Suncor Energy Products Partnership v. Mississauga (City), 2026 CanLII 55982

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 3, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-001014

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 permit a take-out restaurant

Reference Number: A80.25

Property Address: 3425 Winston Churchill Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-25-001014

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-001014

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

Heard: March 16, 17 and 27, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Suncor Energy Products Partnership ("Applicant") Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan

City of Mississauga ("City") Raj Kehar Chantal Conroy

DECISION DELIVERED BY N. RODGERS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal ("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 three Minor Variances ("MV") for the property municipally known as 3425 Winston Churchill Boulevard ("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 take food and convenience products and services are available to catering to 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. An area of accessory use for Take-out Restaurant of 58.6 square metres ("sq. m"). whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum area of accessory use for Take-out Restaurant of 30.00 sq. m;

ii. A landscaped buffer measured from a lot line that is a street line (Winston Churchill Boulevard) of 2.85 metres ("m") whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum landscaped buffer measured from a lot line that is a street line (Winston Churchill Boulevard) of 4.50 m;

iii. A landscaped buffer measured from a lot line that is a street line (along sight triangle) of 2.35 m whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum landscaped buffer measured from a lot line that is a street line (along sight triangle) of 4.50 m.

4Sara Ukaj, a City land use planner provided evidence during her examination in chief that MV (iii) 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 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 northeast corner of Winston Churchill Boulevard and The Collegeway. The Subject Lands have road frontage of approximately 62.5 m on Winston Churchill Boulevard and approximately 72.8 m on The Collegeway.

7The Subject Lands are currently developed with a motor vehicle service station that includes fuel pump stations beside a one storey kiosk structure. There is also an existing building (a training centre) located at the northeast quadrant of the site that will be demolished as part of the Applicant’s redevelopment scheme. Traffic access to the Subject Lands is currently served by four access points - two from each of Winston Churchill Boulevard and The Collegeway respectively.

8The surrounding area consists of mainly single detached dwellings to the north and east. To the south is a one-storey strip plaza with predominately medical related uses and on the southwest corner is an institutional use (Erin Mills United Church).

THE SUBJECT LANDS REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME

9The Applicant proposes an A&W takeout restaurant with a drive-through facility ("Take-Out/Drive-through") integrated within the kiosk building on the Subject Lands. A dedicated drive-through lane is proposed. 10 cars will be stacked within this dedicated lane for customers to place their order and receive it at the pick-up window.

10The Applicant’s redevelopment scheme includes modifications to the fueling pump canopy and related pump infrastructure. The existing convenience retail kiosk will be reconstructed to include in part the A&W take-out restaurant. The existing four access points will be reduced to two – one from each of Winston Churchill Boulevard and The Collegeway respectively. Extensive landscaping is also proposed across the Subject Lands perimeter boundaries.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

11In February 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.

12On May 8, 2025, a representative of the Applicant deputed before the COA and requested the MV Application ("MVA") be deferred to allow the Applicant to address comments received from City staff and neighbors. This version of the MVA showed the GFA of the take-out restaurant (excluding seating) at 62.80 sq. m. A revised MVA was presented to the COA on September 11, 2025. The GFA for the take-out restaurant increased to 73.30 sq m. The Applicant requested another deferral which was granted.

13The Staff Report dated September 4, 2025² cited the following comment:

a. "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)"; and [Emphasis added]

b. "The proposed A&W restaurant will be 73.30 sq m (approx. 789.00 sq ft). While the proposed gross floor area dedicated to the take-out restaurant does exceed the permitted GFA by 43 sq. m (462.84 ft²), it would remain subordinate to the primary use being the gas bar. Furthermore, the proposed accessory use does not include any indoor or outdoor customer seating. Finally, staff note that the drive-through is permitted as of right on this property. It is staff’s opinion that the variance being sought is consistent with the intent of ZBL and remains subordinate to the primary use". [Emphasis added]

14On November 13, 2025, a final revised application was presented to the COA and included no changes to the MV pertaining to minimum required landscape buffers but reduced the maximum GFA sought from 73.30 sq. m. to 58.60 sq m. The MV requested at this COA Hearing are those in paragraph [3].

15A member of the public addressed the COA meeting and raised concerns regarding traffic, pollution, and odors. A petition signed by neighbors and two letters of objection were filed with the COA and are included in Exhibit 2 Tabs 25-28. The COA denied the MVA. The City’s reasons for refusal are noted in Exhibit 2, Tab 8.

