Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 26, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000710
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Tyler Stiller
Subject: Consent
Description: To sever one (1) lot from an existing residential parcel to facilitate the proposal for a 2-storey multi-unit residential building containing six (6) dwelling units on the severed parcel
Reference Number: B10-2025
Property Address: 106 Front Street West
Municipality/UT: Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000710
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000710
OLT Case Name: Stiller v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Tyler Stiller
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 2-storey multi-unit residential building containing six (6) dwelling units on the severed parcel
Reference Number: ZBA-13-2025
Property Address: 106 Front Street West
Municipality/UT: Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000810
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000710
OLT Case Name: Stiller v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Municipality)
Heard: February 26, 2026, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Tyler Stiller | K. Vanderveen* |
| Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc | D. Samuels A. Bondarenko |
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in the matter of appeals by Tyler Stiller, the owner of 1001172316 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”), arising from the failure of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc (“Municipality”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny a Consent application and to amend a Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) application (“Applications”), pursuant to ss. 53(19) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 106 Front Street West (“subject property / site”).
2The Appellant is seeking to permit the severance of one lot and to facilitate the construction of a two-storey multi-unit residential building.
3The Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Service as Exhibit 1.
4Prior to the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved all of their issues in dispute.
5There were no status requests.
6Given that there were no status requests and the Parties had resolved all of their issues in dispute, the Tribunal converted the CMC into a settlement hearing.
7The Municipal Planning Report (“Planning Report”) was in support of the proposed development.
8Alyssa M. Soldo, a Planner for Middlesex County (“County”) and the Municipality, a Candidate Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, provided a Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit 2), and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matters under appeal. Ms. Soldo delivered a detailed, contextual, land use planning rationale in support of the settlement in her viva voce and Affidavit testimony.
SITE CONTEXT, APPLICATION PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
9Ms. Soldo has provided that the subject property is a through lot, located south of Front Street West and west of Thomas Street. The site has approximately 22.55 metres (“m”) of frontage along Front Street West and 22.8 m of frontage along Calendar Lane, with a total lot area of 1,083.7 square metres (“m2”). It is currently occupied by an existing single detached dwelling on full municipal services and an accessory shed.
10The subject property is surrounded by a mix of low and medium density residential development.
11The site is designated ‘Strathroy Settlement Area’ on Schedule A of the County Official Plan (“COP”) and is currently zoned ‘Low Density Residential (R1) Zone’ under the Municipality’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 43-08 (”ZBL”) on Schedule B Map #12.
12In May of 2025, the Appellant submitted the Applications to facilitate the development of a two-story six-unit residential building on a severed lot from the existing residential parcel.
13The proposed retained parcel of land would have 11.55 m of frontage along Front Street West, 4 m of frontage on Calendar Lane and would be approximately 429.2 m2 in size. The existing structures on the retained lot would remain.
14The severed lot would have 11 m of frontage on Front Street West, 18.8 m of frontage along Calendar Lane, approximately 654.5 m2 in size, and would be developed with a new two-story six-unit residential building.
15As a result of the public meeting, the following concerns were identified: parking, traffic, stormwater management, compatibility with the scale and character of the neighbourhood, potential impacts to the streetscape and a number of units.
16Despite the Planning Report recommendation for the approval of the proposed development, the COA deferred the Applications to allow staff and the Appellant to work through potential revisions.
17The Appellant submitted revised materials and amended the original Consent application, where he addressed the concerns.
18Additionally, the Appellant requested to amend the ZBL for the severed parcel by creating a site-specific ‘Medium Density Residential (R2-34) Zone’ to permit the following:
A minimum lot frontage of 11 m, whereas a minimum lot frontage of 20 m is required;
A minimum lot area of 654.5 m2, whereas a lot area of 780 m2 is required;
A side yard encroachment of 0.95 m and 0.86 m, whereas a minimum setback of 1.2 m for stair encroachments is permitted;
A bay window encroachment of 0.15 m for a 3.35 m wide window, whereas a maximum encroachment of 1 m for a 3 m wide window is permitted;
A minimum landscaped open space coverage of 28.4%, whereas a minimum landscaped open space coverage of 30% is required;
A building depth projection of 12.25 m beyond the east side and 14.5 m beyond the west side, whereas projections to no more than 1 m beyond the side walls of adjacent dwellings is permitted; and
A building height of 8.43 m, whereas a maximum building height no more than 2 m greater than the average height of the existing adjacent dwellings, being 4.5 m, resulting in a maximum permitted height of 6.5 m is permitted.
