Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 27, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000149

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

Applicant/Appellant: Lucky Chalk Ltd.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling

Reference Number: A/134/2025

Property Address: 149 Balsam Drive

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No: OLT-26-000149

OLT Case Name: Lucky Chalk Ltd. v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: April 16 and 17, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Lucky Chalk Ltd. ("Appellant")	Siavash Karimi*
Town of Oakville ("Town")	Dennis Perlin

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON APRIL 16, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended ("Act") by the Appellant with respect to the Town’s Committee of Adjustment’s ("CoA") denial of the application for minor variances ("Application") to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling on the lands municipally known as 149 Balsam Drive ("Subject Lands").

2The Parties advised the Tribunal in writing that a settlement had been reached between the Applicant and the Town.

CONTEXT

3The Subject Lands have a lot area of approximately 1,751.3 square metres ("m²") with a frontage of 22.2 metres ("m") along Balsam Drive. The Subject Lands are currently occupied by a two-storey single-detached dwelling with a detached garage in the rear yard.

4The Subject Lands are generally located within a residential neighbourhood consisting of new and original two-storey dwellings.

5The Subject Lands are included in the "Urban Area" designated under Map 1 of the Region of Halton Official Plan ("Region OP").

6The Subject Lands are designated "Low Density Residential" with the Special Policy Overlay on Schedule G (South East Land Use) of the Liveable Oakville Plan ("Town OP"). The Town’s Zoning By-law 2014-014("Town ZBL") zones the Subject Lands "Residential Low (RL1-0)".

7The original Application was considered by the CoA in October of 2025 and then was revised before proceeding to the CoA in January 2026. In the revised Application, the Appellant sought the below relief of the Town ZBL:

1. Reduce the separation distance between two driveway entrances to 9.61 m from 15 m;
2. Increase the maximum floor area for the private garage to 59.25 m² from 56.0 m²;
3. Reduce the northerly interior side yard to 1.82 m from 4.2 m;
4. Reduce the southerly interior side yard to 2.49 m from 4.2 m;
5. Increase the maximum dwelling depth to 26.1 m from 20 m; and,
6. Increase the maximum height to 9.5 m from 9.0 m.

8The Town staff recommended the denial of Variance #1 and the approval of Variances #2 to #6 subject to the conditions below:

1. The dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development; and,
2. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the decision if a Building Permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

CoA disagreed with the analysis of the revised Application and ultimately denied the Application as it failed to meet the four tests under the Act.

9The Parties jointly required the Tribunal to consider the Application in the settlement proposal ("Final Application") to permit the following relief from the Town ZBL subject to conditions of approval:

Variances:

1. To permit maximum garage floor area of 59.25 m² from 56 m²;
2. To permit a northerly interior side yard setback of 2.4 m from 4.2 m;
3. To permit a southerly interior side yard setback of 2.49 m from 4.2 m;
4. To permit maximum dwelling depth of 26.1 m from 20 m; and,
5. To permit maximum height of 9.5m from 9.0 m.

Conditions of approval:

1. That the demolition of the existing two-storey detached dwelling and the new dwelling with an attached garage be constructed in general accordance with the revised site plan and drawings (elevations and floor plans) dated March 12, 2026, in Schedule C to the Minutes of Settlement; and,
2. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the decision if a Building Permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST AND CONCERNS

10The Tribunal received the requests for Participant Status and granted the status to the individuals in the below list with the consent from the Parties:

• Rory Meleniclis
• Thomas Foucault

11The Participants expressed their concerns about the Application summarized as follows:

• Shadow, overlook, massing; and,
• Inconsistent with the open and spacious characters of the neighbourhood;

EXHIBITS

12Below materials were marked as exhibits during the Hearing:

• Executed Minutes of Settlement marked as "Exhibit 1";
• Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form marked as "Exhibit 2";
• CV of Michael Barton marked as "Exhibit 3";
• Expert Witness Statement of Michael Barton marked as "Exhibit 4";
• Visual evidence marked as "Exhibit 5";
• Document Book of the Appellant marked as "Exhibit 6";
• Rory Meleniclis - request for Participant Status and Statement marked as "Exhibit 7a"; and,
• Thomas Foucault - request for Participant Status and marked as "Exhibit 7b".

NOTICE OF HEARING

13There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

14The Parties jointly requested the Tribunal to consider the changes to the Application to be minor and therefore, no further notice is required pursuant to subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Act. The Tribunal reviewed the request and found the changes to the Application to be minor. Subsequently, the Tribunal ruled no further notice was required based on the subsection referred to in this paragraph.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Evidence

15The Tribunal qualified Michael Barton, a registered Professional Planner and full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.

16Mr. Barton provided an overview of the history of the Application in the beginning of his testimony. He indicated that the Application had been revised with the elimination of the variance related to the minimum separation distance between driveways, the reduction to the garage floor area and increase to the minimum interior yard setbacks. Mr. Barton added that the Town staff supported the Final Application.

