Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 25, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000533

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

Applicant/Appellant: Andrew Fraser

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To construct a new two-storey single detached dwelling

Reference Number: A-080-2025

Property Address: 11 Harbourside Court

Municipality/UT: Oakville

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000533

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000533

OLT Case Name: Fraser v. Oakville (Municipality)

Heard: November 14, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Andrew Fraser, (in absentia) Dr. Kalpna Varshney (Present)	Self Represented*
Town of Oakville	Dennis Perlin Meg Gregoire (Articling Student)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES ON NOVEMBER 14, 2024, AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an Appeal filed by Andrew Fraser (“Appellant/Owner”) against the Town of Oakville’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) June 25, 2025, decision refusing the requested minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling pursuant to section 45(12) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended (“Act”).

2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the Town of Oakville (“Town”) now supports the authorization of revised variances subject to the imposition of two conditions, as set out in the Minutes of Settlement (“MoS”) signed November 7, 2025, between the Appellant/Owners and the Town, essentially resulting in this appeal proceeding by way of an uncontested Hearing de novo. Neighbour, Marcin Parkitny, who originally expressed concerns with the application at the CoA, withdrew his objection correspondence based on the review of the revised settlement drawings and variances.

SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING, AND SURROUNDINGS

3The property is located on Plan M239 Lot 5, 11 Harbourside Court in the Town of Oakville (West District - Halton) (“Subject Property”).

4The Official Plan Designation is Low Density Residential (RL3-0 Residential). The Application originally proposed seven variances to Zoning By-law 2014-014 (“ZBL”) to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling as follows:

1. To permit a maximum height of 9.79 metres (“m”), while 9.0 is permitted;
2. To permit a minimum rear yard setback of 6.03 m, while 7.5 is required;
3. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 7.56 m, while 8.73 m if required;
4. To permit maximum floor area ratio of 53.8%, while 42 % is permitted;
5. To permit maximum lot coverage of 41.69%, while 35% is permitted;
6. To permit a second-floor rear balcony, while balconies and uncovered platforms are prohibited above the floor level of the first storey on any lot in 0 Suffix Zone; and
7. To permit a front garage projection of 5.65 m from the face of the longest portion of the main wall containing the residential floor area that is on the first storey of the dwelling oriented towards the front lot line, while 1.5 m is permitted.

REQUESTED RELIEF

REVISED APPLICATION

5Modifications were made to the proposed dwelling to address the concerns raised originally by Town staff and which now represent the Settlement as set out in Schedule “B” attached to this decision as follows:

1. The second-floor balcony was removed and replaced by a Juliette balcony railing, which eliminated the need for Variance 6;
2. The dwelling was shifted 0.38 m towards the rear of the Subject Property;
3. The garage projection from the main wall was reduced by 0.32 m (from 5.65 m to 5.33 m); and
4. The front yard setback was increased by 0.58 m (from 7.56 m to 8.14 m).

6Original requested variances #4 and #5 for floor area ratio and lot coverage have also been eliminated.

7In accordance with the signed Minutes of Settlement (“MoS”), the parties have agreed to the following four revised Minor Variance requests:

1. Section 5.8.7 c) Attached private garages shall not project 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. To permit an attached private garage to project 5.65 m. To reduce the attached private garage to project 5.33 m;
2. Table 6.3.1 (Colum RL3, Row 6) The minimum rear yard shall be 7.5 m. To reduce the minimum rear yard to 5.65 m.
3. 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. In this instance, the minimum front yard shall be 8.73 m. To reduce the minimum front yard to 8.14 m; and
4. Section 6.4.6 c) The maximum height shall be 9.0 m. To increase the maximum height to 9.79 m.

8Both parties agreed that the MoS be subject to two conditions, which are standard conditions for Variance Approvals in the Town; namely,

1. That the approval expires two years from the date of the Tribunal decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction; and
2. That the proposed demolition of the existing two-storey single detached dwelling and construction of the new two-storey single detached dwelling on the Subject Property be constructed in general accordance with the Revised Site Plan and Drawings (Elevations and Floor Plans dated September 8, 2025, in Schedule “C” to the Minutes of Settlement (“M0S”)

HEARING

9There were no issues raised concerning the Administrative Notice of this Hearing dated October 16, 2025, and therefore it was marked as Exhibit One to this Hearing de novo.

