The Corporation of the Town of Oakville v. Oakville (Town), 2026 CanLII 33046

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 09, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000994

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

Appellant: The Corporation of the Town of Oakville

Applicant: Bayview Design Group

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit increasing the maximum residential floor area and lot coverage

Reference Number: A/167/2025

Property Address: 372 Wildwood Drive

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000994

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000994

OLT Case Name: The Corporation of the Town of Oakville v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: March 13, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

The Corporation of the Town of Oakville (“Town”)

Dennis Perlin

Bayview Design Group (“Applicant”)

Harrison Loxton*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GOLD ON MARCH 13, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by the Town of the decision of the Town’s Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), regarding the property municipally described as 372 Wildwood Drive, in the Town (“Subject Property”). The Applicant submitted an application on behalf of the Owner, Yajur Anand, for two variances, to the Committee on October 25, 2025, to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling, of which the application proceed to a hearing before the Committee on December 10, 2025.

2The minor variance application (“Original Application”) included two variance requests; namely: (1) to increase the maximum residential floor area ratio from 40% to 44.48%; and (2) to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 38.06%. This Original Application was approved by the Committee. The Town appealed this decision.

3The Parties arrived at a settlement and this matter proceeded as a settlement hearing. The Tribunal received Minutes of Settlement that reflected the terms of settlement between the Parties. There were no requests for Party or Participant status filed with the Tribunal in advance of the hearing and no one attended to request same. The Tribunal accepted the Town’s Document Book as Exhibit 1.

4The Town called Mr. Colin Westerhof as a witness and offered him as an expert in land use planning. Mr. Westerhof is a Senior Planner with the Town. His responsibilities include the review and authoring of planning recommendations on Committee matters and development application matters before Planning & Development Council. Mr. Westerhof presented his Curriculum Vitae that set out his qualifications in detail. Mr. Westerhof confirmed his duties as an expert and his signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty was contained in the Town’s Document Book and accepted by the Tribunal.

BACKGROUND

5The Subject Property is located on the south side of Wildwood Drive, west of Morden Road, east of Weighton Drive and north of Walton Street. The Subject Property is designated as “Low Density Residential” in the Livable Oakville Official Plan (“LOOP”). The Subject Property is zoned RL3-0 (Low Residential) in Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 (“ZBL”). It is special zoning for lands within the Low Density Residential area.

6The Subject Property is located within an existing residential area that was established in 1956 through a registered plan of subdivision, and is predominantly comprised of the original housing stock, being one-storey detached dwellings with some newer two-storey detached dwellings starting to replace the original housing stock. The newer two-storey detached dwellings are designed in a variety of architectural styles. The Subject Property was created by a registered plan of subdivision (RP 708) in June 1956, which established a series of lots on the east side of Morden Road, and along Wildwood Drive, Walton Street, and Walbrook Drive.

7The Applicant submitted the Original Application seeking to address by-law deficiencies with the proposed new two-storey detached dwelling for residential floor area ratio and lot coverage. The Applicant submitted a variance request to enable the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling and increase the residential floor area ratio from 40% (317.32 square metres (“m²”) to 44.48% (352.86 m²). Further, the Applicant submitted an additional variance request to enable the construction of the two-storey detached dwelling with an increased lot coverage from 35% (277.66 m²) to 38.06% (301.9 m²).

8After the Committee’s decision, and the commencement of this appeal, the Town received a revised proposal (“Proposal”) from the Applicant that introduced a one-storey architectural element along the primary façade, facing the public realm, and the side wall façade, facing the neighbouring one-storey detached dwellings, with reductions to the roof and parapet height of the dwelling. During the hearing, the Tribunal found and declared that the amendment to the Original Application in terms of the Revised Site Plan and Drawings (Elevations and Floorplans), and in terms of the variance requests, to be minor requiring no further notice to those who received notice of the Original Application nor any others as per s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act.

LEGAL TEST

9An appeal to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo and the onus of establishing that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act are met is on the Applicant. Section 45(1) of the Act establishes the “four tests”. In other words, to authorize a variance, the Tribunal must be satisfied that that a variance:

(a) Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;

(b) Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;

(c) Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; and

(d) Is minor in nature.

APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL TEST

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan?