THE HEARING

16Extensive viva voce evidence was presented over the course of the proceeding. The Tribunal heard from three Witnesses to give expert opinion evidence. The following persons were qualified by the Tribunal in their respective fields to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.

a. On behalf of the Applicant:

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

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

b. One behalf of the City:

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

1714 Exhibits were tendered during the Hearing, and the following are of consequence to the deliberations of this Hearing. Those Exhibits are:

Exhibit 2 - Applicant’s Document Book;

Exhibit 3 - Witness Statement – Nick Pileggi;

Exhibit 6 - City Document Book;

Exhibit 7 - Witness Statement – Franco Romano;

Exhibit 8 - Suncor Site & Floor Plans (July 2025) filed at COA Hearing (September 4, 2025);

Exhibit 9 - Suncor Site & Floor Plans (Feb 2025) filed at COA Hearing (May 8, 2025);

Exhibit 10 - Pre-Consultation Comments dated February 2, 2024;

Exhibit 11 - Site Plan Approval ("SPA") Comments dated September 18, 2025;

Exhibit 12 - SPA Comments dated March 17, 2026;

Exhibit 13 - Ann Ksiazkiewicz-Sanabria email (March 23, 2026); and,

Exhibit 14 - Dave Craig email (March 23, 2026).

LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO SUBJECT LANDS

Region of Peel

18The Region of Peel ("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.

19The 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

20The 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.

21The Subject Lands are zoned "C5-3 – Motor Vehicle Commercial" under the 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 drive-through), subject to the standards found in Table 6.2.1 and exceptions in ZBL 0211-2022 and 0054-2024 including criteria related Motor Vehicle Wash Facilities.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

22When 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

23An 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?

24Both 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.

25There are several defined terms³ in the ZBL 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)

26It 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 a Convenience Restaurant.

27Based 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.

28The 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.

29The 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

30The 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 restaurant 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."

31The 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 under the Zoning By-law"⁴[Emphasis added]. It was conceded by the City, that the "on the same lot" criterion is not in dispute.

32Mr. 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.

33Mr. 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.

34To 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?

35The proposed A&W take-out restaurant will be operated by Petro Canada under a franchisee agreement with A&W.

36The 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.

37The 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

38The 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, pg. 330 to be the value (58.6 sq. m) relied on.

39The 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) and land‑use compatibility to adjacent uses.

40Mr. 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.

41Mr. 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 City OP and ZBL amendments.

42Mr. 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.

43The 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.

44When compared to Mr. Romano’s opinion and strict application of the ZBL tests, the Tribunal finds these previous COA decisions instructive in understanding the ZBL interpretation by planning Staff and implementation by the City, particularly given that building permits were issued and the facilities/uses are operating without any enforcement action.

45The 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.

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

46The 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 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.

47Mr. 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.

48Under cross‑examination, Mr. Romano distinguished between restaurants preparing food on site and facilities offering pre‑packaged food 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.

49Mr. Pileggi testified that the ZBL’s approach to accessory take‑out restaurants is function‑based and regulates matters such as gross floor area, 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.

50Mr. 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 within the principal operation.

51Mr. 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).

52The 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.

53The 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.

54For 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?

55The 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 drive-through audio speaker; (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 18, 2025.

56The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant is concurrently pursuing a SPA application (File No. SP-25-15). That matter is not before the Tribunal.

57Mr. Romano’s evidence in favour of conditions was framed primarily as a precautionary enforcement mechanism. He stated that the conditions of approval 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.

58The City Staff Report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15 (b) and (c)), 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 process. 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.

59Neither Party called an expert witness in the fields of landscape architecture or acoustical engineering to speak to this specific issue.

60Elements 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 process.

61The 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 10 is committing (as part of the SPA) to planting over 500 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 and beautify the streetscape.

62The Applicant filed Exhibits 10-14, to demonstrate the activity in the submission of plans and reports to internal City departments as part of the SPA process. Mr. Pileggi testified that the Applicant and the City’s landscape architect are actively involved in the SPA review, and the City has not raised any concerns of consequence regarding the reduced landscape buffer widths, subject to detailed SPA design refinement.

63The City in their Closing Submission also requested 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 2025-09-18"⁷.

64The 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 site plan configuration is fundamental to the MV analysis.

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 adopts Mr. Pileggi’s evidence that the SPA process provides greater enforcement tools than MV conditions.

66The Tribunal finds no evidence suggesting that the Applicant is unwilling or unable to comply with the City SPA process. To the contrary, the evidentiary record reveals ongoing engagement with City staff and timely responses to technical comments.

67The Tribunal, therefore, concludes that the City’s concerns do not justify departing from staff’s recommendation that technical matters be addressed through SPA process. 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

68The 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 City 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.

69Between May 2021 and November 2025, the City and the COA reviewed six MVAs. With the exception of 5835 Airport Road, which 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).

