Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-001012

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

Applicant/Appellant: Foundation Capital Holdings Limited

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit interior alterations to an existing apartment building

Reference Number: A43/2025

Property Address: 274 - 276 Vidal Street S N7T 2T7

Municipality/UT: Sarnia

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-001012

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-001012

OLT Case Name: Foundation Capital Holdings Limited v. Sarnia (City)

Heard: April 28, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Foundation Capital Holdings Limited (“Applicant”)	Michael Nemanic
City of Sarnia (“City”)	Bruce Engell

DECISION DELIVERED BY GORDON A. DRIEDGER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is known municipally as 274-276 Vidal Street South and 280-286 Devine Street, in the City of Sarnia (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is 899.15 square metres (“sq m”) and is irregularly shaped with 24.5 metres (“m”) frontage on Vidal Street South and a depth of 36.7 m. The Subject Property is generally flat.

2There are currently three existing residential apartment buildings, partially attached, ranging from one to two storeys. The current buildings comprise 12 residential units, including bachelor units, one bedroom units, and two bedroom units. In all, there are approximately 762 sq m of existing gross floor area. There are 10 existing parking spaces on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is also improved with an existing garage structure.

3The adjacent neighbourhood comprises a mix of duplex and single family detached dwellings as well as adjacent mixed-use buildings.

4The main buildings on the Subject Property were constructed sometime in the 1890’s and originally contained predominantly non-residential uses. The City’s records are not clear as to when the non-residential uses were converted to residential units or how many units were created. The conversion, however, is believed to have been illegal and contrary to the former City Zoning By-law No. 8506 (“ZBL 8506”). In 1994, the City enacted Zoning By-law No. 153/1994 (“ZBL 153/1994”) to legalize the use of the Subject Property for purposes of an existing apartment dwelling. A site-specific zone of “C1-9” was attached to the Subject Property that legalized 12 dwelling units and a minimum parking supply of 10 spaces. Importantly, the existing front, side, and rear yard setbacks were permitted to be maintained as of the date of the passing of ZBL 153/1994. The site-specific zoning was later incorporated into the currently in force Zoning By-law No. 85 of 2002 (“ZBL 85/2002”) as “COC1-23-Community Commercial 1-23” zone and further confirmed the legal non-conforming status of the existing structures.

THE APPLICATIONS

5On October 1, 2025, an application for minor variance (“Original Application”) was submitted to the City, which proposed to permit the expansion of a legal non-conforming apartment building by increasing the number of residential apartment units from 12 to 21 within the existing building while maintaining the existing parking supply and setback regulations of the “C1-9” site specific zone of ZBL 153/1994. The increase in number of dwelling units was intended to be achieved through a reconfiguration of existing floor area entirely within the existing structures. The Original Application was further revised to show the location of the proposed parking spaces and slightly reduced proposed unit sizes and layouts to accommodate emergency exit requirements of the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”). The average size of the proposed units is 350 square feet (“sq ft”).

6At its December 16, 2025 meeting, the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) refused the Original Application. In its decision, the CoA’s Minutes indicated the following:

The Committee of Adjustment is of the opinion that the proposed variance(s) is/are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the lands and that the proposed relief would result in undue adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and neighbourhood.

7On April 13, 2026, the Applicant submitted a revised application to the City (Revised Application”), which included an updated parking layout (“Parking Plan”). The Parking Plan modified the location and dimensions of the vehicle parking spaces to increase the proposed parking spaces from 10 to 12 and added 24 bicycle parking spaces within the existing garage structure. The Parking Plan resulted in the Revised Application to permit a reduced width of parking spaces to 2.75 m (spaces 1-8) and 2.6 m (spaces 9-12), whereas a minimum width of 3 m is required in ZBL 85/2002.

EVIDENCE

8The Applicant called two witnesses with respect to providing evidence in support of their case.

