Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000252
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: Adam McNamara
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To facilitate construction of two-storey detached dwelling
Reference Number: EA-001433
Property Address: 283 Balsam Drive L6J 3X7
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000252
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000252
OLT Case Name: McNamara v. Oakville (Town)
Heard: June 4, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Adam McNamara
Denise Baker
Narmada Gunawardana
Town of Oakville
Dennis Perlin
Kuldeep Billan
Ian Andres
DECISION DELIVERED BY mathieu e. quesnel AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Adam McNamara (“Applicant/Appellant”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the Town of Oakville (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in which an Application for Minor Variance (“Application”) was refused. The Application affects the land known as 283 Balsam Drive (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellant proposes to build a single-detached two-storey dwelling of 8.59 metres (“m”) in height with a total floor area of approximately 396.1 square metres (“sq m”) and a floor area ratio of 16.3% (“Proposal”). To facilitate the Proposal, the Applicant/Appellant filed an Application for Minor Variance to permit five variances from Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 as amended (“ZBL”), listed below:
a. to permit Private Garage Floor Area of 59.2 sq m, whereas 56 sq m is permitted;
b. to permit a maximum projection of an attached private garage of 13.44 m, whereas 1.5 m is permitted;
c. to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 34.67 m, whereas 20 m is permitted;
d. to permit a maximum front yard setback of 19.53 m, whereas 16 m is permitted; and,
e. to permit the main wall proportionality of 0%, whereas 50% is permitted.
3The Application was considered by the COA at its meeting on February 19, 2025. The Staff Report (Exhibit 2, Tab 10) recommended approval. The COA refused the Application.
4Notice of Hearing was sent by email by the Tribunal on April 14, 2025 (Exhibit 1).
5Mr. Perlin, Counsel for the Town, attended and advised that the Town is not taking a position with respect to the Appeals. Mr. Perlin explained that his attendance at the Hearing is to request that, should the Tribunal allow the Appeal and approve the Application, the Tribunal will include in its Order the two conditions provided by the Town, prior to this hearing.
6For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal allows the Appeal and authorizes the minor variance (“MV”) subject to the conditions provided by the Town.
REQUEST FOR STATUS
7Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal received a request for Party Status from Kuldeep Billan, who is living at 291 Balsam Drive, a property owned by his mother, which is located to the south of and directly abuts the Subject Property. The Tribunal reviewed the request and granted Kuldeep Billan Party Status as per Rules 8.1 and 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, at the beginning of the hearing.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
8When making its Decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act. Section 2.1(1) of the Act requires that the Tribunal shall have regard to any decision made by an approval authority that relates to the same planning matter and any information and material that the approval authority considered in making its Decision. The Tribunal interprets the approval authority to be the COA in this matter. Section 3(5) of the Act requires that the decision of the Tribunal shall be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).
9When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act to determine:
a. does the Application request maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan?
b. does the Application request maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law?
c. is the requested variance minor in nature?
d. is the Application request desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
10In consideration of the above statutory requirements, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.
SUBMISSIONS
11Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents and submitted said documents are now marked as exhibits to the hearing:
a. Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Service
b. Exhibit 2 – Document Book submitted by Adam McNamara
c. Exhibit 3 – Witness Statement of Tyler Peck
d. Exhibit 4a – Witness Statement of Franco Romano
e. Exhibit 4b – Curriculum Vitae of Franco Romano
f. Exhibit 5 – Visual Evidence of Franco Romano
g. Exhibit 6 – Town Conditions
h. Exhibit 7 – Minor Variance Application
WITNESSES
12The Town indicated that they would not be calling witnesses. The Applicant/Appellant and Counsel for Kuldeep Billan indicated that they each have witnesses in the areas of urban design and land use planning.
13Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant asked the Tribunal to qualify Tyler Peck as an expert in land use planning. The Tribunal reviewed Mr. Peck’s credentials, professional experience, Acknowledgement of Expert Duties. Mr. Peck is a Senior Associate at Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited, a firm specializing in land use planning and urban design related to development. He is a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planning and of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He has in the past been qualified as an expert by the Tribunal.
14The Tribunal qualified Mr. Peck as an expert witness in land use planning.
15Counsel of Kuldeep Billan asked the Tribunal to qualify Franco Romano as an expert in land use planning. He is a Registered Professional Planner, a member of the Canadian Institute of Planning and a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He has also been qualified in the past as an expert by the Tribunal.