70Ms. 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.

71The 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.

72Mr. 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.

73Mr. 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.

74While the Tribunal acknowledges that prior approvals are not binding precedent, it finds the Proxy Sites important in assessing consistency of interpretation, administrative practice, and reasonable expectations under the City’s planning framework. The Tribunal finds that the requested relief in this matter falls within the range of outcomes reasonably contemplated by the ZBL and the MV regime.

75The 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.

THE PROVINCIAL INTEREST

76Tribunal decisions shall have regard to s. 2 of the Act and be consistent with the PPS.

77Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 6, pg 6) 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 zoning by-laws for implementation" (Exhibit 6, Tab 12, pg 351-353) and in his expert opinion the City’s OP and ZBL are consistent with the PPS"⁸.

78Mr. Pileggi’s Witness Statement is more comprehensive in its analysis that the proposed MV is consistent with the PPS. He opines 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.

79Mr. 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.

80The Planning Staff report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15 B, pg. 406) 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.

81Mr. 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.

82Mr. Romano’s evidence on matters of provincial interest was largely derivative of, and dependent upon, his conclusion that the proposed development fails the four-part test 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 City OP to be "in force" its policies must have regard to s. 2 of the Act and be consistent with the PPS.

83Alternatively, 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

84Based 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

85The Subject Lands must meet the intent of both the ROP and the City’s OP for the MV to meet the test under s. 45(1) of the Act.

86There was no contested evidence with respect to the proposed MV conformity to the ROP.

87Mr. 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, optimizes existing municipal infrastructure and does not require the expansion of regional services. It is Mr. Pileggi’s expert land use planning opinion that the MV conforms to the ROP. The Tribunal agrees.

88Section 11.2.10 of the 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.

89The 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. [Emphasis added]

• 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].

90Mr. 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 City OP.

91Ms. Ukaj’s evidence and the staff report she authored (Exhibit 2, Tab 15 B) 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 the MV and were satisfied that the MV will not create any undue impacts to the surrounding community and that it met the tests of s. 45(1) of the Act.

92The 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.

93To 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.

94Under cross examination Mr. Romano opines that the A&W 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.

95The City OP policy in Section 9.2.2 states that non-intensification areas will experience limited growth/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 urban design, desirable street edges, attractive and comfortable public realm, and compatibility with the surrounding context or planned character of the area.

96Mr. 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.

97The City Planning Staff Reports in Exhibit 2, (three separately issued Staff reports in May, September and November 2025 all prepared by Ms. Ukaj) state that the proposed MV and the Applicant’s concurrent SPA application will not result in undue impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm and maintains the intended function of the Subject Lands.

98The 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.

99Mr. Pileggi opines that the primary use remains a gas bar with an accessory convenience store, both 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 whereby the proposed redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding context and planned character of the area.

100In Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement - Exhibit 7, paragraph [39], 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.

101The Tribunal concludes the proposed MV is complimentary and compatible to the policy intentions of the City OP and particularly the planned 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 today.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL

102The 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.

103The 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.

104The 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.

105With respect to the Winston Churchill Boulevard frontage requiring a minimum landscaped buffer of 4.50 m, 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 10) propose over 540 new plantings will be incorporated as part of the Applicant’s SPA submissions.

106Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the general intent of the landscape buffer standard is to augment and improve the public realm. In his opinion, that the landscaping buffers MV fail because the "nominal strip provided provides a limited amount of land that is also overwhelmed by the abutting hard surface features."¹¹

107Ms. 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.

108Evidence via Exhibit 14 leads the Tribunal to conclude that through the Applicant’s SPA process, they are working with the City to address the municipal requirements for appropriate landscaping treatment on the Subject Lands. Mr. Pileggi in oral reply evidence, stated that the City’s landscape architect (Dave Craig) who has oversight on the Applicant’s SPA application has cited no concerns of consequence related to the reduced width of the landscape buffers.

109Based on the evidence of Mr. Pileggi, the review of comments of the City’s landscape architect as part of the SPA process, Ms. Ukaj’s oral evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the MV related to landscape buffers meets the general intent and purpose of the City’s ZBL.

110The Applicant also seeks relief to increase in the GFA of the accessory take‑out restaurant from 30 sq. m to 58.6 sq. m. The Tribunal finds that approval of this specific 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.

111Mr. 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.

112A 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.

113Mr. 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.

114Based on the evidence of Ms. Ukaj and Mr. Pileggi, 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

115The 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 gas pump fuelling terminals, overhead canopy and circulation areas are existing facilities and functions on the Subject Lands.

116Mr. 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.

