Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 13, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001161

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

Applicant/Appellant: Laura Brutto

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To facilitate the construction of a two-storey residential dwelling with an accessory building

Reference Number: CAV A/071/2024

Property Address: 221 Wedgewood Drive

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-001161

OLT LeadCase No: OLT-24-001161

OLT Case Name: Brutto v Oakville (Town)

Heard: January 29, 2025, by Video

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Laura Brutto (“Appellant”)	C. Conroy
Town of Oakville (“Town”)	D. Perlin

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1This matter had been scheduled for a Case Management Conference; however, the Parties have asked to convert this proceeding into a settlement conference. The Tribunal agreed to do so after reviewing the signed Minutes of Settlement and hearing the submissions of the Parties.

2The proposed development comprises of a two-storey, single-detached dwelling on 221 Wedgewood Drive (“Subject Property”). The Appellant is seeking five minor variances (collectively the “Proposed Variances”) to the Town Zoning By-Law No. 2014-014 (“ZBL”), as amended:

Maximum Garage Area Required: For lots located within the Residential Low (RL1) Zone, the maximum total floor area for a private garage shall be 56.0 square metres (“m²”). Requested: To permit a maximum total floor area of 91.5 m² for the private garage.

Maximum Floor Area Ratio Required: 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%. Requested: To permit a maximum residential floor area ratio of 32.20%.

Maximum Lot Coverage Required: The maximum lot coverage shall be 25% where the detached dwelling is greater than 7.0 metres (“m”) in height. Requested: To permit a maximum lot coverage of 27.80%.

Maximum Building Height Required: The maximum height shall be 9.0 m. Requested: To permit a maximum height of 9.15 m.

Maximum Driveway Width Required: 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. Requested: To permit a maximum width of the driveway to be 11.75 m for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m.

3The Subject Property is located within an established neighbourhood in southeast Oakville, which is comprised of one- and two-storey detached residential buildings in a wide variety of architectural styles. The immediate neighbourhood is characterized by dwellings on large lots, with mature trees and vegetation. Parking for area residences is provided in driveway spaces or in predominantly attached garage structures.

4The Oakville GO station is located a 10-minute drive from the Subject Property. Warren Drive Park and Albion Park are located in close proximity to the site. The Subject Property is within walking distance of Oakville Trafalgar High School, Maple Grove Public School, and St. Vincent Catholic Elementary School.

5The Subject Property is designated as “Urban Area” by the Region of Halton Official Plan (“ROP”) and is within the “Residential Areas” and “Low Density Residential” land use designation as shown on Schedule G – Southeast Land Use in the Oakville Official Plan (“OOP”). It is also subject to the Residential Low-Density Lands (RL1 / RL1-0 Zones) policy overlay. The Subject Property is zoned RL1-0 Residential Low Zone by the ZBL.

6The application was originally before the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on May 1, 2024. Town of Oakville Planning Services generated a Staff Report wherein they objected to the application. The application was deferred, and a number of modifications were made to the design. Another Staff Report was created that did not object to the proposed variances, subject to two conditions. The proposed conditions being:

A. The dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan, concept landscape plan, and elevation drawings dated September 17, 2024; and

B. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the Decision if a Building Permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

7However, on November 13, 2024, the COA refused the application.

EVIDENCE

8The Tribunal heard from one witness, Paul Demczak, a professional planner, who the Tribunal found to be able to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning after a review of his qualifications and experience.

9The Tribunal also made the following documents Exhibits for this Hearing:

1. Signed Minutes of Settlement
2. Affidavit of Paul Demczak
3. Photobook
4. Revised Landscape Plan
5. Staff Report for COA Hearing on November 13, 2024
6. Public Comments
7. Planning Justification Report

10Mr. Demczak opined that the proposed variances, individually and collectively, comply with the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”), as the proposed variances are:

A. consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans; B. consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law; C. desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land; and, D. minor.

11He further opined that the proposed variances have regard for matters of provincial interest in accordance with s.2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”), have proper regard for the Urban Design Guidelines, represent good land use planning, and are in the public interest. It was Mr. Demczak’s opinion that the requested variances should be approved, subject to the two conditions of approval.

12To support his assertions, Mr. Demczak took the Tribunal through his thorough analysis of the application. Below is a summary of his analysis.

13Mr. Demczak testified that the proposed development provides for a detached dwelling within the urban area, consistent with the objectives of the ROP, to accommodate growth in accordance with the Region's desire to create healthy communities and provide a range of identifiable, interconnected, and complete communities of various sizes, types, and characters as stated in ss. 72(1) and 72(3) of the ROP.