16The Tribunal qualified Mr. Romano as an expert witness in land use planning.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
17Messrs. Peck and Romano provided an overview of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Balsam Drive between MacDonald Road and Moorecroft Avenue, in the Town. The Subject Property is vacant and has a frontage of 29.26 m, a depth of approximately 90 m and a lot area of 2,582.1 sq m.
18The neighbourhood is comprised predominantly of detached dwellings of one or two storeys, and the lots on the east side of Balsam are mainly lots with greater depths.
19Mr. Peck indicates that the buildings on Balsam Drive are generally oriented east-west with main entrances facing onto Balsam Drive accessed through private driveways.
20Mr. Peck provided an overview of the overall design of the proposal on the Subject Property. The proposed development is generally organized from southwest-to-northeast with a curved driveway entrance providing access to the main entrance of the two-storey dwelling and an attached single-storey garage. The dwelling is massed in a T-shaped form, which tapers in width towards the rear of the property to increase side yard setbacks and to frame the outdoor landscape and recreation areas for the owners’ use.
21Mr. Peck testified that the new detached dwelling is located within the existing Town settlement area in a residential community, which is well-served by the surrounding mix of infrastructure and community services. He testifies that the proposed dwelling is consistent with its surrounding context with respect to setbacks, massing, landscaping and site configuration, which mitigate the impacts on the adjacent properties.
22Mr. Peck opined that the proposed development satisfies the four tests and represents good planning.
23Mr. Romano testified that the proposed dwelling, with a front-facing garage that dominates the front of the dwelling and the main walls and living spaces of the dwelling placed well back. results in a dwelling set deeper into the Subject Property and increases building depth in a significant manner.
24Mr. Romano opined that the Proposal does not satisfy all four tests for a minor variance and does not represent good planning.
Minor Variance Request
25Mr. Peck reviewed the requested Application for minor variance and indicated that the five variances, as noted above in paragraph 2, being sought, are required to facilitate the proposal.
26There was a consensus among the expert witnesses that this Proposal is consistent with the PPS and generally satisfies areas of provincial interest provided in s. 2 of the Act.
27The issue, in this case, is whether the proposed variances meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act.
THE FOUR TESTS
1. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
Halton Region Official Plan (“HROP”)
28Both Messrs. Peck and Romano agrees that allowing the appeal will meet the general intent and purpose of the HROP.
Livable Oakville Plan (“Official Plan”)
29Mr. Peck testified that the Subject Property is designated as Low Density Residential and is located within the Residential Low Density Lands (RL1 / RL1-0 Zones) Special Policy Area overlay. Section 3, Urban Structure of the Official Plan, provides general vision and direction for development and growth within the Town. Section 3.9 anticipates 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”.
30Section 11 of the Official Plan provides policy and direction for development in the Low Density Residential Areas. Section 11.2.1 permits detached dwellings and s. 28.2.1 provides key policy direction for the Residential Low Density Areas and states that:
The Special Policy Area in Southeast, Central and Southwest Oakville that applies to the Low Density Residential designation is intended to protect the unique character of this area within the Town. Due to the special attributes of the large lots and related homes in this Special Policy Area, intensification shall be limited to development which maintains the integrity of the large lots. Densities in the Special Policy Area shall not exceed 10 units per site hectare notwithstanding the Low Density Residential designation.
31Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development maintains the by-law-compliant lot size and provides for a detached dwelling consistent with the surrounding character of detached dwellings.
32Section 11.1.9 of the Official Plan is also being reviewed by Mr. Peck as the proposed development includes the construction of a new dwelling on a vacant lot. Mr. Peck reviewed subsections 11.1.9 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j k and l. He specifically reviewed in more depth subsections 11.1.9 a, b and h:
Subsection 11.1.9:
11.1.9 Development within all stable residential communities shall be evaluated using the following criteria to maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character:
a) The built form of development, including scale, height, massing, architectural character and materials, is to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
b) Development should be compatible with the setbacks, orientation and separation distances within the surrounding neighbourhood
h) Impacts on the adjacent properties shall be minimized in relation to grading, drainage, location of service areas, access and circulation, privacy, and microclimatic conditions such as shadowing.
33Mr. Peck testifies that a two-storey dwelling with the proposed height of 8.59 m is in compliance with the by-law and is consistent and compatible with the surrounding context of the neighborhood. The proposed front yard setback of 19.53 m seeks to align the main walls of the dwelling within the front setbacks of the abutting dwellings at 275 and 291 Balsam Drive to ensure a compatible fit. He also testified that the enhanced side-yard setbacks serve to mitigate visual and privacy impacts of the proposed 34.67 m dwelling depth. He opines that the proposed dwelling depth is also consistent with the surrounding character of the dwelling depths.
