Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000937

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S):

March 30, 2026

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:

April 14, 2026

RE: Garabetian v. Oakville (Town)

Correction to: Correction to the spelling of counsel’s surname in the appearances section

Originally:

Corrected to:

Denise Parker

2Denise Baker

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN

REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

March 30, 2026

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000937

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Mary and Bedros Garabetian

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To permit construction of a new two-storey single-detached dwelling

Reference Number:

A-149-2025

Property Address:

1306 Lakeshore Road West

Municipality/UT:

Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000937

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000937

OLT Case Name:

Garabetian v. Oakville (Town)

Heard:

March 23, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Mary and Bedros Garabetian (“Applicants”)

Denise Parker Narmada Gunawardana

Town of Oakville

Dennis Perlin

DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Mary and Bedros Garabetian (“Applicants”) seek to construct a new two-storey single-detached dwelling (“Proposal”). To this end, they applied for five variances to the Town of Oakville’s Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 (“ZBL”) with respect to a site municipality known as 1306 Road West (“Subject Property”) in the Town of Oakville (“Town”).

The Town’s Committee of Adjustments (“CoA”) refused the requested authorization of the five minor variances despite the Town’s Staff Report indicating the Town Staff had no objection to the requested variances subject to two conditions.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

2The variances requested under the ZBL before the Tribunal are:

1. MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH

REQUIRED: The maximum width for a single driveway shall be 9.0 metres (“m ”) for a lot having a lot frontage equal to or greater than 18.0 m; WHEREAS 9.41 m is requested.

2. MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE SIZE

REQUIRED: The maximum total floor area for a private garage shall be 56.0 square metres (m²); WHEREAS 58.52 m² is requested.

3. MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK

REQUIRED: The minimum interior side yard shall be 4.2 m; WHEREAS 3.77 m is requested.

4. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK

REQUIRED: The minimum front yard on all lots shall be the yard legally existing on the effective date of this By-law less 1.0 m; in this instance, the minimum front yard shall be 6.37 m; WHEREAS 1.07 m is requested.

5. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT

REQUIRED: The maximum height shall be 9.0 m; WHEREAS 10.26 m is requested.

SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING, AND SURROUNDINGS:

3The Subject Property is designated Urban Area in the Region of Halton Official Plan and Low Density Residential in the Town of Oakville Official Plan. It is zoned RL1 (Residential Low) under the ZBL.

4The Subject Property currently consists of a two-storey residential dwelling, and a one-storey detached frame garage. It is bounded by Lakeshore Road West to the west, Lake Ontario to the east and single-detached dwellings to the north and south.

SITE PLAN

TESTS FOR MINOR VARIANCES

5Pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Act, the proposed variances must:

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

b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;

c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,

d. Be minor in nature.

6Further, the Proposal must have regard to matters of provincial interest, must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS-24”) must represent good land use planning and must be in the public interest.

HEARING

7The Tribunal qualified Paul Demczak, MCIP, RPP and Principal, Batory Management Planning Consulting to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

HALTON REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (“ROP”)

8ROP is intended to provide clear direction as to how physical development should take place in Halton to meet the current and future needs of its people. It provides land-use guidance in developing a consistent vision for Burlington, Halton Hills, Milton and Oakville.

9It is the testimony of Mr. Demczak that the Proposal conforms with the ROP. The Subject Site is designated “Urban Area” and the objectives of the Urban Area as set out in Policy 72 include:

72(1) To accommodate growth in accordance with the Region’s desire to improve and maintain regional unity, create healthy communities, promote economic prosperity, sustainable natural environment and preserve landscapes permanently; and

72(3) To provide a range of identifiable, inter-connected and complete communities of various sizes, types and character which afford maximum choices for residence, work and leisure.

LIVABLE OAKVILLE OFFICIAL PLAN (“LOOP”)

10The LOOP establishes desired land use patterns for lands within the Town. Mr. Demczak highlighted key aspects in his evidence as follows:

3.5 The Town’s waterfront is an important contributor to environmental protection and recreational opportunities;

3:10 That residential areas include low, medium, mad high density/residential uses as well as a range of compatible facilities.

3.15 Notes that scenic corridors are recognized for their scenic value and natural and cultural heritage features need to be maintained since they add value and contribute to the Town’s Character;

11 (a) to (d) objectives relate to maintaining, protect and enhance the character of the existing residential areas, promote housing initiatives to facilitate revitalization, increase variety of housing and to encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older housing in order to maintain the stability and character of the existing residential communities;

Referring to 28.2 of the OP, the Special Policy Area that applies to Low Density Residential Designation is intended to protect the unique character of the area due to the special attributes of large lots and related homes.

11Based on Mr. Demczak’s evidence the Tribunal finds the proposed variances both individually and collectively maintain the general intent and purpose of the ROP and the LOOP.

GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW

12Mr. Demczak opined that the purpose and intent of the ZBL regarding yards and setbacks is to ensure buildings are appropriately sited in context with adjacent properties promoting a consistent streetscape while accommodating access, landscaping and parking.

13The Proposal is to construct a new two-storey single-detached dwelling with an overall floor area of 596.99 m², a building height of 10.26 m and a lot coverage of 19.6 percent. The Proposal further includes a 58.52 m² private garage designed to accommodate three vehicles, including an interior car lift to the basement level. The existing driveway is located at the southwest corner of the property; however, it is proposed to be relocated to the northwest corner of the property to accommodate the proposed garage location. The Proposal has a front yard setback of 1.07 m, a southerly interior side yard setback of 3.77 m and a side flankage yard setback of 5.53 m.