10There are two Official Plans which apply to the Subject Property, namely the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”) Official Plan (“HROP”) and the LOOP. The Subject Property is located within the “Built Boundary” and is designated “Urban Area” in the HROP. Section 51 of the HROP identifies the “Urban Area” as geographic locations within the Region where urban services are provided to accommodate concentrations of existing and future development.

11Urban services are defined in the HROP as: “Urban Services means municipal water and/or wastewater systems or components thereof which are contained within or extended from Urban Area designations or from municipalities abutting Halton Region.” Section 72 of the HROP provides the goal of the “Urban Area” and the “Regional Urban Structure”, which includes the management of growth that fosters the creation of complete communities.

12Section 72.1 of the HROP provides the objectives of the “Urban Area”, which includes:

a. To accommodate growth in accordance with the Region’s desire to improve and maintain regional unity, retain local community identity, create healthy communities, promote economic prosperity, maintain a high quality, sustainable natural environment, and preserve certain landscapes permanently.

13Section 74 of the HROP provides that, the “Urban Area” consists of areas within the Regional Urban Boundary where urban services are, or will be made, available to accommodate existing and future development.

14Upon reviewing the Proposal and hearing the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Westerhof, the Tribunal found that the Proposal conforms to the general intent and purpose of the HROP.

15According to the LOOP, the lands are identified in Schedule A1 – Urban Structure as being within the “Residential Area” of the Town’s Urban Structure. The Urban Structure sets the framework for where and how growth will be accommodated within the Town and Section 3.10 states:

Residential Areas include low, medium and high density residential uses as well as a range of compatible facilities such as schools, places of worship, recreational and commercial uses that serve the residents of the Town.

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. The character of the Residential Areas will be significantly included by their relationship to the Natural Heritage System, parks and open space areas.

16The Subject Property is designated as “Low Density Residential” in the LOOP. The LOOP contains a broad “Low Density Residential” designation that is applied to the majority of the lands and forms of low density development within the LOOP area. It applies to a wide variety of neighbourhoods, characteristics, lot sizes, and from original dwellings to modern infill and replacement houses.

17Several major studies conducted by staff and consultants in 2008 and 2009 were the basis of much of the LOOP, including a Residential Intensification Study (“Study”), which informed the “Residential” policies. The purpose of the Study was to evaluate the potential for residential intensification (i.e., the creation of additional dwelling units) on lands designated for residential uses outside the identified growth areas and to update the existing policy framework for residential lands.

18A report including the related background reports, prepared by Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., was presented to Town Council on May 5, 2009, and concluded that:

a. A key element of the study was the identification of “Stable Residential Areas”where only modest changes, in keeping with the character of each area, would be permitted.

b. New development within the stable residential communities shall be compatible in built form and scale to surrounding development in order to co-exist, and enhance existing neighbourhood.

19The “Residential” policies in the LOOP, including the hierarchy of “Residential” land use designations – Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density – were based, in part, on the “Housing and Urban Residential” policies in the Town’s previous Official Plan.

20During the preparation of the LOOP in 2008 and 2009, many of the comments received from Town Council and the public indicated a strong interest in maintaining and protecting the existing character of residential communities by limiting opportunities for redevelopment. As such, the LOOP is structured to direct growth and intensification to six defined “Growth Areas”. Policy 11 of the LOOP states that:

The majority of intensification and development within the Town is to occur within the Growth Areas as described in Part E. Intensification outside of the Growth Areas within the stable residential communities will be subject to policies that are intended to maintain and protect the existing character of those communities.

21Section 11 of the LOOP goes on to set out the following objectives for all “Residential Areas”:

i. Maintain, protect and enhance the character of existing residential areas;

ii. Encourage an appropriate mix of housing types, densities, design and tenure throughout the Town;

iii. Promote housing initiatives to facilitate revitalization, compact urban form and an increased variety of housing alternatives;

iv. Promote innovative housing types and forms to ensure accessible, affordable, adequate and appropriate housing for all socio-economic groups;

v. Encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older housing in order to maintain the stability and character of the existing stable residential communities; and,

vi. Discourage the conversion of existing rental properties to condominiums in or to other forms of ownership in order to maintain an adequate supply of rental housing.