9Ms. Tracey Pillon-Abbs, an experienced professional land-use planner, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land-use planning. Mr. Michael Dworczak, a Professional Engineer experienced in transportation planning matters, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert evidence in transportation planning.

10The City called Mr. Stephen Bradshaw to provide evidence to the Tribunal in respect of the City’s position on the Revised Application. Mr. Bradshaw is a Planner with the City with approximately 10 years of planning experience, including five years of experience with the City. Mr. Bradshaw was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence related to the City’s CoA process, including the planning report considered by the CoA.

Evidence of Ms. Tracey Pillon-Abbs

11Ms. Pillion-Abbs, through her witness statement, chronicled the detailed history of the Subject Property, and specifically, the legal non-conforming status of the existing dwelling units, as well as the non-complying performance standards related to ZBL 85/2002.

12The Subject Property is referenced in zoning by-laws dating back to 1928, culminating in a “C1-9” special zone in ZBL 153/1994 to identify the non-conforming elements of the existing buildings, which stated:

“C1-9”

(i) The subject lands municipally known as 276 Vidal Street South…shall be site zoned “C1-9” and may be used for an existing apartment dwelling.

(ii) The existing apartment dwelling shall be subject to the following additional regulations:

(a) The maximum number of dwelling units within the building shall be 12;

(b) A minimum of 10 parking spaces shall be provided on the site;

(c) The front, side and rear yard setbacks shall be as they exist on the passing of this by-law

13Ms. Pillon-Abbs then went on to discuss the application of ZBL 85/2002 to the Subject Property.

14In ZBL 85/2002, the definition of “Dwelling, Apartment” is a “building exceeding 2 storeys in height and consisting of 3 or more dwelling units”. Ms. Pillon-Abbs concluded that, whether as a result of inaccurate drafting, or by intention of City Council, since the existing buildings do not exceed two storeys, the existing buildings on the Subject Property continue their legal non-conforming status and non-complying performance standards to the present day.

15Notwithstanding Ms. Pillon-Abbs’ evidence that, in her opinion, was conclusive in establishing that the existing buildings enjoy legal non-conforming status, she applied the four tests as contained in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”) as well as the two tests contained in s. 45(2) of the Act.

16With respect to whether the Revised Application is minor in nature, Ms. Pillon-Abbs concluded that the minor variance is minor and will not have an undue adverse impact. Her opinion was that the existing apartment building does not have any negative impact on the Subject Property or the neighbourhood as only interior renovations are proposed and any exterior changes to the Subject Property should be deemed as enhancements. She stated that the character of the Subject Property and the surrounding neighbourhood remains entirely unchanged.

17Ms. Pillon-Abbs expressed her opinion that the Revised Application was desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure. She stated that the proposed interior work will not result in any perceived change to the building or the Subject Property. From a neighbourhood perspective, she believed that there would be no material alterations or negative effects on adjacent properties. Additionally, Ms. Pillon-Abbs provided evidence related to the desirability of the proposed redevelopment to provide much-needed affordable housing to the City inventory.

18With respect to whether the minor variance maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the City, Ms. Pillon-Abbs offered her opinion.

19The overall intent of the Mixed-Use Corridor designation in the Official Plan is to provide opportunities for intensification, infill, and redevelopment, including residential apartments. The purpose and intent of the Official Plan are maintained, according to Ms. Pillon-Abbs, by the adaptive reuse of an existing building via interior renovations, while providing more affordable housing. The intent of the Official Plan, in her opinion, is to provide modestly-sized but affordable units that all include kitchens, bathrooms, and ensuite laundry. Ms. Pillon-Abbs expressed her opinion that the units, by virtue of their smaller size and simple construction, would meet the criteria for affordability within the context of the City.

20The intent of ZBL 85/2002 is maintained, in Ms. Pillon-Abbs opinion, in that residential uses, including apartment buildings, are permitted and that interior renovations do not impact setbacks. While Ms. Pillon-Abbs deferred to evidence of Mr. Michael Dworczak with respect to provision of adequate parking, she was of the view that adequate parking is provided to accommodate the additional units.

