sq. m to 58.6 sq. m. Mr. Pileggi’s opines that the ZBL’s general intent and purpose is not to prohibit certain types of food service in association with gas bars, but rather to permit such uses in principle, and to regulate their scale, ensuring that they remain subordinate and accessory to the principal use.

123A fundamental purpose of the ZBL’s accessory use provisions is to ensure that they remain subordinate in scale and function to the principal use on the site. Mr. Pileggi’s evidence states that proposed accessory take‑out restaurant occupies approximately 25% of the total kiosk GFA, does not dominate the gas bar kiosk use and is functionally integrated into a commercial operation that is defined by the principal use.

124Mr. Romano’s assertion that even a one sq. m increase in GFA could render the take-out restaurant to not meet this specific s. 45(1) of the Act test creates an interpretation inconsistent with City Planning Staff and would unduly frustrate the MV regime in similar circumstances.

125The approval of the GFA MV would both modify a single numerical standard and leave the use permissions unchanged while preserving all other aspects of the definition, including the accessory nature of the use and the prohibition on indoor seating. For the reasons noted above, the Tribunal finds that the proposed accessory take‑out restaurant maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and accordingly, this test is satisfied.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land

126The test of desirability is generally contextual in nature being whether the MV is suitable and corresponds within its existing environs when assessed against City policies. The gas bar kiosk, the car wash, the gas pump fuelling terminals, overhead canopy and circulation areas are existing facilities and functions on the Subject Lands.

127Mr. Pileggi opines that the Subject Lands are developed and used for commercial purposes, with a principal use consisting of a gas bar and associated service facilities. The ZBL expressly contemplates accessory commercial services on such sites, including convenience retail and an accessory take‑out restaurant.

128Mr. Romano opines that once the take‑out restaurant exceeds 30 sq. m, particularly where food is prepared in a commercial kitchen and served via a drive‑thru window, it becomes a principal use.

129Lastly, Mr. Romano emphasized that the presence of a commercial kitchen and on‑site food preparation weighs against desirability, suggesting that such functions are more characteristic of a principal restaurant use than an accessory one. When questioned, Mr. Romano did not identify any material adverse impacts arising from the proposal, such as traffic, odor, servicing, or compatibility concerns.

130The Tribunal finds that the proposed accessory take‑out restaurant is consistent with the existing commercial character of the site and can complement, rather than displace, the principal gas bar uses.

131Mr. Romano’s oral evidence and Witness statement noted Exhibit 6, Tab 14 (Design Reference Notes – Drive-through Stacking Lanes) (“Design Reference Notes”). The document provides City staff with direction that:

This document is to be read with Mississauga’s Official Plan and ZBL. The applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, that site specific conditions and context will meet the minimum standards set out in this reference note.¹²

132Mr. Romano’s only comment in his Witness Statement related to the aforementioned Exhibit is that the drive-through is located less than the recommended 20 m setback to a residential zone. Mr. Pileggi’s Witness Statement adopts the position that the Design Reference Notes is a tool, which has not been formalized in the City OP or ZBL. The City did not call any staff who have operational or administrative expertise in how the Design Reference Notes are applied to a MV application.

133On the issue of the desirability and appropriateness of the landscaping buffer MV relief, the Tribunal is more persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Pileggi, and Ms. Ukaj and concludes that the MV landscape buffer relief are desirable and appropriate.

134The Tribunal notes that the MV sought does not introduce a new use but rather provides limited relief from a performance standard regulating the size of the take-out restaurant. The Tribunal finds that, in this context, the accessory take‑out restaurant remains desirable for the appropriate development and use of the lands.

135For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the proposed accessory take‑out restaurant meets the “desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land” test under s.45(1) of the Act. Accordingly, this test is satisfied.

Minor

136The test of minor generally weighs the impact of the MV on adjacent properties. The test is qualitative rather than strictly numerical given that the MV could be more than minor because it is too large, or too important.

137Potential adverse impacts noted by the public submissions of members of the public (i.e. noise, lighting, tree removal, etc.) were not the subject of detailed commentary in the City Staff reports, however, are being addressed through the SPA process. The City called no expert witnesses to address these issues during the course of this Hearing.

138Mr. Romano referred to the October 6, 2025, planning staff report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15), as follows:

“There is a reliance and reference to additional proposed landscape elements along the east, west and south lot line will help to the screen the takeout restaurant from the neighbouring property. I do not see a planning staff recommendation to secure these elements”.¹³ [Emphasis added]

139The Tribunal notes the majority of this quote from Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement is selected from the staff report in Exhibit 2, Tab 15, and was pre-qualified as follow; “Staff are satisfied that the variance will not create any undue impacts to the surrounding community and is minor and appropriate in this instance” [Emphasis added].

140Ms. Ukaj stated that the Staff Report notes that the MV does not pose any adverse impacts to the streetscape and adjacent landowners. Mr. Pileggi restated this conclusion and further intimated that public comments will be addressed through the SPA application.

141Mr. Pileggi opines in paragraphs [106-107] of his Witness Statement that four of the six Proxy Sites exceed the ZBL maximum zoning standard. They range in size from 53 sq. m (excludes indoor seating) to 69 sq. m (includes indoor seating). All sites were approved by the COA, without appeal.

142The Applicant’s Closing Submission asserts in paragraph [18] that accessory take-out restaurant use in this appeal represents approximately 25 percent of the total gas bar/convenience kiosk GFA and “this clearly and obviously does not overwhelm” the Subject Lands. In comparison, the other COA approved Proxy Sites A&W take-out restaurant GFA per range from approximately 32 percent to 55 percent of the total gas bar/convenience kiosk GFA.