117Mr. Romano opines that once the take‑out restaurant exceeds 30 sq. m, particularly where food is prepared in a commercial kitchen it ceases to be accessory and becomes a principal use.

118Mr. 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 could not identify any material adverse impacts arising from the proposal, such as traffic, servicing, odor or compatibility concerns.

119The 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.

120Mr. Romano’s oral evidence and Witness statement noted Exhibit 6, Tab 16 (Design Reference Notes – Drive-through Stacking Lanes) ("Design Reference Notes"). The document provides City staff with direction on 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

121Mr. 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.

122On the issue of the desirability and appropriateness of the landscaping buffer MV relief, the Tribunal is more persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Pileggi, the review of comments of the City’s landscape architect as part of the SPA process, Ms. Ukaj’s oral evidence, and concludes that the MV landscape buffers reduction of 1.65 m is modest and both appropriate and desirable.

123The Tribunal notes that the GFA of the MV sought does not introduce a new use but provides 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.

124For 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

125The 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.

126Potential 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 but these issues are being addressed through the SPA process. The City called no expert witnesses to address these issues.

127Mr. Romano declared, the issues of the landscape buffers and noise to be "an order of magnitude" to render the MV proposal not to be minor. Mr. Romano, under cross examination stated that he is not an expert in landscape architecture or acoustical engineering to make a statement on the matter of magnitude in the context of those issues being minor.

128Mr. Romano referred to the September 4, 2025, planning staff report (Exhibit 2, Tab 15 B), 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]

129The Tribunal notes the majority of this quote from Mr. Romano’s Witness Statement is selected from the staff report in Exhibit 2, Tab 15 B, and was pre-qualified as follow; "The deficient landscaper buffers do not pose any major impacts to the streetscape" and "Staff are satisfied that the variance will not create any undue impacts to the surrounding community and is minor and appropriate in this instance."¹⁴ [Emphasis added].

130Ms. 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.

131Mr. Pileggi opines in paragraphs [106-107] of his Witness Statement that four of the six Proxy Sites exceed the ZBL maximum GFA standard. They range in size from 53 sq. m (excludes seating) to 69 sq. m (includes seating). All sites were approved by the COA, without appeal.

132The 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.

133It 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 a City 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.

134The City did not call any City 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 a City OP and ZBL amendment.

135The Tribunal places weight on the evidence of Ms. Ukaj and the City staff reports that she authored. The oversight and review by her superiors, the input from multiple City departments and the 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

136The appeal before the Tribunal concern 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.

137The 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.

138The 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.

139The 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 the ZBL does not regulate menu type, method of food preparation, or customer behaviour as determinative of accessory status.

140The Tribunal prefers an accessory use analysis grounded in scale and land use impact and not notional considerations such as revenue generation, menu content, food preparation methods, or customer motivation, which are not regulated by the ZBL and are not grounded by defensible land use planning principles.

141The 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 features.

142The 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.

143The 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.

144While prior approvals are not binding, the Tribunal finds the Proxy Site approvals germane in assessing consistency of interpretation by City staff and practical application of the City’s planning framework.

145The 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 negatively undermine the City’s zoning regime in place.

146The Tribunal finds the MV desirable as it optimizes the use of existing commercial land and municipal servicing/infrastructure, enhances services without expanding the development footprint and remains generally policy compliant.

147The Tribunal finds the MV to be minor in nature. They do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts, and matters raised by the public are being appropriately addressed through the concurrent SPA process.

148For 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.

149Having considered the filed materials and evidence and statutory tests, the Tribunal finds that the proposed A&W take‑out restaurant on the Subject Lands remains an accessory use, and the reduced Winston Churchill landscaped buffer creates no adverse impacts and the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

150THE 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.

151THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT 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 and a landscaped buffer measured from a lot line that is a street line (Winston Churchill Boulevard) of 2.85 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 14, pg. 476
2. 2Exhibit 2, Tab 15 B, pg 405
3. 3Exhibit 2, Tab 5, pg. 298
4. 4City Closing Submission, paragraph [12]
5. 5City Closing Submission, paragraph [61] and pg. 13
6. 6Exhibit 2, Tab 12
7. 7City Closing Submission, pg. 13
8. 8Exhibit 7, paragraph [28,29], pg. 6
9. 9Exhibit 7, paragraph [31], pg 6
10. 10Applicant Closing Written Submission, paragraph [5]
11. 11Exhibit 7, paragraph [66 b], pg. 11
12. 12Exhibit 2, Tab 16, pg. 525
13. 13Exhibit 7, paragraph [72 a], pg. 13
14. 14Exhibit 2, Tab 15 B, pg. 406