22Section 11.2 of the LOOP contains policies regarding permitted uses and densities for the entire “Low Density Residential” designation (Tab 15). However, the strength in the residential policies for the protection of stable residential neighbourhoods is derived from Section 11.1.9. Subsections 11.1.9a) and c) are applicable to the proposed minor variance:

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.

c) Where a development represents a transition between different land use designations or housing forms, a gradation in building height shall be used to achieve a transition in height from adjacent development.

23The criteria set out in item 11.1.9a) and c) are applicable for the requested variances to permit a new two-storey detached dwelling, adjacent to lower one-storey detached dwellings.

24The following definitions of “character” and “compatible”, as provided in Part F, are also applicable to the requested variances:

29.5, Glossary (Tab 15), of Livable Oakville Official Plan inform how policy 11.1.9 is to be interpreted and applied:

“Character means the collective qualities and characteristics that distinguish

a particular area or neighbourhood.”

“Compatible means the development or redevelopment of uses which may not necessarily be the same as, or similar to, the existing development, but can coexist with the surrounding area without unacceptable adverse impact.”

25The intent of the Urban Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities serves as a basic framework to guide decision-making on the physical layout, massing, functioning and relationships of new and modified dwellings in stable residential communities.

26The Tribunal accepted Mr. Westerhof’s opinion that the intent and purpose of the “Low Density Residential” land use policies in the LOOP is to support, protect, and preserve existing stable residential neighbourhoods that are characterized by detached dwellings. The Tribunal also accepted his opinion that the intent of the LOOP is to provide direction on providing compatible redevelopment within residential neighbourhoods that do not present unacceptable adverse impacts of a dwelling on adjacent properties.

27The Subject Property abuts the side yard of the adjacent dwelling, municipally known as 366 Wildwood Drive, where the dwelling is oriented to Wildwood Drive as the front lot line. 366 Wildwood Drive is a corner lot, and the front lot line is defined as Morden Road (the shortest of the property lines abutting a public road); however, the adjacent dwelling is not currently oriented accordingly.

28The Subject Property abuts the rear yard of the property municipally known as 290 Morden Road, which provides a minimum of 7.5 metre (“m”) rear yard setback from the shared property line to the principal dwelling.

29Based on the Proposal, the inclusion of the architectural banding will create an observable separation between the first storey and second storey of the detached dwelling. This banding element intends to break up the massing and scale of the proposed dwelling and serves to provide a transitional built form element to mitigate any undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

30The Tribunal agreed with Mr. Westerhof that the Proposal, which includes the one-storey architectural banding, reduced building height of 7.28 m, and reduction in parapet height, will break up the massing and scale impacts of the proposed dwelling on adjacent properties.

31The Tribunal also agreed with Mr. Westerhof’s opinion that the Proposal will contribute to providing a transition in built forms, a gradation in building heights, and will result in a dwelling with an architectural character that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and which will maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character.

32On this basis, the Proposal and revised architectural design to permit an increase in the residential floor area ratio and lot coverage will maintain the general intent and purpose of the LOOP.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law?

33The ZBL was prepared through a very comprehensive process to implement the LOOP, including extensive public consultation involving 52 workshops, numerous open house events, as well as 45 Council Subcommittee meetings, and several draft editions. The ZBL was passed on February 25, 2014.

34The ZBL was deemed partially in-force by the Ontario Municipal Board on February 23, 2015. As of today, the RL3-0 zone is in full force and effect.

35Section 11.1.9 of the LOOP gives the particular policy direction to support the implementing zoning that was put into place through the ZBL, in terms of the evaluative criteria for development within all stable residential neighbourhoods.

36The Subject Property is zoned RL3-0 (Low Residential) in the ZBL to implement the LOOP’s designation of the Subject Property (Low Density Residential).

37The –0 Suffix Zone framework dates from a series of by-law amendments to the former Zoning By-law No. 1984-063 in the years 1988, 1989, and 1990, with the intent of providing regulations within the “R0 Zones”. They are relevant to the Subject Property as they established specific site development standards and variations from the baseline zone provisions for the RL3 zone.

38The purpose of regulating these “R0 Zones” was to better assist in maintaining the physical character of the particular neighbourhoods, including site development standards and opportunities for modifications to baseline requirements, in certain instances.