10The uncontroverted evidence in support of the Settlement Proposal consisted of the viva voce evidence from one joint witness, Michael Barton MCIP, RPP of MB1 Development Consulting Inc., who was affirmed and qualified without objection as an expert in land use planning. His Curriculum Vitae, Acknowledgment of Expert Duty and Witness Statement were marked cumulatively as Exhibit Two.

11The Joint Document Book was marked Exhibit Three.

12Mr. Barton provided an extensive planning analysis and opinion of the Revised Proposal in relation to matters of provincial interest, the PPS 2024, Region of Halton Official Plan (“RHOP”), Livable Oakville Plan (“LOP”), ZBL (as set out in paragraph 4), desirability for the development and use of the Subject Property, how each of the revisions to the requested variances is minor and how each of the requested variances meets the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Act.

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT:

Planning Act

13Pursuant to section 45(18) of the Act, this is a Hearing de novo and the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the amended application is minor and does not require further Notice and having done so in the Hearing, then for the Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the requested variances meet the statutory tests.

14To be successful, the Applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that the Applications accord with section 2 and the four-part legislative tests set out in section 45(1) of the Act:

1. Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
2. Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?
3. Are the variances minor; and
4. Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Property?

Section 2

15The Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest, as set out in section 2 of the Act, as well as have regard to the decision of the CoA and the information considered by it, as required under subsection 2.1(1) of the Act, though it is not bound by that decision.

16Specifically, Mr. Barton’s testimony outlined specific provisions contained in section 2 upon which he relies:

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(m) the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;

(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;

(o) the protection of public health and safety;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant;

17It was Mr. Barton’s professional opinion that the development proposal and requested minor variances are consistent with these matters of provincial interest by preserving the character of the neighborhood, including orientation, height, density and massing that maintains the character of the Subject Property in relation to the public realm and waterfront; protect the land use and built form character along the waterfront and the interior of the low-density residential neighbourhood along Harbourside Court even with the requested relief to the prevailing zoning performance standards.

Region of Halton Official Plan (“RHOP”)

18In accordance with section 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with the provincial policy statements and plans in effect at the time of its decision.

19Mr. Barton provided background evidence that through the province’s More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, S.O. 2022, c. 21, the Region of Halton became an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities. As a result, on July 1, 2024, the Region of Halton Official Plan (“RHOP”) was deemed an official plan of each of the local municipalities in the Region, including the Town of Oakville. The Subject Property is part of the “Urban Area” designation which includes objectives under subsections 72, 85 and 86.11, which provide inter alia for accommodating growth by efficient use of developed lands, housing stock, retention of local community identity, sustainability for the natural environment and preservation of certain landscapes, to promote economic prosperity, and to permit intensification of and use for residential purposes such as infill, redevelopment and conversion of existing structures, provided that the physical character of existing neighborhoods can be maintained.

20Summarizing his professional opinion, Mr Barton opined that the requested minor variances, individually and cumulatively, will maintain the general intent and purpose of RHOP as follows:

1. The proposed height will be consistent with the two-storey residential character of the existing dwellings on the adjacent properties and in the surrounding neighbourhood;
2. The proposed front and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage and floor area will establish a similar building footprint and built form massing to the existing dwelling and maintain the existing relationship to the public realm, waterfront, and adjacent properties; and
3. The proposed garage projection is in a similar location to the existing garage and the dwelling has been designed to better incorporate the garage into the overall massing of the dwelling to reduce its prominence and appearance from the public realm and adjacent properties.

