Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 17, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004213

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

Appellant: The Corporation of the Town of Oakville

Applicant: Adrijana & Marko Radosevic

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Appeal Related to COA approving Minor Variance for the development of new two storey building. City of Oakville appealing COA recommendation for approval.

Reference Number: CAV A/11/2022

Property Address: 103 Ringwood Road

Municipality: Oakville

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004213

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004213

OLT Case Name: Oakville (Town) v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: November 2, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Marko Radosevic	Self-Represented
Town of Oakville	J. Huctwith*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER ON NOVEMBER 2, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This matter had been scheduled for a one-day hearing commencing November 2, 2022, to consider the appeal by The Town of Oakville (the “Appellant”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act due to the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment (the “COA”) decision to approve the minor variance application in relation to Zoning By-law No. 2014-014.

2The Subject Property (the “SP”) is municipally known as 103 Ringwood Road, Oakville.

3The Tribunal was recently advised that a settlement had been reached between the parties, as such, a request was made by the parties for an Order from the Tribunal approving the minor variance application.

4The minor variances originally being sought were:

No.	Zoning By-law Regulation	Variance Request
1	Section 6.4.1 The maximum residential floor area ratio for a detached dwelling on a Jot with a Jot area 1301.00 m2 or greater shall be 29% (391.99 m2); (Lot area is 1351.7 m2).	To permit the maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 31.78% (429.54 m2)
2	Section 6.4.3 a) The minimum front yard on all lots shall be the yard legally existing on the effective date of this By-law less 1.0 metre; (Existing 12.38 m -1.0 m = 11.38m minimum).	To permit a minimum front yard of 9.69 metres.

5At the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal was made aware that the agreement between the Parties included a change to the variance requested for the maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (the “RFAR”) (minor variance No. 1). The new variance requested was for the maximum RFAR to be 30.9% (418 m²) from the original requested 31.78% (429.54 m²). With the requested reduction of this variance, the Tribunal rules that the amended application was minor in nature and that no further notice would be required pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

SITE CONTEXT

6The Subject Lands are located in the Town of Oakville within the Region of Halton. The SP is within a stable residential area abutting Sunningdale Park at the end of a cul-de-sac. The lots at the end of the cul-de-sac are irregular in shape and size. The neighbourhood character consists of original one and one and a half storey dwellings. The neighbourhood has seen the start of a transition to newer two-storey dwellings.

7The SP is defined by Pembroke Drive and Munns Creek to the north, Miller Road to the east and Mansfield Drive to the south.

8The SP is designated RL3-0 “Low Density Residential” in the Livable Oakville Official Plan (the “OP”).

APPLICATION HISTORY

9Ms. Buckerfield took the Tribunal through the original application process and the original variances that were presented to the COA. The original application was submitted on April 28, 2022 and proceeded to the COA meeting on July 5, 2022. At the COA meeting, it was the opinion of Staff that the variance related to the front yard setback met the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. However, Staff was concerned about the RFAR and did not feel that this variance met the four tests. The COA approved both variances on July 5, 2022 subject to two conditions:

1. That the dwelling be built in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated April 19, 2022.
2. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the decision if a building permit as not been issued for the proposed construction, and in cases where a building permit is not required, that the proposed scope of work has not been fully completed.

10The Town of Oakville filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act.

11After filing the appeal, the Applicant met with the Town Staff to discuss to modify the design of the dwelling in order to satisfy the Staff’s concerns over the RFAR ratio. The Applicant’s Architect’s modified the design and reduced the mass and scale and its impact on the streetscape making it more compatible with the neighbourhood.

12The revisions have resulted in a new Site Plan and drawings which have amended the Application that is before the Tribunal.

13The Staff is satisfied with the amended application and recommends that the settlement with the amended application be approved, subject to two conditions as presented to the Tribunal.

THE HEARING

14The Tribunal heard land use planning opinion evidence from one witness, that being Catherine Buckerfield, who was the Town planner assigned to the application. The witness was qualified by the Tribunal to provide detailed contextual and land use rationale to support the Settlement.

