Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 21, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000339

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

Applicant and Appellant: Renato and Corinne Meleca

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit construction of a second storey and ground floor additions

Reference Number: CAV A/153/2022

Property Address: 1235 Ingledene Drive

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000339

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000339

OLT Case Name: Meleca v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: December 06, 2023 by video conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Renato and Corinne Meleca (“Appellants”)	Konstantine Stavrokos
Town of Oakville (“Town”)	Dennis Perlin

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE ON DECEMBER 6, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This decision and Order are the result of the hard work and effort shown by the Parties to come to a resolution of this matter. A settlement was negotiated between the Parties and presented to the Tribunal at today’s Settlement Hearing. The Tribunal thanks the Parties, their counsel and the participants for their assistance.

2The Appellants filed an application with the Town to construct an addition to an existing residence located at 1235 Ingledene Drive. The current residence on the subject site consists of a single storey detached building with a carport. The addition they want to construct is to allow their daughter and new spouse to move in with them. They wish to create a multi generational home.

3The subject site is located within an established neighbourhood in the Town, which is comprised of one and two storey detached residential buildings. While many of the original residences were built in the 1960’s, a number of recently reconstructed dwellings have been developed in a variety of architectural styles. The neighbourhood is characterized by dwellings on large lots with mature trees and vegetation.

4Residences on Ingledene Drive include a variety of front yard setbacks, with some having garage or built-form projections into the front yard. The immediate context of the Appellant’s residence includes recently reconstructed homes, with greater height and massing than the originally constructed residences.

5The subject site is designated “Urban Area” by the Region of Halton Official Plan (“HOP”) and is within the “Residential Areas” and “Low Density Residential” land use designation in the Oakville Official Plan (“OOP”). The subject site is zoned RL7-0 – Residential Low Zone by the Town of Oakville Zoning By-Law 2014-014 (“ZBL”).

EVIDENCE

6The Tribunal heard from one witness, Paul Demczak, who was found to be qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. The Tribunal found his evidence to be forthright, detailed and unbiased.

7The following documents were made exhibits for the Hearing:

a. Affidavit of Paul Demczak

b. Book of Documents

c. Minutes of Settlement

APPLICATION HISTORY

8The application was originally before the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) on October 4, 2022. Town Planning staff did not support the application. The original application was for two minor variances to the ZBL. (What the Tribunal has been asked to consider in this Settlement Hearing differs slightly.) The application was deferred and additional discussions took place which led to additional modifications. The application was considered by the Committee again on April 5, 2023. Town Planning staff once again opposed the application. It was denied and subsequently appealed.

9The two minor variances sought consisted of requests:

a. To permit the attached private garage to project not more than 7.79 metres ("m”) from the face of the longest portion of the main wall containing residential floor area that is on the first storey of the dwelling oriented toward the front lot line. Section 5.8.7 (c) of the ZBL states that attached private garages shall not project more that 1.5 m from the face of the longest portion of the main wall containing residential floor area that is on the first storey of the dwelling oriented toward the front lot line.

b. To permit a minimum front yard of 9.33 m. The ZBL permits a minimum front yard of 15.67 m, which is based off a calculation that is one metre less than the front yard that existed on the effective date of that ZBL.

10Settlement discussions continued subsequent to the filing of this appeal of the application. The Parties have since resolved the issues and created Minutes of Settlement. The application was subsequently revised, which include the following changes:

a. Revised setback of the second-floor projection of built form above the garage.

b. The second floor of the dwelling is set back above the garage at a range of 14.9 m to 15.67 m, whereas the original front yard setback was provided at a range of 12.73 m to 13.51 m. The balance of the main wall of the dwelling is maintained at a front yard setback of 16 m or greater.

c. Reduction in massing on the streetscape of Ingledene Drive.

d. A reduction to the Floor Area Ratio of the dwelling, which is 34.15% whereas the original application provided a Floor Area Ratio of 36.1%.

