Shiv Sudan v. Town of Oakville, 2025 CanLII 134067

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 17, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000507

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

Applicant/Appellant: Shiv Sudan

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To increase the maximum dwelling depth by 6.54 metres to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

Reference Number: A/033/2025

Property Address: 2289 Chancery Lane West

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000507

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000507

OLT Case Name: Sudan v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: September 19, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Shiv Sudan	Russell Cheeseman
Town of Oakville	Dennis Perlin

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Shiv Sudan (“Appellant”) applied to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of the Town of Oakville (“Town”) for a minor variance to permit an increased maximum dwelling depth for the property municipally known as 2289 Chancery Lane West (“Subject Property”).

2The COA denied the application and the Appellant appealed the decision to the Tribunal.

3The Tribunal was advised prior to the Hearing that the Appellant and the Town had come to a settlement on the matter, that the Town would not be calling any evidence in opposition to the appeal, and that the Appellant would present evidence in support of the appeal.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4As found in s. 45(1) of the Act, four tests must be considered when evaluating a minor variance application:

a. Does the Variance meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);

b. Does the Variance meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);

c. Is the Variance minor in nature; and

d. Is the Variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

5In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, and, in general, regard for the decision of the Municipality or approval authority and the information it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1 of the Act.

6In the determination of this Appeal, it should be noted that, pursuant to s. 45 of the Act, this is a Hearing de novo and the onus is on the Appellant to establish that the four tests have been met.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

7The Subject Property is rectangular shaped and is located on Chancery Lane which is an east-west local residential road between Lake Ontario and Lake Shore Road. It contains a single detached dwelling, currently under construction, as a result of previously approved minor variances and the subsequently issued building permit.

[8] The Subject Property was severed from the property immediately to the north, 2318 Bennington Gate, through a 2003 decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”), a predecessor to this Tribunal. This resulted in in the dwelling on 2318 Bennington Gate fronting onto Stones Lane, while the Subject Property fronts in the opposite direction onto Chancery Lane West. It is noted that the neighbourhood features a unique street, block and lot pattern with a number of lots that do not have frontage onto a typical local road right-of-way, but rather, front onto Stones Lane or Chancery Lane. (Exhibit 1, p.95)

9The Subject Property is:

a. surrounded by a mix of two-storey dwellings original to the area and newly constructed;

b. identified as being within the Urban Area of the Halton Regional Official Plan (“Regional OP”);

c. designated ‘Low Density Residential - Special Policy’ in the Town of Oakville Official Plan (“Town of Oakville OP”);

d. subject to Zoning By-law 2014-014, as amended, and the regulations of the Residential Low (RL1-0) Zone apply;

BACKGROUND AND VARIANCE SOUGHT

10In a 2023 minor variance application, the Appellant sought and received approval from the COA, for variances relating to maximum total floor area for a private garage, maximum residential floor area ratio and main wall proportionality.

11During construction of the dwelling, a change was implemented to make the porch at the rear of dwelling into a covered rear porch, and to extend the basement below grade towards the rear of the property. This change raised an issue in terms of compliance with the ZBL regarding maximum dwelling depth, which necessitated the current variance.

12The current minor variance application seeks to increase the maximum dwelling depth to 26.54 metres (“m”), whereas 20.0 m is permitted.

HEARING

13In support of the proposal, the Appellant called David Riley, who is a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form, and with no objections raised by the Town, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Riley to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

14For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the requested variance satisfies the legislative requirements and warrants approval. At the Hearing, the Tribunal gave an oral disposition authorizing the minor variance.

EVIDENCE

15It was Mr. Riley’s overall opinion that the requested minor variance met the legislative requirements, and he recommended that the Tribunal approve the variance. He opined that the proposal has regard to the matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Regional OP and the Town OP and meets the four-part test for a minor variance.

