Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 20, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000964
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1001052552 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the construction of a single detached dwelling with Additional Residential Units (ARU), and a detached ARU
Reference Number: A-25109
Property Address: 899 Trafalgar Street N5Z 1G1
Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000964
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000964
OLT Case Name: 1001052552 Ontario Inc. v. The Corporation of the City of London
Heard: March 17, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| 1001052552 Ontario Inc. | Albina Manaj (Self-Represented*) |
| City of London | Aynsley Hovius (Did Not Appear) |
DECISION DELIVERED BY GORDON A. DRIEDGER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Decision and Order relate to an appeal by the 1001052552 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) brought pursuant to an application for a minor variance to the City of London (“City”) Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 for 899 Trafalgar Street (“subject property”) which was refused by the City’s Committee of Adjustment. The requested variances related to permit a front yard setback of 6.0 metres (“m”) whereas 4.0 m is the maximum permitted. The variances relate to the Appellant’s proposal to construct rental housing on the subject property.
2Notwithstanding that adequate notice of the hearing was given to all parties of record, the City, subsequent to the commencement of the hearing, advised that it did not intend to attend the hearing event. Accordingly, the hearing occurred with uncontroverted submissions being received only from the Applicant.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
3The Tribunal, in considering appeals filed pursuant to section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended must be satisfied that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and structure, and that the requested variances conform with the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan and are deemed to be minor in nature.
SUBJECT LAND AND SURROUNDING AREA
4The subject property is located on the south side of Trafalgar Street in the Hamilton Road Planning District. The immediately adjacent properties consist of residential uses. Nearby are commercial uses fronting Hamilton Road as well as institutional uses (school) located east of the subject property. The subject property is currently vacant.
5The Applicant, through an authorized agent, made an application to the City on October 7, 2025 for the requested variance. City staff provided a memo to the City’s Committee of Adjustment dated November 6, 2025 (“Staff Report”). The Staff Report recommended refusal of the minor variance. On November 6, 2025, the City’s Committee of Adjustment denied the application for minor variance.
6Notwithstanding Staff’s recommendation for refusal, the Staff Report contained two recommended conditions provided for the convenience of the City’s Committee of Adjustment should the Committee of Adjustment opt to approve the variance namely;
- The owner must provide a Lot Grading Plan designed by a professional engineer, landscape architect or drainage contractor which demonstrates the following: a) Stormwater flows are self-contained on-site and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties; b) Existing and proposed minor and major storm flow draining for the property; c) Existing stormwater infrastructure servicing neighboring properties is not inhibited by the proposed work (i.e. swales, capturing stormwater runoff from multiple parcels); d) Proposed storm water controls (i.e. infiltration galleries, drywells, etc.) and their supporting calculations/designs (additionally, photos of the installation of such measures will need to be provided once construction has been completed); e) Proposed/existing downspout locations ensuring that the outlets are directed to interior green spaces and not towards nearby (0.6 m) property lines or city owned infrastructure (i.e. sidewalks); and
- The Owner is to retain a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990 as amended) to carry out a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment and follow through on recommendations to mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and document, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found (Stages 3-4) to the satisfaction of the City. All archaeological assessment reports, both in hard copy format and digitally will be submitted to the City of London once the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism has accepted them into the Public Registry.
SUBMISSIONS
7The Tribunal heard solely from Ms. Minaj, sole owner of the Applicant 1001052552 Ontario Inc. The City did not attend or provide any additional submissions other than the Municipal Record received by the Tribunal prior to the hearing event. In her submissions, Ms. Manaj provided a brief history of the application as well as description of the subject lands and adjacent dwellings. Ms. Manaj did not agree with the position taken by planning staff as contained in the November 6, 2025 Staff Report with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990. Specifically, the Staff Report concluded:
- The Requested variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, the London Plan;
- The requested variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
- The requested variance is not minor in nature;
- The requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the subject lands.
8Ms. Manaj stated that she believed that the intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and Zoning By-law were maintained and that the variance was minor, relative to the adjacent properties and desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands.
9Ms. Manaj stated that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law were both meant to encourage the establishment of much-needed affordable rental housing and therefore the proposed development assisted in achieving the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning by-law. She also confirmed that, other than the requested variance, the proposal fully complied with all aspects of the zoning by-law related to lot coverage, side and rear yard setbacks, and amenity space. The proposal also achieved the required minimum for the provision of on-site parking.