19In addition, the Appellant requested to amend the ZBL for the retained parcel by creating a site-specific ‘Medium Density Residential (R2-35) Zone’ to permit a minimum lot frontage of 11.55 m, whereas a minimum lot frontage of 12 m is required.
20The Consent application was reviewed by the Municipality’s staff, including the Manager of Growth of Development, Engineering and Public Works. No concerns were identified. The sole comment noted that the proposed development will be required to proceed through the municipal site alteration process. The Planning Report recommended the approval of the Consent application; however, it recommended that no ZBA be brought forward until the appeal of the Consent application had concluded.
21Both Applications were refused by the COA and appealed to the Tribunal.
22Ms. Soldo explained that, as a result of the settlement, both Applications were updated.
23As the result of the settlement discussions, the retained parcel is proposed to have 11.55 m of frontage along Front Street West and to retain an existing single detached dwelling with an accessory shed.
24The severed lot would have 11 m of frontage along Front Street West, 22.8 m of frontage along Calendar Lane and a lot area of approximately 719.6 m2. It would be developed with a two-story six-unit residential building.
25The settlement resulted in access easement in favour of the retained parcel through Parts 3 and 4 on the survey plan, permitting shared access to a parking area from Calendar Lane and dedicating two parking spaces for the retained parcel.
26A site-specific ‘Medium Density Residential (R2-35) Zone’ is proposed for the retained lot to permit the following:
A minimum lot frontage of 11.55 m, whereas a minimum lot frontage of 12 m is required;
A maximum lot coverage of 40.65%, whereas a maximum lot coverage of 40% is permitted; and
Two parking spaces for the single detached dwelling, whereas three parking spaces are required.
27A site-specific ‘Medium Density Residential (R2-34) Zone’ is proposed for the severed lot to permit the following:
A minimum lot area of 719.6 m2, whereas a minimum lot area of 780 m2 based on six multi-unit dwellings is required;
A minimum lot frontage of 11 m, whereas a minimum lot frontage of 20 m is required;
A minimum landscaped open space of 25.6%, whereas a minimum landscaped open space of 30% is required;
A side yard encroachment of 0.96 m on the west side and 0.85 m on the east side, whereas a minimum setback of 1.2 m for a stair encroachment is required;
A minimum drive aisle width of 7.09 m, whereas a minimum drive aisle width of 7.3 m for parking spaces on a 90-degree angle is required;
A building depth projection of 12.23 m beyond the east side and 14.45 m beyond the west side, whereas the ZBL states the maximum projection shall extend no further than 1 m greater than the side walls of the adjacent dwellings;
A maximum building height of 8.43 m, whereas the ZBL states that the building is to be not more than 2 m greater than the average height of the existing adjacent dwellings (4.5 m), therefore, a total maximum height of 6.5 m is permitted;
A maximum parking coverage of 44.8%, whereas a maximum 20% parking coverage is permitted;
A maximum bay window encroachment of 0.15 m for a 3.35 m wide bay window, whereas a 1 m encroachment for a 3 m wide window is permitted; and
Eight parking spaces for the multi-unit residential building, whereas nine parking spaces are required.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
28The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Consent application satisfies the relevant criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.
29In making a decision on the ZBA, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and that it conforms to the applicable Official Plans.
30The Tribunal shall also have regard to matters of provincial interest set out at s. 2 of the Act.
31Lastly, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applications represent good planning and are in the public interest.
PLANNING RATIONALE
32Ms. Soldo stated that the subject property is located within the Settlement Area and sections 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS are applicable. Those sections encourage the efficient use of land and resources, optimizing existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities, supporting general intensification and redevelopment to achieve complete communities and to provide a range and mix of housing options.
33Ms. Soldo opined that the proposed multi-unit residential building represents a higher density form of development that supports residential intensification within an existing residential area.
34It was Ms. Soldo’s professional planning opinion that the Applications are consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS.