Livable Oakville Plan (“LOP”)

21In support of his opinion, Mr. Barton relies on Section 2 (2.1) , (2.2) 3.3 , 6.9 (1), (2) (3), (7) (9) and (10) 11 (a), (b), (c), (e), 11.1.9 (a) and (b) (c) of the LOP that inter alia preserve, enhance and protect the distinct character, cultural heritage, sense of place through excellence in building design that includes Built Form policies through variations of massing, form, placement, orientation, scale and architectural features which may include setbacks, terracing to reduce adverse impacts and rooflines which should be created through subtle variations in roof form and height.

22Mr. Barton opines that the requested minor variances, individually and cumulatively, will maintain the general intent and purpose of the LOP in that the proposed dwelling will preserve, enhance and protect the land use and built form character along the waterfront and the interior of the low-density residential neighbourhood along Harbourside Court and preserve the character of the surrounding residential area public realm, waterfront and adjacent properties.

23Mr. Barton further stated that the Settlement Proposal is sensitive to the immediate surrounding context, because it has appropriate design, massing and height that reflect the character of the neighbourhood, including the garage projection and second floor area constructed over the garage,

24Mr. Barton attested that, considering the Region’s Plan and the Local Plan, the intent of the Official Plan is maintained.

Zoning By-law 2014-014 (“ZBL”)

25The requested minor variance to the maximum building height is for 0.79 m for a limited portion of the overall dwelling height. It is proposed that no windows or openings in the area above the maximum permitted height that would contribute to undue adverse impacts associated with privacy and overlook.

26The location and configuration of the Subject Property is 558.87 square metres and is irregular in shape with curvilinear frontage and the property is shallower than the adjacent lot to the north. The new dwelling will be of similar height, massing, density and scale to the existing dwelling on the Subject Property and dwellings within properties in the surrounding neighbourhood context.

27The central peak of the roof that is contributing to the additional building height also provides variability in the roofline to the facade of the building.

28It was the opinion of Mr. Barton that the general intent and purpose of regulating the front yard setback is to provide a consistent and harmonious setback among properties fronting onto the streetscape. The general intent and purpose of regulating the rear yard setback is to provide uniform and harmonious rear wall face for adjacent and neighboring properties and to ensure an appropriate rear yard amenity space is provided.

29It was Mr. Barton’s opinion that the prevailing performance standards are intended to ensure that proposed built form is compatible with surrounding land use and structures and preserves and protects the neighbourhood character. These performance standards are also intended to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties, including privacy, overlook and shadow.

30Therefore, Mr. Barton testified that the requested minor variances, individually and cumulatively, will maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Minor in Nature

31It is the opinion of Mr. Barton that the requested variances will not adversely impact the neighbourhood built form character in terms of building height, scale, density and massing, relative to the existing conditions and the as-of right performance standards. The increases in building height and front garage projection, in conjunction with reductions to the minimum front and rear yard setbacks, will not result in adverse privacy, overlook, or shadow impacts relative to the prevailing zoning performance standards.

32In fact, it was Mr. Barton’s opinion that the difference in scale of the proposed dwelling relative to a dwelling permitted as-of-right will be “practically indiscernible” from the public realm and adjacent properties and thereby the variances are minor in nature.

Desirable for the Development and Use of the Subject Property

33Mr. Barton’s testified that the requested minor variances will facilitate appropriate redevelopment of the Subject Property in a manner that enhances, and is compatible with, the existing and permitted residential uses in this neighbourhood. The minor variances seek to achieve built form height, scale and massing that is consistent with the existing dwelling on the Subject Property and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The relationship of the Subject Property to the public realm and neighboring properties will be effectively maintained and the proposed variances will facilitate revitalization of the existing residential use on the Subject Property and are thereby desirable for the development and use of the Subject Property.

Conditions

35The Town requests two conditions which they submit are appropriate from a Planning point of view as follows:

1. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the Tribunal decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction; and
2. The proposed demolition of the existing two-storey single detached dwelling and construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling on the Subject Property be constructed in general accordance with the Revised Site Plan and drawings dated September 8, 2025.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

36Having considered and accepted the uncontested viva voce opinion evidence provided by Mr. Barton together with the revised site plan, drawings and revised minor variances set out in paragraph 7 to this order, the Tribunal is satisfied that the revisions to the amended application are minor and represent an improvement over the original application in terms of revised plans. Therefore, pursuant to section 45 (18.1.1) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that no further notice in respect to the amended application is required.