34As to the impacts on the adjacent properties, Mr. Peck indicates that the proposed development provides side-yard setbacks, which exceed the minimum standards and that landscaping is proposed within the side-yards to screen the proposed dwelling and to reduce the potential for adverse privacy and overlook impacts with the abutting residences.
35Mr. Romano also testifies that the general intent and purpose of the official plan is to ensure that development maintains, protects and enhances the existing character. Mr. Romano opines that the proposed increase in the maximum front-yard is too deep into the Subject Property. Mr. Romano testifies that the front-facing and projecting garage, and the main wall being set so deep into the property does not reflect the character of the surroundings. In cross-examination, Mr. Romano agreed that both immediate neighboring dwellings were built further back than the present front-yard setback requirement and that if the front-yard setback were to be respected in the construction of the new proposed dwelling, it would be the closest dwelling to the street.
36Mr. Romano testifies that the proposed development would not maintain the existing character of the neighborhood. He opines that the Proposal does not meet the general intent and purpose of the official plan.
37Both Messrs. Peck and Romano also reviewed the Urban Design Policies as per s. 6.0 of the Official Plan.
38In its review of this Section 6.0 of the Official Plan, Mr. Peck testifies that the design of the proposed development is consistent with the existing low-rise residential character and identity of the neighbourhood surrounding the Subject Property. The expanded setbacks provide opportunities for additional landscaping and fencing, which will further assist in supporting the privacy of the proposed dwelling and the abutting neighbour. He further testifies that the dwelling depth has also been carefully massed to mitigate the potential for impacts to the surrounding properties. The front-facing garage is a single-storey garage with a green-roof feature and the doors have been oriented away from the street to mitigate visual impacts and to retain the focus on the main dwelling area from the street.
39At the rear of the property, there is a proposed outdoor canopy structure of 4 m depth that is included in the total dwelling depth calculation. Mr. Peck testifies that the total depth of the proposed development is 34.67 m, which is also less than the depth of the permitted as-of-right dwelling and accessory building. In cross-examination, Mr. Peck admitted that, if the Application were to be approved, it would not remove the right of the Applicant to build an additional accessory building.
40Mr. Peck testifies that the design of the building incorporates many features to increase privacy and limit views to and from the street of the front main façade and to limit the potential for direct overlook and views to and from the neighbouring properties.
41As part of the design, Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development also limits the impacts to existing trees and provides opportunities for a mix of landscaping features within generously sized yards. The conceptual landscape provided illustrates how the inclusion of the terraced planting areas along the front of the garage serve to occlude its visual height and presence of the garage.
42Both witnesses, Messrs. Romano and Peck, also review s. 3 of the Town of Oakville Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities (“Design Guidelines”), and they both offer visual evidence to that effect. Section 3 relates to the compatibility, neighborhood character including neighbouring context, patterns and recurring characteristics, scale, and transitions between new and existing dwellings and dwelling size.
43Mr. Romano testifies that the proposed development does not have appropriate regard for the Design Guidelines since it does not preserve the scale and character of the site and its immediate context.
44Mr. Romano testifies that the garage is too dominant, and its projection is not compatible with the surroundings. He also testifies that, because of the front-facing garage, the main wall would be set back at approximately 33 m, which is more than double the maximum permitted setback. The main wall is normally supposed to have a proportionality of 50%, and for the proposed development this proportionality is 0% because the proposed development is located at more than the maximum front-yard setback.
45Mr. Romano opines that the proposed development does not have appropriate regard for many of the Design Guidelines and should not be permitted.
46On the Design Guidelines, Mr. Peck also testifies and gives his opinion. Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development is compatible and responds to the pattern of lot width, lot depth and lot area, and preserves the existing neighbourhood lotting pattern. The proposed development will not have the appearance of being substantially larger than the existing dwellings in the immediate vicinity; in fact, it will be relatively modest in scale when compared to the existing and approved context.
47Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development includes a front-yard setback, specifically designed to fit the existing pattern of dwelling placement on the east side of Balsam Drive, in accordance to s. 3.2.3 of the Design Guidelines.
48Mr. Peck opines that the proposed attached garage has been incorporated into the design of the dwelling in a manner that is consistent with other projecting garages in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The garage has been designed to mitigate the visual impacts.
49Mr. Peck opines that the proposed development has adequate regard for the Design Guidelines as it respects the design elements such as compatibility with adjacent residences in the neighborhood.
2. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL?
50Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development has been carefully designed in consultation with Town staff (“Staff”) to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.
Front Yard Setback
51The proposed maximum front-yard setback is 19.53 m, whereas 16 m is permitted.
52On this point, Mr. Romano testifies that the intent and purpose of the front-yard provision is to ensure that the dwelling is located at the front portion of the Subject Property.
53Mr. Romano opines that the proposed increase in the maximum front yard will result in a dwelling that is built too deeply into the Subject Property.
54Mr. Romano also testifies that the proposed dwelling places the entire garage behind the maximum front-yard setback and that the garage is entirely in front of the main walls.
55Mr. Romano opines that the proposal does not maintain an appropriate size relationship and that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL provision is not maintained.
56Mr. Peck testifies and opines that the proposed front-yard setback of 19.53 m is compatible and does align with the surrounding lot and building patterns of increased front-yard setbacks along the east side of Balsam Drive.
57Mr. Peck opines that the main wall proportionality variance is technical in nature and is informed by the proposed maximum front-yard building setback variance, which is established to provide for consistent setback along the street and to support landscaping and site design features. He testifies that the dwelling remains visible from the street and that the proposed built form and massing faces the street is an appropriate design for the Subject Property and its neighbourhood.
58Mr. Peck also testifies that the front yard setback and main wall proportionality was accepted by the Town staff, and that the Town staff recognized being satisfied with the proposed variances, which will allow for a proposed dwelling that contributes to the architectural variation of the neighbourhood, which remains situated in alignment with the adjacent dwellings.
59On this point, Mr. Romano testifies that the general intent and purpose of the main wall proportionality zoning standard is to ensure that the living areas of the dwelling are oriented towards the front of the Subject Property, not built too deeply into the lot, and maintain an appropriate front wall alignment along the streetscape.
60He further testifies that, with the proposed garage in front of the main walls, this pushes the living areas of the dwelling much deeper into the Subject Property and results in a dwelling that is not appropriately oriented towards the front of the Subject Property.
61Mr. Romano opines that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL provision is not maintained.
Dwelling Depth
62The maximum permitted depth is 20 m, and the Applicant has proposed to increase it to 34.67 m.
63Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed depth of 34.67 m including a rear canopy and projecting front garage is consistent with the existing depth of the adjacent properties. To mitigate the potential impacts, the Proposed Development’s window placement has been carefully considered to limit the ground floor and second floor windows looking north and south to the side lot lines.
64Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development provides comparable depth with the neighbouring properties.
65Mr. Peck also testifies that, even with a greater depth than permitted, there is still a generous rear yard remaining.
66Mr. Romano testifies that the depth of the proposed development is excessive in relationship to adjacent development and that the lot size does not matter when the depth of a building is established.
67Mr. Romano opines that the proposal does not maintain an appropriately sized relationship and that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL is not maintained.
Garage Area
68Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed garage area of 59.2 sq m provides for a modest and functional two-car garage. He indicates that the proposed garage area has been carefully integrated into the design of the dwelling and landscape strategy. The garage doors are oriented away from the street and are connected to a driveway and forecourt similar to many other dwellings in the area.
69Mr. Romano opines that the proposed garage does not minimize the size of the garage and that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL is not maintained.
Garage Projection
70The requested variance is to permit the proposed garage projection of 13.44 m.
71Mr. Peck testifies that the garage projection is appropriate for the Subject Property and impacts are mitigated through the common cladding of the single-level garage and primary living space. The proposed garage doors are oriented away from the street, providing a courtyard area similar to many other dwellings in the area, and landscaping treatments along the front wall will substantially reduce its visibility from the street and mitigate the potential adverse visual impacts.
72Mr. Peck also testifies that the proposed garage design and projection is also consistent with the surrounding context of existing projecting garages within the neighbourhood surrounding the Subject Property and within the context of garage projections permitted within the Town.
73Mr. Peck added that the Town Staff concluded that the proposed garage projection is appropriate for the Subject Property based on the rationale that the garage projection is to ensure that the garage is not a visually dominant feature of the dwelling.
74Mr. Romano testifies that the general intent and purpose is to ensure that the main wall of the dwelling should be prominent, front-oriented position with the garage maintaining a subordinate architectural feature of the dwelling.
75Mr. Romano testifies that the garage is the only architectural feature of the dwelling that is located and oriented towards the front of the Subject Property.
76Mr. Romano opines that the proposed garage does not maintain a subordinate, subservient position at the front of the dwelling and that this proposal does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
3. Is the requested variance minor in nature?
77The test of whether a variance is minor is one of impact and not simply a mathematical calculation.
78Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development is minor in nature and will not result in unacceptable impacts on the surrounding areas. The Subject Property will continue to be used for residential purposes, and there will be no conflict between these land uses as a result of granting the variances proposed.
79Mr. Peck opines that the requested variances have been carefully considered to provide compatible design, which upholds the intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL.
80Mr. Peck further opines that the requested relief, individually and collectively, is minor in nature as the proposed variances do not result in adverse land use impacts to any abutting or nearby residential property, nor will the relief cause instability within the broader surrounding neighbourhood.
81Mr. Romano opines that the order of magnitude of the proposed zoning relief is not represented in the area in any meaningful manner. He also opines that, if approved, the variances will have unacceptable adverse impacts on his client’s property and will erode the existing planning framework in an unacceptable adverse manner.
4. Is the Application request desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
82The final test of a minor variance is whether the variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the subject lands.
83For that last part of the test, Mr. Peck testifies that the proposed development is desirable as appropriate development of the land. He indicates that the development provides for a compatible scale and form of development that reinforces local character.
84Mr. Romano opines that the proposed development does not implement the existing planning framework appropriately. He testifies that the existing planning framework intends that detached dwellings have living spaces that dominate the front of the dwelling, with garages forming secondary, subordinate features which are either flush with, recessed, or project negligibly from the front wall.
85Mr. Romano opines that the proposal is not in the public interest and that it is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
86The Tribunal considered and accepted the evidence and submissions of Mr. Peck, in support of the Application, and agrees that the variances will have a minimal impact on the surrounding.
87In consideration of s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the Application has had appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest and is consistent with the PPS.
88The Tribunal notes that Counsel for the Town, Dennis Perlin, attended the Hearing and took no position in respect to the appeal but did request at the outset of the hearing and, in his closing submission, that the Tribunal attach the conditions provided by the Town if the Appeal is approved. The Staff Report provided to the COA outlined their support of the Application subject to certain standard requirements for new development.
89The Tribunal finds the Town staff’ explanation of the intent of the ZBL and their rationale for supporting each variance compelling. Overall, Town staff indicated that the minor variances will not negatively impact the neighbourhood or adjacent properties, meet the intent of the ZBL and are minor in nature. Their analysis generally aligned with the evidence provided by the Applicant/Appellant.
90In consideration of the four tests of a minor variance, the Tribunal finds that the planning and architectural approach of the Applicant/Appellant, in consultation with Town Staff, significant in supporting this Application. The proposed development supports the construction of a dwelling that is compatible with the surrounding context and is of an appropriate configuration, will not create adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby properties, and respects the Design Guidelines.
91The Tribunal finds that the request maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL as the relief sought with respect to front yard setback, dwelling depth, garage area, garage projection and wall proportionality are reasonable given the varied dwelling designs, lot size, and appropriate configuration in comparison with the surroundings.
92The Tribunal finds that the request is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject land and is compatible with the neighbourhood. Compatibility is important in the Tribunal’s consideration and analysis of the Official Plan policy. The first point of departure is to determine exactly what compatibility indeed is, as the Tribunal hears evidence that new development must be compatible with the existing development. The Tribunal looks to Motisi v. Bernardi, 1987 CarswellOnt 3719, (1987) O.M.B.D. No. 2, 20 O.M.B.R. 129, which was also cited by the OLT / in an OLT Decision for some direction.
Being compatible with is not the same thing as being the same as. Being compatible with is not even the same thing as being similar to. Being similar to implies having a resemblance to another thing; they are like one another, but not completely identical. Being Compatible with implies nothing more than being capable of existing together in harmony.
93The Tribunal is satisfied that the request is minor in nature and will create no adverse impacts. The Tribunal is not convinced of the issues of privacy, which will result from this proposal, given the design of the proposed dwelling with respect to window placement. The Tribunal has not heard any evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts.
94The Tribunal is satisfied that the issues raised by the Participants were appropriately addressed by Mr. Peck. In addition, the Tribunal is satisfied that standard municipal processes that occur during development will further address any issues related to the development.
95The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development represents good planning, is in the public interest and it should be approved subject to the expectations and conditions in the Staff Report and presented by Town counsel during the hearing.
ORDER
96THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2014-014 are authorized subject to the following conditions:
that the dwelling be built in general accordance with the submitted site plan, and elevation drawings dated April 10,2025; and,
that the approval will expire in two (2) years from the date of this Decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.
“Mathieu E. Quesnel”
MATHIEU E. QUESNEL
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.