14When detailing how the proposed development is consistent with the OOP, Mr. Demczak first brought the Tribunal to s. 2.2.1 Guiding Principles and then through s. 2.2.2. Mr. Demczak testified that the OOP intends that the character of Residential Areas be maintained. He continued, Policy 3.9 of the OOP notes that Residential Areas include low, medium, and high-density residential uses as well as a range of compatible facilities, and the OOP further 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.

15He continued, while the OOP generally considers Residential Areas as being stable, s. 11.1.8 and s. 11.1.9 establish the criteria against which development in stable neighbourhoods is evaluated, in order to maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character.

16Mr. Demczak testified that the proposed development replaces an existing detached dwelling within the urban area, in a form that is compatible with the character of the existing large lot, low-rise residential context, representing appropriate, incremental change within the Residential Area designation which is consistent with the surrounding context.

17Mr. Demczak then brought the Tribunal to the Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities (“Guidelines”) which are an important tool in assessing a proposal’s consistency with the intent of the OOP he asserted. He continued by stating that the proposal has been designed to respond to the neighbourhood patterns and recurring characteristics and has appropriate regard for the applicable criteria contained within the Guidelines.

18How the five requested variances were consistent with the ZBL was then discussed by Mr. Demczak. He testified that the proposed development was designed in a way to limit/reduce any potential impact by using setbacks, varying roofline design, and landscape features serve to satisfactorily limit any impact on adjacent properties associated with the proposed height.

19A circular driveway incorporating varying driveway widths and landscaping is being used to ensure the intent of the ZBL is upheld, which is to ensure that the hard surface area of the driveway does not dominate the front yard, Mr. Demczak testified.

20Concerning the requested variance for floor area ratio and lot coverage, Mr. Demczak testified that, consistent with the intent of the ZBL, the proposed design features an entry portico, and a roofline and built form features that provide for a variety of building proportions in the architecture of the home and that these massing approaches contribute to breaking up the building mass, diminishing the perception of building scale from the street. Mr. Demczak opined that the proposed variance will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the surrounding area since the overall massing and scale of the proposed dwelling is similar to existing dwellings in the surrounding neighbourhood.

21Mr. Demczak testified that the proposed garage, a one-storey structure with three garage doors, is similar to the architecture proposed for the windows of the main dwelling. He continued by opining that the garage area is appropriate relative to the size of the proposed dwelling, which itself is appropriately scaled for the site.

22The proposed variances are minor in nature, to summarize Mr. Demczak, because they will not result in any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

23Mr. Demczak then provided evidence to the Tribunal that this proposed development is an appropriate and desirable development for this area because the scale, massing, height, and siting of the proposed development reflect an appropriate form and scale of dwelling relative to the size and configuration of the Subject Property. Also, he continued, the large size and unique layout of this lot, the proposed height and overall mass of the building, fits appropriately in the immediate context, particularly with the more contemporary residences, and has been designed and sited with regard for the immediately adjacent dwellings.

24Mr. Demczak then discussed how the proposed development has regard for matters of Provincial interest by analyzing several relevant sections including s. 2.a, 2.f, 2.i, and 2.p.

25Mr. Demczak also discussed the development proposal’s consistency with the PPS, and he opined that the proposed development is consistent because it will occur in a settlement area, in a compact form, and at a density which makes efficient use of a lot on full municipal services with access to existing transit, community services and infrastructure.

26Lastly, Mr. Demczak testified that the suggested conditions to be imposed are necessary to ensure that proposed development does not deviate from the current proposal and that the approval’s expiry date can ensure the development occurs while the current planning context remains in place.

DECISION

27The Tribunal is persuaded by the credible and uncontested evidence of Mr. Demczak and finds that, subject to the two conditions of approval, the proposed variances are consistent with the general intent and purpose of the ROP, the OOP, and applicable ZBL, are minor in nature, reflect appropriate and desirable development for the area, and represent good planning.

ORDER

28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to the Town of Oakville Zoning By-Law No. 2014-014 are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to the Order.

29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the minor variances from the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 listed in Schedule “A” to this order are authorized, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the approval expire two (2) years from the date of this order if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction; and

2. That the proposed new dwelling with accessory building (pool cabana) be constructed in general accordance with the Site Plan, concept landscape plan, and Elevation Drawings dated September 17, 2024 attached as Schedule “B” to this order.

“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 “B” TO ORDER – SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION DRAWINGS, SEPTEMBER 17, 2024