21Ms. Pillon-Abbs finally concluded that, in her opinion the minor variance should be approved and that the interior renovations would not result in any significant changes to the exterior of the buildings, making it compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of height, massing, and setbacks. Ms. Pillon-Abbs emphasized the existing buildings are not being expanded and the use continues as a use similar to the existing use. She expressed her opinion that the Revised Application, as revised to include the Parking Plan, meets the four tests of a minor variance in s. 45(1) of the Act as well as the two applicable tests to be considered under s. 45(2) of the Act, represents good planning, and is in the public interest. Ms. Pillon-Abbs concluded that the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the land and buildings and will not create adverse impacts to the surrounding community.

Evidence of Mr. Michael Dworczak

22Mr. Michael Dworczak provided evidence contained in a parking assessment (“Report”) he had prepared for the Subject Property. The parking assessment included field observation of parking utilized at the Subject Property over four separate days. According to Mr. Dworczak, the data was collected by remote monitoring (camera) of actual parking utilization by both tenants and visitors. Mr. Dworczak concluded, from the data collected, that the observed resident parking demand was 0.17 spaces per unit and the visitor demand was observed to be .33 spaces per unit, for a total combined existing parking demand of 0.50 spaces per existing residential unit in an unpaved and unmarked existing parking area. In Mr. Dworczak’s opinion, it would be appropriate to apply a proportional growth analysis, which would result in a conservative proportional parking demand of 10.5 spaces for the proposed 21 units. Mr. Dworczak went on to state that, in his opinion, this approach should be considered conservative as it does not account for factors that may reduce the rate of vehicle ownership in practice, including smaller unit sizes and changing travel behaviour.

23Mr. Dworczak stated that his Report also detailed additional transportation matters, including trip generation, loading supply, and site circulation. In addition to parking spaces provided on the Subject Property, Mr. Dworczak provided evidence to state that on-street parking is available adjacent to the Subject Property, along the south side of Devine Street and along the west side of Vidal Street South, subject to no stopping prohibitions between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. from Monday to Friday, with an overnight parking prohibition between 2 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. from December 1 to March 31 annually, except where a Road Occupancy Permit has been issued by the City.

24Mr. Dworczak also stated that, in his opinion, the Subject Property is well connected to other parts of the City with public transit, which will have the effect of reducing reliance on private automobiles by tenants. He indicated that there are two bus routes, Route 1 and Route 2, servicing the Subject Property, offering connections to downtown via the downtown bus terminal and higher order commercial uses located elsewhere in the City.

25Further, Mr. Dworczak stated in his evidence that the Subject Property is served by adjacent cycling lane markings contributing positively to the potential for increased bicycle mode share.

26With respect to parking space design, Mr. Dworczak offered his opinion in respect of minimum parking space width. In his opinion, reduced minimum parking space width, below the minimum stated in the ZBL 85/2002 is supportable as the reduced widths are consistent with commonly applied municipal standards in other comparable municipalities and are considered functionally adequate for passenger vehicles. Mr. Dworczak also stated that the proposed parking space widths are consistent with the parking stall guidance contained in the City’s proposed Comprehensive Zoning By-law (Draft 3). Mr. Dworczak stated that parking space widths smaller that 2.75 m, if any, should be limited to ‘small vehicle’ parking and be indicated by appropriate signage.

27Mr. Dworczak presented a drawing entitled “Optimized Parking Layout” (“Drawing”) which, in his opinion, demonstrated the sufficiency of the proposed parking area to accommodate the demonstrated parking demand and waste operations, including the required turning movements and drive aisles. Mr. Dworczak also stated that it would be optimal if the parking lot were paved and striped to better identify parking spaces and ensure efficient parking use.