17Further, Mr. Barton demonstrated the characters of the buildings on the adjacent properties and held a summary that the surrounding neighborhood was characterized by dingle-detached dwellings of variable heights, massing and scale. He also found that the surrounding neighborhood had characters of variable lot frontage, area, depth, configuration, open space on the lands and side yard setback. Lastly, Mr. Barton concluded his findings of the characters of the existing neighborhood that in general, the wider lots provided larger side yard setbacks than the lots with narrower frontage. Therefore, Mr. Barton held the opinion that the neighbourhood had no predominant land use or built form characters.

18In Mr. Barton’s assessment of s.2 of the Act, he cited subsections 2(h), (m) through (r) to discuss matters of provincial interest while considering the Final Application. Mr. Barton expressed his opinion that the Final Application would preserve, enhance and protect the land use and built form character of the surrounding low-density neighborhood with proper buffering and transition to the adjacent properties, the surrounding context and the public realm. Subsequently, he concluded that the Final Application had regards for the relative matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act.

19Mr. Barton also evaluated the relevant policies of Provincial Planning Statement 2024 ("PPS 2024"), which provided directions on housing and development patterns within settlement areas. Particularly, he discussed sections 2.2 and 2.3 of PPS 2024 and held the opinion that the Final Application was consistent with PPS 2024 as it represented efficient use of the lands and was compatible with the neighbourhood characters of low-rise residential dwelling.

20According to Mr. Barton’s assessment of the policies 72.1, 85 and 86 of the Region OP, the objectives for Housing on the lands with designation of Urban Area are to accommodate the growth, increase the housing stock and permit intensification of the local municipality (the Town in this case) while maintaining the physical characters of the existing neighbourhood. In his opinion, the Final Application promotes locally appropriate growth and intensification while enhancing and maintaining the characters of the neighbourhood.

21In addition, Mr. Barton discussed the policies 2, 3.9 and 6.9 of the Town OP that provided principles and directions on growth and built form. He added the assessment of policy 11 of the Town OP, which spoke to the objectives for all Residential Areas and the criteria for new developments.

22Further, Mr. Barton stated that Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities were part of the Town OP and were also considered. He indicated that the general intent and purpose of the Town OP was to ensure the proper use of the lands and the development to be compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Mr. Barton held the opinion that the Final Application would preserve, enhance and protect the land use and built form characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood and the new dwelling had been designed to be consistent with the existing dwellings in the surrounding context.

23Therefore, Mr. Barton opined that the Final Application maintained the general intent and purpose of Region and Town OPs.

24Mr. Barton presented the performance standards for the lands with various residential zones (RL1 to RL6) regarding the minimum lot frontage and minimum interior side yard setback while considering the Final Application and the size of Subject Lands. He demonstrated his findings of these provisions that there was a corresponding reduction in the minimum interior side yard setback to the reduction in the minimum frontage from RL1 to RL6 zones. In Mr. Barton’s opinion, the intent of these various performance standards of the Town ZBL is to permit the larger minimum side yard setbacks to correspond to lots with larger lot frontage and smaller side yard setbacks correspond to lots with smaller frontage.

25In addition, Mr. Barton indicated that the Final Application had designed the new dwelling with the consideration of the built form on the surrounding lands with narrow frontage relative to the performance standards of the Town ZBL and accommodation needs of Additional Dwelling Unit. He specifically indicated that the new dwelling in the Final Application was designed to ensure compatibility and consistency in the characters of the neighbourhood while maintaining the configuration and orientation of the dwelling on the immediately adjacent lands.

26It is Mr. Barton’s opinion that the general intent and purpose of the Town ZBL were to further implement the Town OP and to regulate the performance of the lands within the Town. Further, he stated that the intent of the provisions of the zoned lands was to ensure the development to be compatible and would not result in adverse impacts to neighbouring properties.

27Specifically, Mr. Barton explained the purpose of regulating the side yard setbacks was to provide sufficient buffering and spatial separation from adjacent properties and structures. He indicated that the proposed side yard setbacks in the Final Application were consistent with the side yard setbacks in the surrounding neighbourhood and met the performance standards of the RL2 zone.

28Mr. Barton added that the maximum garage floor area of the Town ZBL was intended to ensure the garage was in appropriate size not to dominate the massing of the dwelling. He indicated that the projection of the proposed garage would not cause the massing of the dwelling and therefore, the variance related to the garage maintains the general intent of the Town ZBL.

29Mr. Barton stated that the intent of regulating maximum dwelling depth was to ensure setbacks of front and rear yard were appropriate and the spacious open space was provided on the site. In his opinion, the variance related to maximum dwelling depth also maintained this intent despite the increase of the depth.

30In summary, Mr. Barton demonstrated that the provisions of the Town ZBL were intended to ensure the development be compatible with the surrounding land use and structures, preserve and maintain the neighbourhood characters, and to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Finally, he opined that the Final Application maintained the general intent and purpose of ZBL.