16Through his written and oral evidence, Mr. Riley provided the Tribunal with a thorough review of the relevant planning policies. He opined that:

a. The proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Town OP as it conforms to the applicable policies and design guidelines including, but not limited to, those policies regarding maximum density (policy 28.2.1) and compatibility (policy 11.1.9). He highlighted that two of the defining elements of character of the properties along Stones Lane are the extensive mature vegetation and the wide separation distances between dwellings. He said that the requested variance will not impact these elements, as:

i. The mature vegetation on the Subject Property will remain and provide screening of the dwelling and the covered porch from neighbouring properties; and,

ii. There is a wide separation distance between the dwelling on the Subject Property and the adjacent dwelling to the north. Further, he stated that “the setbacks of both dwellings (including the covered porch on the Subject Property) are perceived to be very similar and complimentary to one another when viewed from Stones Lane.”

b. The intent of the ZBL regarding dwelling depth is to ensure appropriate massing and scale of development in relation to neighbouring properties. The approved dwelling on the Subject Property includes a porch in the rear yard, and the proposed variance permits the porch to be covered. He stated that:

As the porch is only one storey in height, and with the significant setbacks that exist from the porch to the neighbouring dwellings, there are no adverse impacts associated with privacy or overlook… [And that] from a streetscape perspective, as perceived from Stones Lane, the massing of the covered porch is appropriately situated in relation to neighbouring properties. (Exhibit 1, p. 84)

c. The proposal results in a desirable outcome which adequately and appropriately accommodates the rear covered porch while reinforcing the existing physical form in the neighbourhood and along the Stones Lane streetscape.

d. Any potential impacts of the proposed variance have been mitigated through appropriate siting and sizing of the covered porch; as there are no adverse impacts, the requested variance is considered minor.

17As part of the settlement, the Town requested that a condition be implemented should the Tribunal approve the variance. Mr. Riley spoke to this condition stating that is appropriate and will ensure that the Site Plan reflects what is built.

18Mr. Riley concluded that “the proposed development facilitates a positive outcome for the Subject Property in a manner that fits in to the established and evolving context of the immediate surroundings and neighbourhood.” It was his overall opinion that the minor variance application represents good planning and is in the public interest.

FINDINGS

19The Tribunal was presented with the detailed and uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Riley, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. The Tribunal accepts his evidence in support of the proposal, and finds that the variance, as requested, has regard for the matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS and meets the four tests of a minor variance.

20After consideration of Mr. Riley’s opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the increase of 6.54 m to the maximum permitted dwelling depth, as proposed, will not have undue adverse impacts on the adjacent properties, particularly in regard to privacy and overlook, mature vegetation or separation distance, and will be compatible with the neighbourhood.

21The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed variance represents good planning and is in the public interest. The Tribunal also finds that the condition requested by the Town is reasonable and will impose the condition.

22Regard has been given to the decision of the COA and the information it considered in the course of making its decision.

ORDER

23The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law 2014-014, as amended, to permit an increase in the maximum dwelling depth to 26.54 metres is authorized subject to the following condition:

That the Applicant pay a fee to the Town of $680.00 to amend the Site Plan Approval and to that end provide a “NOTE TO FILE” with written updates to the Town of the following previously approved materials that were part of the Site Plan Approval for the new dwelling dated October 20, 2023. Same shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development of the Town acting reasonably, in keeping with the changes made to the dwelling during construction and in keeping with the variance approved by the Tribunal, and agree to any required changes to the Site Plan Agreement dated October 16, 2023:

i. New/Amended Lot Servicing, Grading and Drainage Plan (C1) [Also serves as Site Plan]

ii. New Elevations – Front Elevation & South Elevation (A003.0)

iii. New Elevations – East Elevation & North Elevation (A003.1)

iv. New General Notes and Site Stats (A001.0)

v. New Roof Plan (A002.3)

vi. New Landscape Plan (L1)

vii. New Canopy Coverage Plan and Calculation Tables (TPR-601)

viii. New Canopy Cover Plan (L2)

ix. New Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan

x. New Soakaway Pit Report

xi. Site Plan Agreement changes needed to Agreement dated October 16, 2023.

“S. Bobka” S. BOBKA 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.