Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
CORRECTION NOTICE
OLT CASE NO.: OLT-22-003864
DECISION ISSUE DATE: November 22, 2022
CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: November 25, 2022
RE: Jacossi Investments Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
Correction to: Appearances Section – counsel representing the Applicant/Appellant
Originally:
Jacossi Investments Inc.
Kayla Elvin
Corrected to:
Jacossi Investments Inc.
Jane Pepino
Naomi Mares
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI
REGISTRAR
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.
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 22, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003864
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Jacossi Investments Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit six variances in order to construct a two-storey detached dwelling and pool cabana
Reference Number: A/068/2022
Property Address: 1 Ennisclare Drive East
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003864
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003864
OLT Case Name: Jacossi Investments Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To reduce the amount of paved surface in the front yard, and allow for increased lot drainage
Reference Number: SP.1707.15
Property Address: 1 Ennisclare Drive East
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003901
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003864
Heard: November 7, 2022 in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Jacossi Investments Inc.
Counsel
Kayla Elvin
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Settlement Hearing in the matter of the appeal by Jacossi Investments Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) from the decision of the Town of Oakville (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny a minor variance (“MV”), for a property municipally known as 1 Ennisclare Drive East (“subject property/subject lands”).
2The subject property is located in the neighbourhood area known as Eastlake, which is one of the older, established stable residential areas in the Town.
3The subject property has 24.38 metres (“m”) of street frontage on Ennisclare Drive East (approximately 25.61 m, measured 7.5 m from the front lot line), a lot area of approximately 0.44 hectares (“ha”), including 0.2415 ha of land area and 0.194 ha of water area; and is accessible from a circular driveway (5.46 m in wide) with access from both the east and west sides of the lot.
4Surrounding land uses include:
North: Low density residential single detached dwellings, Lakeshore Road East, a minor arterial road, is located further north;
East: Low density residential single detached dwellings;
South: Immediately south is Lake Ontario;
West: Low density residential single detached dwellings. Gairloch Gardens is located further west.
5The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service of Kayla Elvin. Planning evidence was provided to the Tribunal by means of the Written Affidavit of Dana Anderson. After reviewing the qualifications and signed Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms. Anderson is a qualified professional land use planner. She provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive overview of the application in relation to the relevant policies.
LOCATION AND SITE CONTEXT
6Ms. Anderson explained that the surrounding neighbourhood is comprised of large lots, mature trees, well-landscaped and maintained lawns and gardens, and detached dwellings containing two or three car garages. The dwellings have upgraded design elements such as stone façades, elaborate cornices, with the lots containing significant landscaping. Mature trees line the road in some front yards as well as between the houses. The street does not have an urban cross section or sidewalks and contains drainage ditches.
7She further stated that the neighbourhood dwellings are architecturally diverse in terms of design, and several of the original homes have been replaced and/or renovated with newer, larger, and more efficient homes. Within the immediate neighbourhood, the lots backing onto Lake Ontario are also distinctive due to the rear lake condition and their orientation onto the street as they face side lot lines of properties to the north. The lake lots are also larger and deeper than the average lot areas within the immediate neighbourhood.
BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
8In March of 2022, in the original application, the Appellant requested the following variances:
| No. | Zoning By-law Regulation | Variance Request |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Section 5.8.2 c) iii) The maximum width of a driveway shall be 9.0 m for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m | To permit the maximum width of the driveway to be 16.67 m for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m |
| 2 | Section 5.8.2 g) The maximum width of a walkway access at the point of attachment of a driveway shall be 1.80 m. | To permit the maximum width of the walkway to be 2.28 m |
| 3 | Table 6.3.1 (Row 9, Column RL1) The maximum dwelling depth shall be 20.0 m. |
To permit a maximum dwelling depth of 27.03 m |
| 4 | Section 6.4.1 The maximum residential floor area ratio for a detached dwelling on a lot with a lot area 1301.00 m2 or greater shall be 29% (700.41 m2); (Lot area is 2415.21 m2). | To permit the maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 34.37% (830.11 m2) |
| 5 | 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 m; (Existing 30.67 m -1.0 m = 29.67 m minimum) | To permit a minimum front yard of 21.23 m |
| 6 | Section 6.4.6 c) The maximum height shall be 9.0 m | To permit a maximum height of 10.49 m |
9The Planning Staff were supportive of variances 1 and 2 but objected to variances 3 through 6. At the hearing, the COA refused the variances.