15The Tribunal entered the following as an Exhibit for the Settlement Hearing:

Exhibit No. 1 Document Book on Behalf of Appellant

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

16An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act is a hearing de novo. In this case, the Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met. The tests are that the variance(s):

(a) maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan; (b) maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law; (c) is minor in nature; and (d) is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

17Ms. Buckerfield took the Tribunal through a description of the neighbourhood and context of the surrounding area, including other properties in the area that had been through redevelopment.

Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (the “PPS”)

18Ms. Buckerfield opined that the Amended Application is consistent with the PPS under Policy 1.1.1 that encourages the use of existing infrastructure and a range of housing options including single detached dwellings. She opined that this is occurring through the redevelopment of the SP, as such, the Amended Application is consistent with the PPS.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “GH”)

19Ms. Buckerfield then took the Tribunal through the GH and opined that the Proposal conforms with the GH specific policies regarding Built-Up Areas. It was her opinion that the SP is located within the designated Built-up Area of the Settlement Area. The proposal conforms specifically with Policy 2.2.1(2)(d) which is directed to Settlement Areas:

Population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 or such higher forecasts as established by the applicable upper- or single-tier municipality through its municipal comprehensive review will be used for planning and managing growth in the GGH to the horizon of this Plan in accordance with the policies in subsection 5.2.4.

2. Forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan will be allocated based on the following:

d) development will be directed to settlement areas, except where the policies of this Plan permit otherwise;

Region of Halton Official Plan (the “ROP”)

20Ms. Buckerfield opined that the proposal conformed to the policies of the ROH, specifically, s. 72 which outlines the objectives of the Urban Area for accommodating growth in accordance with the Region’s desire to retain community identity:

72. The goal of the Urban Area and the Regional Urban Structure is to manage growth in a manner that fosters complete communities, enhances mobility across Halton, addresses climate change, and improves housing affordability, sustainability and economic prosperity.

General Intent and Purpose of the Livable Oakville Official Plan

21Ms. Buckerfield took the Tribunal through the OP, specifically, s. 11 and through policies of the “Urban Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities”.

Section 11 of the OP states that:

The majority of intensification and development within the Town is to occur within the Growth Areas as described in Part E. Intensification outside of the Growth Areas within the stable residential communities will be subject to policies that are intended to maintain and protect the existing character of those communities.

The Objectives of s. 11 are:

a) maintain, protect and enhance the character of existing residential areas;

b) encourage an appropriate mix of housing types, densities, design and tenure throughout the Town;

c) promote housing initiatives to facilitate revitalization, compact urban form and an increased variety of housing alternatives;

d) promote innovative housing types and forms to ensure accessible, affordable, adequate and appropriate housing for all socio-economic groups;

e) encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older housing in order to maintain the stability and character of the existing stable residential communities; and,

f) discourage the conversion of existing rental properties to condominiums or to other forms of ownership in order to maintain an adequate supply of rental housing.

22It was her opinion that the Amended Application is consistent with the Objectives as listed under s. 11 of the OP.

23As for s. 11.1.9, Ms. Buckerfiled opined that the Amended Application conforms with the following:

11.1.9 Development within all stable residential communities shall be evaluated using the following criteria to maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character:

a) The built form of development, including scale, height, massing, architectural character and materials, is to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

b) Development should be compatible with the setbacks, orientation and separation distances within the surrounding neighbourhood.

h) Impacts on the adjacent properties shall be minimized in relation to grading, drainage, location of service areas, access and circulation, privacy, and microclimatic conditions such as shadowing.