39According to Mr. Westerhof, the magnitude of the variances requested for residential floor area ratio and lot coverage in an –0 Suffix Zone are not substantially more than the typical, based on an analysis of previous variances in the neighbourhood.

40However, the Original Application did not provide built-form transitions to the adjacent one-storey dwellings that the ZBL regulations for residential floor area ration intended to apply.

41The intent of the residential floor area ratio and lot coverage zoning regulations is to prevent a dwelling from having a mass and scale that appears larger than those in the surrounding neighbourhood. Further, the intent of the zoning provisions is to mitigate any undue adverse impacts on neighbouring properties by mitigating the mass and scale of dwellings on the public realm and adjacent properties.

42It was Mr. Westerhof’s opinion that the Proposal, which introduces one-storey architectural banding across the front façade and side façade of the dwelling that abuts the lower storey dwellings will contribute to mitigating the previously identified massing and scale impacts. In addition, a building height limited to 7.28 m, with a reduction in parapet height, will further eliminate any undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties and the public realm. The Proposal will result in a dwelling that does not appear larger than those in the surrounding area. The Tribunal agreed with these opinions upon reviewing the Proposal, drawings, and photographs presented in the Town’s Document Book. The Proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and maintains the character of the neighbourhood.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure?

43The purpose of this test is to ensure that development which deviates from the regulations of a zoning by-law will result in a development that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character and will not result in adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

44The Proposal, which includes a one-storey architectural element along the front façade and sidewall façade of the dwelling adjacent to a lower storey dwelling and reduction in overall building and parapet height, will result in a dwelling that is compatible with the existing area and will not result in undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

45The Proposal for the requested residential floor area ratio and lot coverage increase is appropriate for the development or use of the land, as the undue adverse impacts on the public realm and adjacent properties have been mitigated.

Is the variance minor in nature?

46In considering whether a variance sought is minor, regard must be had to its impact. There is no evidence of any significant negative impact on adjacent properties and the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances do not represent a significant deviation from the ZBL, whether reviewed individually or together. The Town and its staff did not take issue with the magnitude of the requested variances but rather dwelling design. The Proposal, with the inclusion of the one-storey architectural element, architectural variation, and overall reduction in building and parapet height, effectively mitigate adverse impacts on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhood. The Tribunal finds that the variance is minor.

Conditions

47The Parties agreed to the Proposal, provided that the following conditions are imposed:

(a) That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the Revised Site Plan, dated February 25, 2026, and the Revised Elevation Drawings, dated February 25,2026, that can be found at Schedule B to this Decision; and

(b) That the approval expire two (2) years from the date of the issuance of this Decision, if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

48The Tribunal agrees to these conditions on the basis of Mr. Westerhof’s opinion that these conditions are necessary for the following reasons:

(a) Building in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings is required to ensure what is requested, and ultimately approved, is built on site. This provides assurance,, transparency, and consistency through the process, noting the documents are submitted with the application, provide the actual planning, neighbourhood, and stie basis for the request for the variances, and then are the plans and drawings to be reviewed through the building permit and construction process.

(b) A two (2) year timeframe allows the Owner to obtain building permit approval for what is ultimately approved within a reasonable timeframe of the application being heard by the Committee based on the requirements when it is processed, but cognizant of the ever-changing neighbourhoods, policies, and regulations which might then dictate a different result. Furthermore, if a building permit is not obtained within this timeframe, a new application would be required and subject to the neighbourhood notice circulation, public comments, applicable policies, and regulations at that time.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

49In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts the settlement between the Parties and finds that the Proposal meets the legal tests for a minor variance with respect to all variances sought.

ORDER

50THE TRIBUNAL, having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined, as provide for in s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, that no further notice is required.

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and the variances to Table 6.4.1 and Table 6.4.2 (Row 2, Column 3) under Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 set out in Variance Requests found at Schedule A to this Decision, are authorized, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The new two-storey single detached dwelling on the Subject Property shall be constructed in general accordance with the Revised Site Plan and Drawings (Elevations and Floorplans) dated February 25, 2026, in Schedule B to this Decision; and

(b) The authorization expires two (2) years from the date of the issuance of this Decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

“Jennifer Gold”

JENNIFER GOLD

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.