11Based on the changes to the application, the Parties are now asking the Tribunal to approve three variances, as follows:

a. To permit the attached private garage to project not more than 7.79 m from the face of the longest portion of the main wall containing residential floor area that is on the first storey of the dwelling oriented toward the front lot line. The ZBL requires that attached private garages shall not project more than 1.5 m from the face of the longest portion of the main wall containing residential floor area that is on the first storey of the dwelling oriented toward the front lot line.

b. To permit a minimum front yard set back of 9.33 m for a one storey garage. Section 6.4.3 a) of the ZBA requires the minimum front yard setback on all lots shall be the yard legally existing on the effective date of the said by law less 1.0 m. (Existing 16.67 m – 1.0 m = 15.67 m minimum)

c. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 14.9 metres for a second storey addition. Section 6.4.3 a) of the ZBA requires the minimum front yard setback on all lots shall be the yard legally existing on the effective date of the said by law less 1.0 m. (Existing 16.67 m – 1.0 m = 15.67 m minimum)

12Section 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act states that the Tribunal is not required to give notice under subsection (18.1) if, in its opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor. The newly proposed application provides a reduction in built form and massing, the setback to the second floor is lessened, the garage projection is slightly modified and it allows for the protection of some mature trees. The Tribunal finds that the changes in the proposed application are minor and no Notice is required.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

13The Parties are also asking the Tribunal to impose the following conditions on the application:

a. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the revised plans and elevation drawings, as attached to the Minutes of Settlement, and appended to this decision and Order as Schedule 1

b. That the approval expires two years from the date of this Decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

c. That the owner provides a detailed landscape/screening/drainage plan along the property lines adjacent to both 1231 and 1239 Ingledene Drive to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, in consultation with the landscape, architectural, development engineering and arborist resources of the Town, and in any final approval the Director shall identify those resources and state that they agree with the approved plan(s).

d. That, prior to the initiation of works within the Conservation Halton regulated area, a Conservation Halton permit be attained from Conservation Halton for the proposed works, if required.

EVIDENCE

14The proposed variances have regard for matters of Provincial interest in accordance with Section 2 of the Planning Act. In particular, sections 2(a), (f), (i), and (p). The proposed development does not contemplate development in natural areas, features and function and provides protection of existing ecological systems. The proposed development also will be fully serviced with existing municipal sanitary, water and stormwater management services. The dwelling is within an existing mature neighbourhood with access to a full range of community and recreational facilities. Lastly, the proposal for the redevelopment is to occur on an existing site, which is an appropriate location for development.

15The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). The PPS states that healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by promoting efficient development and land use patterns and by avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns. Mr. Demczak opined that the proposed development achieves this consistency by facilitating development in a compact form, while it optimizes existing underutilized lands, which maximizes existing infrastructure. The Tribunal accepts and agrees with Mr. Demczak’s analysis.

16The proposed development also conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“GP”) by supporting the goal of complete communities designed to support healthy and active living and meeting people’s needs for daily living. This is gentle intensification in a community that has the resources and infrastructure to support it.

THE FOUR TESTS

Consistent with the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plans

17The proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the HOP. The subject site is designated as Urban Area in the HOP. The proposed development provides an expansion to an existing detached dwelling within the urban area, consistent with the objectives of the HOP to accommodate growth in accordance with the desire to create healthy communities and provide a range of identifiable, interconnected and complete communities.

18The proposed variances also meet the general intent and purpose of the OOP. Policy 3.9 states that Residential Areas, which include where the subject land is, include low, medium and high-density residential uses as well as a range of compatible facilities. The OOP also states that some growth and change may occur in the Residential Areas, provided the character of the area is preserved and the overall urban structure of the Town is upheld.

19Section 11 of the OOP contains policies to guide the development of properties within the Residential Areas land use designation. The OOP lists the following objectives which apply to all Residential Areas:

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 for all socio-economic groups.

d. Encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older housing in order to maintain the stability and character of the existing stable residential communities.

20The proposed addition provides for an expansion to an existing detached dwelling within the urban area, in a form that is compatible with the character of the existing low-rise residential context, representing appropriate, incremental change within the Residential Area designation. The proposed dwelling type is consistent with the surrounding context.