Urban Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities (the “UDG”)

24As for the Urban Design Guidelines, Ms. Buckerfield opined that s. 31.1., 3.1.3, 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 were most applicable to the Amended Application and shows conformity to these guidelines:

s. 3.1.1 Character

2. New development should be designed to maintain and preserve the scale and character of the site and its immediate context and to create compatible transitions between the new dwelling and existing dwellings in the surrounding neighbourhood.

s. 3.1.3 Scale

1. New development which is larger in overall massing than adjacent dwellings, should be designed to reduce the building massing through the thoughtful composition of smaller elements and forms that visually reflect the scale and character of the dwellings in the surrounding area. This design approach may incorporate:

projections and/or recesses of forms and/or wall planes on the façade(s)

single-level building elements when located adjacent to lower height dwellings

variation in roof forms

subdividing the larger building into smaller elements through additive and/or repetitive massing techniques

porches and balconies that can reduce the verticality of taller dwellings and bring focus to the main entrance

architectural components that reflect human scale and do not appear monolithic

horizontal detailing to de-emphasize the massing variation in building materials and colours

s. 3.2.3 Setbacks

New development should be compatible with the character of the existing dwellings by maintaining the established front yard setback patterns and side yard setback patterns along the street edge. There may be instances when the established front yard setback can be slightly varied due to specific site constraints.

1. New development should be oriented and positioned on the lot to be compatible with the existing pattern of dwelling placement, in terms of front, side, flankage and rear yard setbacks.

2. New development should maintain the setback or average of setbacks from the street frontage as the existing dwellings in the immediate area.

25It was the opinion of Ms. Buckerfield that the Amended Application conforms with the policies stated above of the OP and of the UDG. This results in a dwelling that maintains and protects the character of the neighbourhood. The Amended Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.

General Intent and Purpose of the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law (the “ZBL”)

26Ms. Buckerfield took the Tribunal through the ZBL. She stated that the RL3-0 zoning is a special zoning. The “-0” designation dates back to a series of By-law amendments to the former 1984-063 ZBL that was passed in 1988, 1989 and 1990. The intent of the “R0 Zones” is to control size, massing and impact of new detached dwellings as well as control additions to existing dwellings in these established residential neighbourhoods.

27Transition is occurring in a number of these designated neighbourhoods including intensification and replacement of the original housing stock. The primary intent of this designation is to support well established, stable residential neighbourhoods. It was Ms. Buckerfield’s opinion that the decrease in the front yard setback will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties.

28As for the RFAR variance, Ms. Buckerfield opined that the Amended Application with the reduced floor area coverage, creates a massing that protects and maintains the character of the neighbourhood and does not give the appearance of overbuilding on the property.

29In Ms. Buckerfield’s opinion, the Amended Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Appropriate Development of Use of the Land

30It was Ms. Buckerfield’s opinion that the revised design mitigates the impacts of additional massing along the streetscape and abutting properties. The Amended Application is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

Minor in Nature

31Ms. Buckerfield opined that the requested variances are minor in nature as the Amended Application mitigates the additional massing and will not present an unacceptable adverse impacts onto the abutting properties or the streetscape.

Conclusionary Opinion

32It was Ms. Buckerfield’s opinion that the Amended Application results in a dwelling that will maintain and protect the character of the neighbourhood. The Amended Application is not an overbuilding of the property and will not present an adverse impact to the neighbourhood. In her opinion, the Amended Application meets the four tests of a minor variance application and represents good planning.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

33The Tribunal finds that the amended application before it, and the reduction of the variances being sought, are minor in nature. As such, no further notice is required as per s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

34Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal accepts the unrefuted evidence and opinion of Ms. Buckerfield. The Tribunal finds the Settlement, subject to the conditions as agreed upon by the Parties, has regards to matters of Provincial interest; has regard to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment and the information presented before it.

35The Tribunal finds that the Amended Application is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Region of Peel Official Plan and the Town of Oakville Official Plan.

36The Amended Application has met the four tests as set out in s. 45 of the Planning Act. The Amended Application represents an efficient form of land use and represents good planning.

ORDER

37THE TRIBUNAL having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required;

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part, and the following variances to By-law No. 2014-014 are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

• To permit a maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 30.9% (418 m²) whereas the maximum residential floor area for a detached dwelling is 29% (391.99 m²).

• To permit a minimum front yard 9.69 metres whereas the minimum front yard is 11.38 metres.

“S. deBoer”

S. deBOER 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions:

1. That the proposed dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and drawings (elevations and floor plans) dated September 27, 2022; and
2. That any approval expire two (2) years from the date of the decision by the Ontario Land Tribunal if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.