Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
October 15, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL210149
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Corporation of the Town of Oakville
Applicant:
Herman Rai
Subject:
Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.:
2014-014
Property Address/Description:
1035 Pinegrove Road
Municipality:
Town of Oakville
Municipal File No.:
CAV A/087/2020
OLT Case No.:
PL210149
OLT File No.:
PL210149
OLT Case Name:
Oakville (Town) v. Oakville (Town)
Heard:
July 2, 2021 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Corporation of the Town of
Dennis Perlin*
Oakville
Jessica Jakubowski (student-at-law)
Herman Rai
Self-represented
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON JULY 2, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was a hearing from an appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”) regarding a minor variance application approved by the Committee of Adjustment (the “COA”) for the Corporation of the Town of Oakville (the “Town”). The Town appealed the COA decision to approve the application made by Herman Rai (“Applicant”). Before the commencement of the hearing, the parties informed the Tribunal that they have reached a settlement.
2The Applicant owns a property located at 1035 Pinegrove Road, in the Town. The Applicant requested to demolish an existing one-storey dwelling and to construct a new two-storey dwelling. One minor variance was requested from the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2014-14 (“ZBL”) to allow maximum residential floor area to be increased from 41% to 43.56% of the subject site lot.
3In the preliminary review, the Town submitted that the requested change as part of settlement is very minimally different; 42.51% for settlement versus original Applicant request of 43.56% that a new notice is not necessary in consideration of s. 45(18) 1.1 of the Act. In due consideration of this unopposed submission, the Tribunal allowed the settlement hearing to continue.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
4The Town called Catherine Nancy Buckerfield to provide expert opinion in the area of land use planning. Ms. Buckerfield adopted her witness statement in its entirety (Exhibit 1, Tab 3).
5For the Tribunal to allow this appeal, s. 45(1) of the Act requires that any or all of the following four tests should be met;
a. Does the minor variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”)
b. Does the minor variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
c. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate use of the land, building or structure; and,
d. Is the variance minor in nature.
6Ms. Buckerfield reviewed the proposal’s regard for s. 2 of the Act and opined that it supports applicable aspects covered in sections (j), (n), and (r) of s. 2.1 of the Act.
7Ms. Buckerfield reviewed the appropriate and applicable policies in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) specifically on the consistency with redevelopment policy 3.1.5 (a). Ms. Buckerfield also reviewed the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) and conformity with Policy 2.2.2 in that the proposal is in for development in the built-up area of the Town.
8Ms. Buckerfield reviewed the Official Plan for the Halton Region and the Town. She opined that the proposal conforms with the designation of the subject property in an urban area; has compatible character; and is part of a low-density residential neighbourhood. She concluded that the proposal conforms with the Halton Region and Town Official Plans and under applicable policies.
9Ms. Buckerfield reviewed the context of the proposal with respect to the ZBL. Ms. Buckerfield opined that save and except for the requested single variance, the proposal maintains the intent and purpose of the ZBL.
10Ms. Buckerfield opined that the proposal represents natural regeneration in the area while it maintains key parameters of massing and neighbourhood character. She opined that the minor variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the land, building or structure.
11Ms. Buckerfield reviewed the overall magnitude of the requested variance and how the variance is used in developing a residential dwelling that fits with other dwellings of similar character. She opined that the variance is minor as to its overall perceived and actual impact.
12The Tribunal having regard for the material that was originally before the Approval Authority, the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Ms. Buckerfield finds that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans as well as the ZBL, represents appropriate use of the land and structure to be built thereon, is minor in nature and thus is appropriate.
ORDER
13The Tribunal allows the appeal in part and the following minor variance to s. 6.4.1 of the Corporation of the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law No. 2014-14 is authorized:
a. To permit the maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 42.51% (296.89 square metres).
14This Order is conditional upon the Applicant’s proposed new dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the Revised Site Plan and Elevation Drawings in Schedule C to the Minutes of Settlement, on file with the Ontario Land Tribunal.
15Should any difficulties arise implementing this Order, the Tribunal may be approached.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
jatinder bhullar
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.