143It is Mr. Romano’s stated evidence that the ZBL numerical reference of a CR&SK use not exceeding 30 sq. m is a “control mechanism” relative to the ZBL definition of a Convenience Restaurant. He was steadfast in his evidence through cross-examination that any MV relief beyond the 30 sq. m threshold should fail the tests of a MV and trigger an OP and ZBL amendment process. The assessment of City Staff did not identify the need for amendments to the City planning instruments in this circumstance.

144The City did not call any witnesses to support Mr. Romano’s opinion that an OPA and ZBL amendment was warranted, nor was Ms. Ukaj during cross-examination asked whether the Applicant’s relief necessitated an OP and ZBL amendment.

145The Tribunal places weight on the evidence of Ms. Ukaj and the City staff report that she authored. The oversight and review by her superiors, the input from multiple City departments and the with evidence by Mr. Pileggi, satisfies the Tribunal that there are no adverse impacts resulting from this MV application and the Tribunal concludes that the MV is minor in nature.

FINDINGS

146The appeal before the Tribunal concerns applications for MV under s. 45(1) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the statutory test under s. 45(1) is met. In addition, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act and determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.

147The Tribunal finds that Mr. Pileggi undertook a systematic analysis of the relevant provincial interests and PPS policies, distinguishing matters of provincial scale from site‑specific zoning mechanics. Conversely, Mr. Romano’s evidence with respect to provincial interest was largely derivative of his conclusion that the proposal failed the MV tests under s. 45(1) of the Act and, therefore, required amendments to the City’s OP and ZBL.

148The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s proposal is consistent with the PPS, particularly policies encouraging the efficient use of land, compact development forms, and the optimization of existing or planned infrastructure.

149The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Pileggi and Ms. Ukaj that the ZBL already permits on‑site food preparation and drive‑through service as part of an accessory take‑out restaurant, and does not regulate menu type, method of food preparation, or customer behaviour as determinative of accessory status.

150The Tribunal prefers an accessory use analysis grounded in scale and land use impact and not notional considerations such as revenue generation, menu content, or customer motivation, which are not regulated by the ZBL and are not grounded by defensible land use planning principles.

151The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s redevelopment proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP by preserving the Motor Vehicle Commercial function of the Subject Lands, permitting modest accessory commercial services, improving site design, and landscaping, and respecting the arterial and collector road context.

152The Tribunal finds that the MV maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL by modifying only a numerical performance standard while leaving all use permissions, accessory relationships, and prohibitions on indoor seating unaffected.

153The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Pileggi that the proper accessory use analysis focuses on scale and no adverse impacts rather than exploratory perceptions of consumer behaviour or revenue generation matters that the City ZBL does not and cannot regulate.

154The general intent and purpose of the ZBL to permit accessory commercial services associated with gas bars and similar facilities is maintained. The MV does not undermine the City’s zoning regime in place.

155The Tribunal finds that the requested landscape variances do not result in adverse impacts, noting the absence of objections or concern from neighbouring residents and the lack of persuasive planning evidence from Mr. Romano to the contrary. The Tribunal further finds that two of requested landscape MV constitute either an existing condition, or a technical variance and raise no adverse impacts or land use planning concerns.

156From a traffic and transportation perspective, Mr. Woodhall’s evidence is persuasive in that the proposed A&W drive through will not dominate/displace the primary functions of the gas bar. His evidence was uncontested that the A&W component would generate significant traffic volumes sufficient to classify the take-out restaurant as a principal use.

157The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Woodhall that the operational aspects of traffic circulation, including the management of queues and vehicle interactions, will function cohesively and no adverse impacts will be generated by the activities and uses proposed.

158The Tribunal finds the MV desirable as it optimizes the use of existing commercial land, enhances services without expanding the development footprint, and remains generally policy compliant.

159The Tribunal finds the MV to be minor in nature. They do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts, and matters raised by the public will be appropriately addressed through the concurrent SPA process by City staff.

160For all of the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s redevelopment scheme meets all four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act, has regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, and is consistent with the PPS.

161Having considered the evidence, submissions, statutory tests, and applicable policy framework, the Tribunal finds that the proposed A&W take‑out restaurant on the Subject Lands remains an accessory use, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

162THE TRIBUNAL having been requested to amend the Application from the Original Application, and the Tribunal having determined that the requested amendment is minor, as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that no further notice is required.

163THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THATS the appeal is allowed in part and the variance(s) to City of Mississauga Zoning By-law 0225-2007, as amended to permit an area of accessory use for Take-out Restaurant of 58.60 sq. m; a landscape buffer abutting Erin Mills Parkway of 2.70 m; a landscape buffer abutting Burnhamthorpe Road West of 4.35 m; and a landscape buffer abutting the east property line of 2.97 m.

“N. Rodgers”

N. RODGERS

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.

Footnotes

1. 1Exhibit 6, Tab 12, pg. 309
2. 2Exhibit 2, Tab 15, pg 482
3. 3Exhibit 2, Tab 5, pg. 305
4. 4City Closing Submission, paragraph [12]
5. 5City Closing Submission, April 7, 2026, paragraph [61] and pg. 12
6. 6Exhibit 2, Tab 10
7. 7City Closing Submission, No. 1, pg. 12
8. 8Exhibit 9, paragraph [26,27], pg. 5
9. 9Exhibit 9, paragraph [29], pg 5
10. 10Applicant Closing Written Submission, paragraph [5]
11. 11Exhibit 9, paragraph [64 b], pg. 11
12. 12Exhibit 6, Tab 14
13. 13Exhibit 9, paragraph [70 g], pg. 12