10Ms. Manaj referenced the Proposed Site Plan dated September 26, 2025 by AM Engineering depicting both the proposed structure as well as the adjacent dwellings. She submitted that the main dwelling structure of 901 Trafalgar Street, immediately east of the subject property was quite similar to the setback of the proposed dwelling, although a dimensioned setback to the main structure of 901 Trafalgar Street was not provided on the Proposed Site Plan. With respect to 897 Trafalgar Street, the property immediately to the west of the subject property, Ms. Manaj submitted that the setback was very small, and perhaps as low as 0 m, although also not dimensioned on the Proposed Site Plan.
11Ms. Manaj referenced email correspondence with the City of London zoning plans examiner dated November 28, 2025. Ms. Menaj shared the email with the Tribunal. The email references the Zoning By-law Z.-1 Section 4.19(10)(a) related to the minimum parking requirement to be one space. It was Ms. Menaj’s understanding that each parking space requires a minimum dimension of 6.0 m which in her view, necessitated the driveway and setback dimension of 6.0 m.
12Ms. Manaj confirmed that the front yard will consist of landscaped areas other than the driveway and stairs to the dwelling unit.
13Finally, Ms. Manaj acknowledged the Conditions requested by the City and indicated that work was already underway to satisfy the requested conditions.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
14The Tribunal supports the uncontroverted submissions provided by Ms. Menaj that the proposed variances meet the intent and purpose of the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are appropriate for the development of the land and are minor in nature.
15Planning staff in their written report acknowledge that the proposed single detached dwelling and Additional Residential Unit (ARU) are contemplated in accordance with Table 10-Range of Permitted Uses in the Neighborhood Place Type.
16The neighborhood in which the subject lands are located consists of a range of uses, building types and setbacks including commercial uses and parking lots for through lots fronting both Hamilton Road and Trafalgar Street, single family dwellings of varied setbacks and an institutional use and associated parking lot (school) located less than 100 m east of the subject property.
17Given the variability of the neighborhood context, the Tribunal finds that the subject proposal is consistent with ensuring that it articulates the neighborhood’s character and fits within its variable and unique context.
18The City’s position noted in the November 6, 2025 Staff Report to the London Committee of Adjustment stated, “Front yard setback regulations aim to preserve the visual character of residential neighborhoods” and further that “the proposed development does not maintain the prevailing street wall and the increased setback is expected to negatively impact the character of the existing streetscape”. The suggestion that preservation of visual character of residential neighborhoods requires not only general conformity but near uniformity, is not supported by the Tribunal in this context. In addition to neighboring dwellings, including 901 Trafalgar Street, there is significant existing variability in front yard setbacks on Trafalgar Street and within the neighborhood. This variability has evolved over decades and does not, in the Tribunal’s view, detract from the established streetscape or negatively impact the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tribunal concludes therefore that the prevailing street wall is not materially affected by the proposed 2.0 m variance which is minor, in context of the subject property and immediately adjacent properties.
19Additionally, the proposed landscape area of the front yard is generally consistent with adjacent properties which, in some cases have very little landscape areas, and in most cases also have paved surfaces/driveways forming an integral part of the frontage and streetscape.
20Finally, while there was only one written submission made to the City’s Committee of Adjustment from an immediately adjacent neighbor, as a result of public notice, it was fully supportive of the Applicant’s requested variance and development proposal.
21Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that, pursuant to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 the requested variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan/London Plan, maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the subject lands.
ORDER
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the minor variance to Zoning By-law Z.-1 as described below is authorized subject to the Appellant’s satisfaction of Conditions 1 and 2 below;
To permit a maximum front yard setback of 6.0 m whereas the 4.0 m is the maximum permitted;
CONDITIONS
- The Appellant shall provide to the City’s engineering department a lot grading plan designed by a professional engineer, landscape architect or drainage contractor which demonstrates the following: a) Stormwater flows are self-contained on-site and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties; b) Existing and proposed minor and major storm flow draining for the property; c) Existing stormwater infrastructure servicing neighboring properties is not inhibited by the proposed work (i.e. swales, capturing stormwater runoff from multiple parcels); d) Proposed storm water controls (i.e. infiltration galleries, drywells, etc.) and their supporting calculations/designs (additionally, photos of the installation of such measures will need to be provided once construction has been completed); e) Proposed/existing downspout locations ensuring that the outlets are directed to interior green spaces and not towards nearby (0.6 m) property lines or city owned infrastructure (i.e. sidewalks); and
- The Appellant shall retain a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990 as amended) to carry out a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment and follow through on recommendations to mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and document, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found (Stages 3-4) to the satisfaction of the City. All archaeological assessment reports, both in hard copy format and digitally will be submitted to the City once the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism has accepted them into the Public Registry.
“Gordon A. Driedger”
GORDON A. DRIEDGER 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.