THE REVISED VARIANCES
10In May of 2022, the Applicant appealed the decision of the COA. Since the appeal, the Applicant and the Town were involved in discussions and have agreed to revisions to the design of the dwelling which has resulted in changes to variances 3 through 6 as follows:
| No. | Zoning By-law Regulation | Variance Request Site Plan December 2021 | Variance Request Site Plan August 31, 2022 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Section 5.8.2 c) iii) The maximum width of a driveway shall be 9.0 metres for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m | To permit the maximum width of the driveway to be 16.67 metres for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m | To permit the maximum width of the driveway to be 16.67 metres for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m | No Change |
| 2 | Section 5.8.2 g) The maximum width of a walkway access at the point of attachment of a driveway shall be 1.80 m | To permit the maximum width of the walkway to be 2.28 m | To permit the maximum width of the walkway to be 2.28 m | No Change |
| 3 | Table 6.3.1 (Row 9, Column RL1) The maximum dwelling depth shall be 20.0 m | To permit a maximum dwelling depth of 27.03 m | To permit a maximum dwelling depth of 26.58 m | 0.45 metre reduction |
| 4 | Section 6.4.1 The maximum residential floor area ratio for a detached dwelling on a lot with a lot area 1301.00 m2 or greater shall be 29% (700.41 m2); (Lot area is 2415.21 m2) | To permit the maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 34.37% (830.11 m2) | To permit the maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 34.21% | 0.16% reduction |
| 5 | 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 m; (Existing 30.67 m - 1.0 m = 29.67 m Minimum) | To permit a minimum front yard of 21.23 m | To permit a minimum front yard of 21.73 m | 0.5 m addition |
| 6 | Section 6.4.6 c) The maximum height shall be 9.0 m | To permit a maximum height of 10.49 m | To permit a maximum height of 9.99 m | 0.5 m reduction |
11Additional revisions to the Site Plan were made as a result of comments from Conservation Halton, none of which affect any of the required variances.
PRELIMINARY MATTER – AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION
12Pursuant to s. 45(18.1) and (18.1.1) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow amendments to a MV application without the requirement for further public notice. It is of the opinion that such amendments are minor by virtue of s. 45(18.1) and (18.1.1) of the Act.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
13An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo and the Applicant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the four tests set out under s. 45(1) have been met. The four tests are:
- maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
- maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
- is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
- is minor.
EVIDENCE
14Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicable policies of the Official Plan (“OP”). She explained that the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on Schedule G - South East Land Use, with a Special Policy Area overlay and Natural Features and Hazard Lands along Lake Ontario on Schedule B of the Livable Oakville OP.
15She stated that s. 11.2 identifies the permitted uses for the Low-Density Residential designation. The permitted uses include a range of low-density housing types including detached dwellings. The permitted density for Low Density Residential areas allows up to 29 units per site ha. However, the Special Policy Area overlay limits density to up to 10 units per site ha. She further reviewed s. 11.1.9, Policy 26.2.1 of the Special Policy Area that is applicable to the subject lands.
16Ms. Anderson opined that the proposed development on the existing large lot will not impact or alter the integrity of the large lots in the area and it will not increase the density of the area. She is of the opinion that the replacement housing is appropriate for the site context, is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The setbacks and development scale and massing proposed are appropriate and are compatible with the surrounding area.
17Ms. Anderson believes that the height is softened by a low sloping roof with articulation on the front façade to reduce massing. She concluded that the proposed new single detached dwelling can coexist with the adjacent neighbouring lots without any unacceptable adverse impacts related to overlook or privacy, grading, drainage or access.
18Ms. Anderson stated that the subject lands are currently zoned "Residential Low (RL 1-0) Zone" by Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) No. 2014-014 that permits detached dwellings.