37The Tribunal finds that the requested variances have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out in section 2 of the Act, and, if authorized, will facilitate a Settlement Proposal which represents an efficient use of existing infrastructure and the promotion of built form that is well-designed, in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and compatible with the surrounding lands.

38In consideration of section 2.1(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has reviewed the decision of the CoA and submissions which the Committee had before it, and the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal, specifically regarding the proposed height and site layout revisions, are appropriate and respond to the concerns raised by the public and the Town.

39In determining this matter, the Tribunal finds, based on all the aforementioned viva voce and joint documentary evidence provided by the parties, that the requested variances (four in total) meet the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Act, namely that the requested minor variances:

1. Individually and cumulatively, will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town’s Official Plans, both the LOP and the RHOP, which is now part of the Town’s Official Plan, by providing compatibility to its surrounding context, maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and promoting efficient land use.
2. Individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL by ensuring that proposed built form is compatible with surrounding land use and structures and preserving and protecting the neighbourhood character that will mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties, including privacy, overlook and shadow.
3. Individually and cumulatively, are desirable for the appropriate development of the site and area to achieve built form height, scale and massing that is consistent with the existing dwelling on the Subject Property and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
4. Individually and cumulatively, are minor in nature because the proposed variances have no unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding dwellings, streetscape and neighbourhood. The difference in scale of the proposed dwelling, relative to a dwelling permitted as-of-right, will be practically indiscernible from the public realm and adjacent properties.

40The Tribunal further finds that the development proposal and requested revised minor variances are consistent with the relevant matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Act;

41The Tribunal further finds that the development proposal and revised minor variances has regard to the Decision of the CoA and the information considered by it, as required under section 2.1(1) of the Act, though it was not bound by that decision.

42In consideration of the aforementioned findings and evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the MoS represents good planning and that the two suggested conditions outlined in paragraph 35 to this order, reasonably relate to the proposed settlement.

ORDER

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, having been asked to consider applications which have been amended from the original applications, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required;

44THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and the variances to By-law No. 2014-014, as set out in Schedule “A” hereto, are authorized subject to the following conditions:

1. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the Tribunal decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction; and
2. The proposed demolition of the existing two-storey single detached dwelling and construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling on the Subject Property be constructed in general accordance with the Revised Site Plan and Drawings dated September 8, 2025.

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES

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 “A” – Revised Minor Variances Table

No.	Zoning By-law Regulation	Variance Request
1	Section 5.8.7 c) Attached private garages shall not project 1.5 metres 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.	To permit an attached private garage to project 5.65 5.33 metres.
2	Table 6.3.1 (Colum RL3, Row 6) The minimum rear yard shall be 7.5 metres.	To reduce the minimum rear yard to 6.03 5.65 metres.
	Section 6.4.1 The maximum residential floor area ratio for a detached dwelling on a lot with a lot area between 557.50m2 and 649.99m2 shall be 42%.	To permit the maximum residential floor area ratio for the detached dwelling to be 53.8%. VARIANCE REMOVED.
	Table 6.4.2 The minimum lot coverage where the detached dwelling is greater than 7.0 metres in height shall be 35%.	To increase the maximum lot coverage to 41.69%. VARIANCE REMOVED.
3	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. In this instance, the minimum front yard shall be 8.73 metres.	To reduce the minimum front yard to 7.56 8.14 metres.
	Section 6.4.5 ~~Balconies and uncovered platforms are prohibited above the floor level of the first storey on any lot in the -0 Suffix Zone.~~~	To permit a balcony above the floor level of the first storey. VARIANCE REMOVED.
4	Section 6.4.6 c) The maximum height shall be 9.0 metres.	To increase the height to 9.79 metres.

SCHEDULE “B”