14The lot is a rectangular shape, has an area of 2,163 sq. m and has 47.67 m of frontage on Lakeshore Road West. The lot depth is approximately 42 m, of which 20 m is non-developable due to the required setback from the established toe of bank from Lake Ontario, resulting in a constrained developable area.

15Mr. Demczak testified that he reviewed relevant CoA approvals for properties along Lakeshore Road West and determined that in 2005 a proposal for a 2-storey dwelling located at 3556 Lakeshore West received Committee approval for a 0-metre front yard setback whereas the ZBL requires a front yard setback of 9 m.

16He opined that perceived impacts of the massing and scale of the Proposal from the streetscape are mitigated through the grade difference between Lakeshore Rd West and the Subject Property; the west side yard setback is appropriate to facilitate access and maintenance and provides adequate separation distance to the adjacent dwelling.

The increase in height is not anticipated to result in any appreciable impact on adjacent properties by way of overlook, shadow and loss of sky view.

17Further, he opined the garage area is appropriate relative to the size of the proposed dwelling which itself is appropriately scaled for the site. The streetscape impacts of the increased garage area are mitigated through the side wall condition of the garage entrance along with appropriate facade treatment and features windows similar to the architecture proposed for the windows of the main dwelling.

18Based on Mr. Demczak evidence, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances for front yard setback, side yard setback, maximum height, maximum private garage size, and maximum driveway width maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

MINOR IN NATURE:

19Mr. Demczak testified that the primary basis for determining whether a requested variance is minor in nature is an assessment of impact. The Subject Property’s lot depth is approximately 42 m of which 20 m is non-developable due to the required 20 metre setback from the established toe of bank from Lake Ontario. This constraint, coupled with required minimum setback results in a confined developable area on the Subject Property. Permitting the requested yard variances enables the efficient use of the Subject Property to develop a modestly sized home.

20Mr. Demczak opined that the requested front yard and interior side yard setbacks are compatible with and do not negatively impact the existing condition of the adjacent dwellings and streetscape where there is significant tree coverage along the front and side lot lines mitigating the perceived impact of the dwellings’ massing from the street and adjacent properties; the requested south side yard setback is aligned with the prevailing side yard setback pattern in the surrounding area.

21Assessing the impact of the dwelling’s height from the streetscape, the Subject Property is characterized by a significant grade change resulting in a difference of almost 2 m from the crown of pavement on Lakeshore Road West to the property line at Lake Ontario – effectively sunken into the property.

22The requested height variance is limited to a 1.26 metre architectural feature on the roof. The dwellings massing is broken up by varied architectural components and is scaled appropriately when compared to dwellings in the immediate area. All the residential floor area is within the permitted height of 9 m. The requested height variance will not impact the neighbouring properties with regard to overlook, shadow, or loss of sky view.

23It was Mr. Demczak’s opinion that the proposed increase in garage size is mitigated through the design and location of the garage. The portion of the garage facing the street, features appropriate architectural treatment to appear integrated into the front façade and will be significantly screened by the mature trees along the Town right-of-way.

24Mr. Demczak confirmed that the requested driveway width is reasonable to ensure sufficient turnaround area and vehicular movement for the access to the garage, which is situated in a side wall condition.

25Based on Mr. Demczak’s evidence, the Tribunal finds the requested variances are minor in nature.

APPROPRIATE AND DESIRABLE

26As to the scale, massing, height and siting of the Proposal reflects an appropriate form and scale of dwelling relative to the size and configuration of the lot. The dwelling has been sited with regard for the setbacks, and yards of adjacent properties, as well as environmental constraints with respect to Lake Ontario.

27Further, the large lot 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. The architecture has been carefully considered, incorporating high quality materials and extensive landscaping.

28Based on Mr. Demczak’s evidence, the Tribunal finds the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

SECTION 2

29The Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as have regard to the decision of the CoA and the information considered by it as required under subsection 2.1(1) of the Act, though it is not bound by that decision.

30It was Mr. Demczak’s professional opinion that the Proposal and requested minor variances are consistent with matters of provincial interest inter alia that the Proposal ensures the protection of ecological systems, the Proposal will be fully serviced with existing municipal services, the Proposal is within an existing mature neighbourhood and will create an opportunity for redevelopment of a replacement dwelling to occur on an existing site on a lot with frontage along a local road and a short drive to destinations and services to meet daily needs.

PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024

31It is Mr. Demczak’s opinion that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS-24 as Chapter 2 concerns inter alia policy direction for building homes and sustaining strong, competitive and complete communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing and transportation options in a Settlement Area which makes efficient use of the lot on full municipal services with access to existing transit and community services.

FINDINGS

32Having considered and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Demczak, the Tribunal finds as follows:

a. That the tests established in subsection 45(12) of the Act are met;

b. The Proposal is consistent with the PPS 2024 and has regard to the matters of provincial interest; and

c. The Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS

33The appeal is allowed and the minor variances to the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 are authorized subject to the two following conditions:

1. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated October 14, 2025, and elevation drawings dated July 2, 2025, and

2. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the Tribunal’s decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES

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.