Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 19, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001293
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: OLV Developments Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.
Reference Number: CAV A/020/2023
Property Address: 61 Pebbleridge Place
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001293
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001293
OLT Case Name: OLV Developments Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
Heard: November 19, 2024, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| OLV Developments Inc. | Peter Grady* |
| Town of Oakville | Dennis Perlin |
DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a settlement hearing regarding an appeal filed by OLV Developments Inc. (the “Appellant”) pursuant to subsections 45(12) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13, in respect of the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for the Town of Oakville (the “Town”) of the Appellant’s Minor Variance application. The application seeks to permit the development of a two-storey detached dwelling subject to the five variances requested at the property municipally known as 61 Pebbleridge Place, in the Town (“Subject Site”).
2The Appellant and the Town reached a proposed settlement on September 27, 2024, which they now seek to have approved by the Tribunal. The settlement requests the appeal be allowed and the variances authorized, subject to conditions.
The Minor Variance Application
3The Tribunal received from the Appellant an affidavit sworn by Daniel Romanko, dated June 17, 2024. Mr. Romanko is a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Appellant, whom the Tribunal qualifies to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. The following findings of the Tribunal are based on Mr. Romanko’s uncontroverted evidence, which the Tribunal accepts.
4The Subject Site is a currently vacant lot within the newly developed Majestic Edge Estates Subdivision, the latter abutting Lake Ontario. The Subject Site has a frontage of approximately 30.5 meters (“m”) on Pebbleridge Place, a depth of approximately 41.4 m, and an approximate area of 1,263 meters squared (“m2”). All surrounding properties are single detached residential.
5Originally, the Minor Variance application sought seven variances at the CoA hearing on November 29, 2022. A year later, at a CoA hearing on November 29, 2023, the application requested the following five variances:
a. To permit a maximum dwelling depth of 21.9 m where 20 m is permitted (variance 1);
b. To permit a minimum southerly interior side yard of 3.4 m where 4.2 m is permitted (variance 2);
c. To permit a maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 33.83 percent where 32 percent is permitted (variance 3);
d. To permit a maximum lot coverage to be 31 percent for the detached dwelling which is greater than 7 m in height where 25 percent is permitted (variance 4); and
e. To permit a minimum front yard of 9 m where 10.5 m is required (variance 5).
6The Planning Staff Report for the Town recommended approval subject to construction in accordance with a site plan and elevation drawings, as well as a 2-year expiry if the building permit had not yet been issued. The CoA refused the application, for the reasons set out below:
The Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions in opposition to the application. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances are not considered minor in nature, are not desirable for the use of the land and are not in keeping with the general intent of the town’s official plan – Livable Oakville Plan and the zoning bylaw.
7Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Planning Act, an application for a minor variance may be granted if the following four tests are met:
a. The application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
b. The application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law;
c. The requested variance is minor in nature; and
d. The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
8Mr. Romanko’s affidavit and testimony justified the variances as follows:
a. For variance 1, the increase in dwelling depth still maintains an adequate amenity space and appropriate separation from the street without a negative impact to surrounding neighbors;
b. For variance 2, 3.4 m side yard provides a sufficient buffer and separation to protect the privacy and potential overlook, and is a result of shifting the proposed house to comply with a 7 m interior side yard on the north side;
c. For variance 3, the residential floor area ratio is intended to reduce the impact of massing and avoid a disproportionate scale of house to lot area, neither of which occur in this instance in Mr. Romanko’s opinion;
d. For variance 4, the increase in maximum lot coverage maintained adequate space for parking, landscaping and amenity space and did not negatively impact neighbouring uses or enjoyment of outdoor amenity space; and
e. For variance 5, the reduced setback would permit the addition of a 1.88 m covered porch and maintain the intent of the Zoning By-Law by preserving a consistent street edge and sufficient landscaping area.
9Mr. Romanko testified that, in his opinion, all five variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Town Official Plan and Zoning By-Law, were minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
10Mr. Romanko further opined that the proposed development represents good land use planning and is in the public interest as it contemplates a desirable and appropriate land use, has minimal impacts on the natural environment and neighbouring land uses and utilizes existing and planned infrastructure. He explained how the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”), the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”) and the Town’s Official Plans (“OPs”).
11On the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Romanko, the Tribunal finds that the requested Minor Variances have due regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act; are consistent with the PPS 2024; conform with the Region’s and the Town’s OPs; and represent good planning in the public interest. The Tribunal also finds the five variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town OP and Zoning By-Law, are minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
ORDER
12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the Town’s Zoning By-Law No. 2013-014 are authorized subject to the following conditions:
a. That the approval expires 2 years from the date of this decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction;
b. That the proposed new dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the Site Plan and Elevation Drawings in Schedule “D” to the Minutes of Settlement, dated August 21, 2024;
c. That the proposed new dwelling be constructed in accordance with the Grading and Drainage Plans in Schedule “E” to the Minutes of Settlement, dated July 16, 2024; and
d. That the proposed new dwelling be constructed in accordance with the Landscaping Plans in Schedule “F” to the Minutes of Settlement, dated August 21, 2024.
13The Tribunal may be spoken to if the Parties have any difficulty in implementing this Order.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE 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.