Consistent with the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Laws

Variance 1 – Maximum Garage Projection

21The intent of the maximum garage projection provision is to mitigate the impact of the garage on the streetscape and to prevent the garages from being a visually dominant feature of the dwelling. The proposed garage provides an appropriate set back from the lot line and streetscape, is located on the south side of the dwelling and has a side entrance via a curved driveway. From the street, the garage will not present as a garage but will appear to be a continuation of the main dwelling. This variance is consistent with the intent of the ZBL.

Variances 2 and 3– Minimum Front Yard Setback

22The intent of the minimum front yard setback provision is to ensure a consistent setback of building fronting the street line and accommodate space for landscaping and parking. The setbacks on Ingledene Drive are not uniform as the setback requirement is based on a calculation rather than a single length for all dwellings.

23The proposed front yard setbacks align with the adjacent front yard setback to the south, which also features a single storey projection built form. These built form projections exist on numerous properties along Ingledene Drive. Any sighting of the setbacks from the roadway can be influenced by the existing landscaping and enhancement of on-site landscaping, both through the preservation of existing trees, the planning of new trees and the inclusion of a variety of hard and soft landscaped areas across the site. These landscaping features can be ensured by the inclusion of the third condition that the Parties have asked to be included. As such, these proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

The Proposed Variances are Minor in Nature

24The basis for determining whether a requested variance is minor in nature is an assessment of the impact. This determination is not a mathematical exercise but rather is concerned with if the requested variance(s) results in significant adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.

25The architectural design of the dwelling includes a variety of built form indentations and rooflines which mitigates the appearance of potential massing impacts. The proposed garage projection closely resembles the built form projection with the dwelling to the south and is in keeping with the characteristic of many of the dwellings within the immediate neighbourhood. The front yard setback appropriately transitions to the north of the site, with a setback at this portion of the dwelling in excess of 16.5 m, which is consistent with the front yard setback of the property to the north.

26The proposed variances will have very little impact on either the streetscape or neighbouring properties and, as such, the proposed variances are minor in nature.

Appropriate and Desirable Development

27The proposed development is located within an established residential area. The scale, massing, height and sitting of the proposed development is comparable and reflects the built form of other dwellings in the local context. The massing of the proposed development fits appropriately in the immediate context and has regard for the immediately adjacent dwellings.

28The renovation or reconstruction of an aging dwelling is desirable, so long as it fits the neighbourhood context, as this proposal does. The addition will allow for a multigenerational home and is slight intensification in an area with large lot sizes and available services.

29The Tribunal finds that the proposed development represents appropriate and desirable development.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS

30The Tribunal received eight Participant Statements from people within the immediate neighbourhood. The Tribunal thanks all of these individuals for their effort and participation in regard to providing the Tribunal with their opinions on a subject that they care deeply. All Participants are opposed to the proposed development. All of the following individuals were granted Participant Status;

a. Gillian Salter

b. Bruce Richards

c. John Thompson

d. Neil Ahmed

e. Ron Moore

f. Barbara Campbell

g. Helen Thompson

h. Peter Stevens

31In general, the Participant Statements raise a number of objections that are not related to the variances themselves and appear to have been drafted prior to the current application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the potential impacts raised have already been addressed through the revised application that is before the Tribunal and through the conditions that the Parties are asking to be imposed on the application.

DECISION

32Based on the written and oral uncontested expert evidence of Paul Demczak and a review of the Municipal Record, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variances, subject to the conditions outlined in paragraph 14, have regard to the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, meet the general intent of the HOP and OOP, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the GP, meet the general intent of the ZBL, are minor in nature and are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

Order

33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and the proposed variances are authorized subject to the following conditions:

a. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the revised plans and elevation drawings, as attached to the Minutes of Settlement.

b. That the approval expires two years from the date of this Decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

c. That the owner provides a detailed landscape/screening/drainage plan along the property lines adjacent to both 1231 and 1239 Ingledene Drive, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, in consultation with the landscape, architectural, development engineering, and arborist resources of the Town, and in any final approval the Director shall identify those resources and state that they agree with the approved plan(s).

d. That, prior to the initiation of works within the Conservation Halton regulated area, a Conservation Halton permit be attained from Conservation Halton for the proposed works if required.

“A. Sauve”

A. SAUVE

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.

Schedule 1