28Mr. Dworczak also compared his site-specific observations and conclusions against the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) parking generation standards, which represent empirical averages based on field studies and utilization data for thousands of surveyed developments across North America. Based on the applicable ITE Parking Generation Rate, Mr. Dworczak stated that the projected parking demand would be 0.53 spaces per dwelling unit for the applicable “Affordable Housing-Income Limits 223-Dense Multi-Use Urban” category defined in the ITE manual. In Mr. Dworczak’s opinion, the ITE analysis validated his site-specific observations for the Subject Property at a rate of 0.5 spaces per proposed dwelling unit.

29Mr. Dworczak also provided opinion evidence to state that increased bicycle parking supply provides a viable alternative mode of transportation for short and medium length trips and reduces reliance on private automobiles. Mr. Dworczak provided his opinion that the proposed secure indoor bicycle storage of up to 24 bicycles, as shown on the Drawing, exceeds commonly applied municipal benchmarks for comparable municipalities and would promote non-vehicular transportation.

30Finally, Mr. Dworczak provided his opinion that active parking supply management, including assigned parking for tenants and visitors based on demonstrated need, along with transit and active transportation encouragement, would also assist in reducing tenants’ reliance on private automobiles for their transportation needs. Mr. Dworczak promoted ideas, including the provision of bus passes to tenants and encouraging enhanced bicycle infrastructure, such as secure bicycle storage.

31Mr. Dworczak concluded that, in his professional opinion, the demonstrated site-specific parking demand can be accommodated on-site for 21 dwelling units without generating adverse transportation impacts. Mr. Dworzcak also stated that, while the proposed parking rate is below both the current and draft zoning standards, site-specific evidence confirms that actual parking demand is lower than generalized by-law requirements, and the proposed parking supply of 0.5 parking spaces per unit is functionally adequate and will not result in adverse transportation impacts.

Evidence of Mr. Stephen Bradshaw

32Mr. Stephen Bradshaw, Planner for the City, provided his opinion on the Revised Application, but did not provide a Witness Statement.

33Mr. Bradshaw, having heard the evidence of Ms. Pillon-Abbs, agreed with her conclusion that the matter was appropriately considered under s. 45(2) of the Act and that the appropriate tests are whether the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property, and second, whether the proposal’s impact on the surrounding uses is unacceptably adverse.

34Mr. Bradshaw expressed his opinion that he could not conclude that the proposed uses were desirable. Mr. Bradshaw cited concerns with the size of units proposed and ‘overspillage’ into the neighbourhood related to vehicle overflow. Mr. Bradshaw also stated that he did not feel that there was adequate open space/amenity area for the proposed units, but did also state that amenity space is not technically a requirement of ZBL 85/2002 for apartment dwellings of the proposed scale. In his opinion, the proposal’s impact on the surrounding uses was not desirable and would be unacceptably adverse.

35Mr. Bradshaw, in his statements, referred to the proposed unit size as being ‘inhumanely small’ but did not further elaborate on the basis for his opinion. Mr. Bradshaw did say, however, that he was unaware of any existing apartment dwellings of such a small size in the City.

36Mr. Bradshaw stated that, in his opinion, sites should be analyzed based on their site-specific attributes. Finally, Mr. Bradshaw testified that some of his concerns may be alleviated if a site plan control process were to be initiated for the Subject Property.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

37The Tribunal finds that the Original Application was appropriately brought under s. 45(2) of the Act. Ms. Pillon-Abbs, through her detailed chronological evidence, demonstrated that the existing dwellings are legal non-conforming, and as such, it is appropriate to consider the Revised Application as an enlargement and extension of a legal non-conforming building or structure. Mr. Bradshaw concurred with this conclusion made by Ms. Pillon-Abbs

38With respect to the requested variance related to parking space width, the Tribunal considered the requested variances under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act and concluded that the amendments are minor and can be considered concurrent with the Original Application. Accordingly, the four tests contained in s. 45(1) of the Act are the appropriate tests to consider in respect of the variance to parking space width.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

39The Tribunal considered the Original Application for extension of the existing uses under s. 45(2) of the Act and whether the proposed variance was desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property and whether the proposal’s impact upon the surrounding uses and neighbourhood are adverse. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by all witnesses.