31Mr. Barton provided his assessment of each variance whether or not the Final Application for variances, individually and collectively, is minor in nature. Mr. Barton specifically indicated that the design of the new dwelling had considered the built form of the surrounding properties, regarding the height, massing, density, setbacks, dwelling depth and scale. In his opinion, the Final Application will not adversely impact the neighbourhood character and is considered minor in nature.

32In terms of desirability of the Final Application, Mr. Barton stated that the variances are necessary to facilitate appropriate redevelopment of the Subject Lands and to ensure the redevelopment to preserve and enhance the compatibility of the new dwelling building with the neighbourhood character. In addition, he indicated that the requested relief would incorporate an Additional Dwelling Unit to support housing availability in the neighbourhood. Therefore, he reached the conclusion that the Final Application was desirable for appropriate use of the land.

33Mr. Barton presented his review of the conditions of approval and indicated that the conditions were appropriate and fair to both parties.

Response to the concerns of the Participants

34Mr. Barton was of the opinion that Shadow Impact Analysis ("Analysis") might be required for relatively complicated planning applications based on the Town’s Development Application Guidelines and typically, the Analysis was not required for minor variance applications or for construction of a new residential dwelling. Further, he indicated that the Town did not require the Analysis as part of the Application. Lastly, Mr. Barton concluded that shadows were not analyzed at one snapshot in time and the presence of shadows did not translate into impact.

35Mr. Barton indicated that the new dwelling was designed to step back on both sides, and this design would help to mitigate the height and massing along the interior property lines.

36Mr. Barton further presented the re-orientation of the dwelling in the Final Application and indicated that the revised design had addressed the participant’s concern of overlook resulted by the new development.

37In terms of the consistency in the characters related to the side yard setbacks, Mr. Barton repeated his opinion that the Subject Lands are narrower than the minimum lot frontage of the RL1-0 lands and it was more appropriate to apply the performance standards of the RL2 -0. He added that the Final Application provided sufficient interior side yard setbacks and these setbacks exceeded the 2.4 m performance standards of the RL2-0 Zone.

38Finally, Mr. Barton reached the conclusion that the Final Application for the variances, individually and cumulatively, had relevant regards to the provincial interests under s. 2 of the Act, was consistent with PPS 2024, represented good planning, was of public interest, and met the four tests under the Act.

39The Town’s Counsel, Mr. Perlin confirmed that the Town had no comments on Mr. Barton’s evidence and conclusion.

Analysis and Findings

40The Tribunal recognizes the effort of the Parties to narrow the issues of appeal before the Tribunal and further reach the settlement. In the Tribunal’s view, this infill development is of the public interest by introducing additional housing to the neighbourhood while maintaining the residential characters of the neighbourhood.

41Further, the Tribunal finds that the Final Application with the elimination of one variance will enhance the compatibility of the redevelopment with the neighbourhood and will support the objectives of appropriate growth and density as identified in the Town OP.

42Given the lot dimensions of the Subject Lands and the surrounding land context, the Tribunal believes that it is appropriate to consider the variances against the performance standards of RL2 Zone of the ZBL. In the Tribunal’s view, the requested relief aligns with or exceeds the provisions of RL2 Zone of the ZBL and the lots in similar sizes in the neighbourhood. The design of the new dwelling follows the development pattern of the lands within the neighbourhood and provides proper transition to the immediately adjacent properties. In summary, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Barton’s assessment of the test related to the general intent and purpose of the Town ZBL.

43The Tribunal has considered expert opinions on the balance of the four tests in addition to the concerns of the Participants. The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence showing unacceptable impacts of the Final Application on the neighbouring properties and that the requested variances are necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of Subject Lands and to accommodate an Additional Dwelling Unit.

44The Tribunal accepts Mr. Barton’s uncontested evidence and finds that the Final Application is appropriate, and the Conditions of approval are fair and reasonable.

CONCLUSION

45In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the Final Application has regards to s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024, represents good planning, are in public interest, and,

• The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Region OP and Town OP;
• The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the former Town ZBL;
• The minor variances are considered desirable for the appropriate use of the lands; and,
• The minor variances are considered minor in nature.

ORDER

46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. the appeal is allowed, in part; and,
2. the Application is approved in principles and variances to By-law No. 2014-014, listed in Appendix A, are authorized subject to the conditions in Attachment 1 to this order.

"L.P. You"

L.P. YOU 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.

Appendix A

List of variances

1. To permit maximum garage floor area of 59.25 m², whereas 56m² is permitted;
2. To permit a northerly interior side yard setback of 2.4m, whereas 4.2m is permitted;
3. To permit a southerly interior side yard setback of 2.49m, whereas 4.2m is permitted;
4. To permit maximum dwelling depth of 26.1m, whereas 20 m is permitted; and,
5. To permit maximum height of 9.5 m, whereas 9.0 m is permitted.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Approval

1. That the demolition of the existing two-storey detached dwelling and the new dwelling with an attached garage be constructed in general accordance with the revised site plan and drawings (elevations and floor plans) dated March 12, 2026, in Schedule C to the Minutes of Settlement; and,
2. That the approval expires two (2) years from the date of the decision if a Building Permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.