35Ms. Soldo proffered that the site is designated as ‘Settlement Area’ within the COP. Section 2.3 directs growth to occur in designated settlement areas and to make efficient use of existing infrastructure. Section 2.4.5 encourages new development to proceed on the basis of full municipal services.
36Given that the subject property is located within the settlement area and connected to full municipal services, which is the preferred form of servicing for new development, Ms. Soldo was of the opinion that the Applications are in conformity with the relevant policies of the COP.
37Ms. Soldo asserted that the site is designated as ‘Residential’ within the SCOP. She said that section 2.4.1 of the SCOP encourages the provision of a wide variety of housing types at greater densities within the settlement areas.
38Ms. Soldo mentioned that sections 2.4.6, 3.3.4, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.5, and 3.3.4.7 of the SCOP are applicable to the development proposal as they outline the objectives of maintaining an adequate supply of housing, accommodating future expansions, and including a range of housing types and densities.
39In her opinion, the proposed multi-unit residential building provides an opportunity for medium density development on a fully serviced lot located within the settlement area. It is compatible with the surrounding area, which includes a mix of residential dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and multi-unit dwellings along Front Street West.
40In Ms. Soldo’s professional planning opinion, the Applications are in conformity with the relevant policies of the SCOP.
41Ms. Soldo testified that the proposed development has regard to the matters of provincial interest as it would provide a middle form-based housing, which shows support to the matters, by providing additional housing within the settlement area.
42Ms. Soldo explained that the subject property is currently zoned ‘Low Density Residential (R1)’ and it permits single detached dwellings, secondary suites, Type 1 Group Homes, and home occupations.
43The requested ZBA seeks to rezone the retained lot to a site-specific ‘Medium Density Residential (R2-35) Zone’ that permits linked dwellings, multi-unit dwellings (maximum six units), secondary suites, semi-detached dwellings, single detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings (maximum six units), and Type 1 Group Homes. For a single detached dwelling, it requires a minimum lot area of 350 m2, a minimum lot frontage of 12 m, a minimum front yard depth of 5 m, a minimum side yard width of 1.2 m, a minimum rear yard depth of 8 m, a maximum lot coverage of 40%, and a minimum landscaped open space area of 30%.
44The requested ZBA seeks to rezone the severed lot to a site-specific ‘Medium Density Residential (R2-34) Zone’. For a multi-unit dwelling, it requires a minimum lot area of 130 m2 per unit and a minimum lot frontage of 20 m. In addition, a minimum front yard depth of 5 m, a minimum side yard width of 2 m, a minimum rear yard depth of 8 m, a maximum lot coverage of 40%, and a minimum landscaped open space area of 30%.
45Ms. Soldo stated that a site-specific amendments to the ZBL would recognize a reduced lot frontage, a reduced parking space requirement, and an increased lot coverage on the retained parcel. Additionally, it would permit a medium density residential development on the severed parcel, recognizing a reduced lot area, lot frontage, landscaped open space, side yard encroachment, drive aisle width, parking space requirements, as well as an increased building depth projection, bay window encroachment, height, and parking coverage.
46Ms. Soldo asserted that the rezoning from ‘Low Density Residential (R1)’ to ‘Medium Density Residential (R2)’ is appropriate to recognize the use of the proposed multiple unit dwellings.
47It is Ms. Soldo’s professional planning opinion that the requested site-specific zoning provisions maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and are appropriate for the site due to its location within the settlement area, availability of full municipal services, and surrounding land use context.
48Ms. Soldo, in her viva voce evidence, reviewed s. 51(24) of the Act and stated that the proposed development will provide additional housing and take advantage of existing municipal servicing and infrastructure.
49In conclusion, Ms. Soldo stated that it is her professional planning opinion that the proposed development satisfies the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the COP and SCOP, has regard to the matters of provincial interest, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
50This Hearing was a hearing de novo of the Applications. In making its Decision, the Tribunal relied on the Planning Report and considered the professional planning opinion evidence of Ms. Soldo.
The Tribunal adopts Ms. Soldo uncontroverted evidence and finds that the proposed development, as amended, meets all the statutory requirements.
ORDER
51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions, set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and Zoning By-law No. 43-08 is amended, as indicated in Attachment 2 to this Order.
“P. Tomilin”
P. tomilin
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2