19ZBL provisions and the required relief:
| Provision | Required | Proposed | Compliance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.3.1 Minimum Lot Area | 1,393.5 m2 | Lot Area = 4,355.21 m2 | Yes |
| 6.3.1 Minimum Lot Frontage | 30.5m | +/- 25.61 m | Legal Non-Conforming |
| 6.3.1 Maximum Dwelling Depth | 20m | 26.58 m | No |
| 6.3.1 Minimum Interior Side Yard | 4.2m | 4.23 m (east) 5.0 (west) |
Yes |
| 6.4.3 Minimum Front Yard Setback | 29.66 m (The yard legally existing on the effective date of this By-law less 1.0 m; Existing front yard setback to the dwelling is 30.67 m) |
21.73 m | No |
| 6.3.1 Minimum Rear Yard | 10.5m | 28.98 m | Yes |
| 6.4.1 d) Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio | 29% | 34.21% | No |
| 6.4.2 Maximum Lot Coverage | 25% | 24.97% | Yes |
| 6.4.5 Balcony and Deck Prohibition | Balconies and uncovered platforms are prohibited above the floor level of the first storey on any lot in the -0 Suffix Zone | Juliette Balconies are revised and proposed as an architectural feature | Yes |
| 6.4.6 Height and Storeys a) Maximum Number of Storeys b) Floor Area c) Maximum height |
a) 2 storeys b) Prohibited above the second storey c) 9.0 m |
a) 2 storeys b) N/A c) 9.99 m |
No |
| 5.8.2 c) iii) Maximum Width of Driveway | 9.0 m | 16.67 m | No |
| 5.8.2 g) Walkway Access | 1.8 m | 2.18 m | No |
Height
20Ms. Anderson explained that the maximum height provision is to ensure that the massing and scale of each dwelling is compatible with the surrounding streetscape and that there are no shadowing or overlook impacts. The proposed increase in height has been reduced from 10.49 m in the original application to 9.99 m in the revised application. Ms. Anderson is of the opinion that a low sloping roof with articulation on the front façade will reduce massing, will not create any unacceptable adverse impacts and is appropriate for a large lakefront lot.
Residential Floor Area Ratio
21Ms. Anderson believes that the proposed floor area ratio given the size and location of the lot along the lakefront, the additional floor area is not incompatible with surrounding homes. She further stated that the building footprint maintains the required side and rear yard setbacks, as well as the maximum coverage for the dwelling.
Minimum and Maximum Front Yard
22In the opinion of Ms. Andersen, the purpose of a minimum front yard setback is to provide a buffer between the street and the dwelling, while the maximum front yard setback is intended to create a consistent streetscape. The proposed dwelling is sited and oriented to ensure a consistent placement of homes along a street.
Dwelling Depth
23Ms. Anderson mentioned that given the size, orientation and that the proposed dwelling backs onto the lake, the revised design and extensive landscaping, the additional requested depth maintains this intent of the provision and does not create any adverse impacts. She further noted that the rear wall of the previous dwelling was deeper into the rear yard and closer to the lake than the proposed new dwelling.
Driveway Width and Driveway Walkways
24Ms. Anderson opined:
The proposed new driveway will be centrally located at the front of the lot. The access connects to a roundabout driveway with a garage access on the west side of the home. Surrounding the driveway area are landscaped areas consisting of trees and vegetative plantings and a landscaped pathway along the westerly side yard. One walkway access may be connected to each side of a driveway and the maximum width of the walkway access at the point of attachment is to be 1.8 metres. The proposed walkway width at the point of attachment with the driveway is 2.28 metres. The intent of the maximum driveway and walkway standard is to ensure an appropriate balance between paved or hardscaped areas and landscaped areas. As noted, there are currently two driveway accesses to the existing house which are to be replaced by one central driveway. This driveway maintains the 9 metre width with the exception of one portion that extends from the centre of the turning radius. The variance maintains the intent of the by-law.
25In Ms. Andersen’s view, the requested MV are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, as the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood dwellings and will not have any adverse impact, given the context of the lakefront lot.
26In Ms. Andersen’s professional opinion, the requested relief for MV are both individually and cumulatively are considered minor in nature.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27The Tribunal is satisfied that the application meets the criteria of the four tests set out at s. 45(1) of the Act.
28The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is desirable for the subject site and is consistent with higher-level policy documents, like the Act. The MV can be implemented without any adverse impact on the neighbouring residential lots and the surrounding community due to the sufficient setbacks between the abutting properties.
CONCLUSION
29THIS MATTER having come before the Tribunal for a written settlement hearing on November 7, 2022, and the Tribunal having read the uncontradicted affidavit evidence of Dana Anderson, MA, FCIP, RPP, sworn September 26, 2022, the Tribunal finds that the variances are appropriate, are minor in nature and will not have undue impacts on the surrounding properties and meet all four of the tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
ORDER
30The Tribunal, having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, has determined that no further notice is required in accordance with s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.
31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 as set out in Attachment 1 are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 2.
“P. Tomilin”
P. tomilin
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.
OLT-22-003864 – Attachment 1
OLT-22-003864 – Attachment 2