40Ms. Pillon-Abbs provided a very complete, thoughtful, and well-researched chronology of the zoning status of the Subject Property and the Tribunal accepts her evidence that the existing uses and structures are presently legal non-conforming. The Tribunal prefers Ms. Pillon-Abbs’ objective and fact-based evidence regarding conformity with the City’s Official Plan, ZBL 85/2002, and provincial matters over the evidence provided by Mr. Bradshaw. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Pillon-Abbs opinion that the proposal is appropriate in the context of the Subject Property and will not create an adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

41Mr. Bradshaw referenced parking and lack of landscaped open space/amenity area concerns with respect to the proposal. The Tribunal finds that Mr. Bradshaw’s evidence is characterized as personal opinion rather than unbiased professional opinion. Mr. Bradshaw’s statements seemed personally biased, defensive, and at times, flippant. These opinions were not appropriately substantiated with qualified reference to the applicable and relevant planning instruments. As such, the evidence presented was of less utility to the Tribunal in its consideration of the relevant evidence and findings.

42The potential of the Subject Property to support adequate parking for the proposed intensification is a central issue for consideration. The Tribunal accepts the uncontested conclusions and evidence of Mr. Dworczak. The Tribunal finds that the parking utilization study methodology, approach, and analysis to be professional, complete, and steeped in best practices. The conclusions made by Mr. Dworczak were empirically sound and further substantiated by ITE’s benchmarks as a verification of Mr. Dworczak’s findings. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Dworczak’s opinion that a demonstrated parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit is appropriate.

43The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Dworczak that the demonstrated parking utilization of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit is conservative. It is not at all unusual that on-street parking can be assumed to be available for occasional or regular visitors to the Subject Property. Notwithstanding, Mr. Dworczak’s demonstrated parking utilization includes a substantial allocation for visitors and therefore, the Tribunal finds, based on the evidence presented, that the proposed ratio is conservative. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that additional provisions, or conditions related to one-time free bus passes, and restricting parking spaces to only visitors to be unwarranted to ensure compatibility and to minimize adverse impacts. In addition to being cumbersome and difficult to enforce such private agreements over time, given the demonstrated conservatism in the proposed parking ratio, such provisions are unnecessary in the Tribunal’s view.

44The Tribunal also finds that it is more appropriate to designate a parking ratio requirement instead of a defined number of parking spaces related to the Subject Property. The accepted evidence regarding the parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit is a more appropriate measure of utilization than a defined number of spaces. The flexibility afforded to the final details of the proposal in terms of the number of units and final parking layout, as an example, is important to ensure that details, including OBC compliance, can be determined without a defined parking requirement being included in the planning instruments restricting the potential for, as an example, a proposal containing fewer units.

45The Tribunal accepts Mr. Dworczak’s evidence regarding the appropriateness of a reduced parking space from the required 3 m in ZBL 85/2002. However, the Tribunal finds it is more appropriate to designate a specified number of spaces noted as “Small Car Parking only” spaces and sized at 2.6 m wide. The Tribunal finds that providing for up to four spaces at 2.6 m generally is preferred over dictating where on the Subject Property those reduced width spaces are approved for. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Dworczak’s evidence that an appropriate parking space width for the remainder of parking spaces to be 2.75 m instead of the current ZBL 85/2002 minimum of 3 m.

46The issue of affordability of the proposed units was presented throughout the Hearing by both Ms. Pillon-Abbs and Mr. Bradshaw. The evidence heard and accepted by the Tribunal is that the units will be inherently affordable as a result of the units’ small size, averaging 350 sq ft, and there was no evidence presented to indicate that the units would be deemed affordable through any formal affordable housing initiatives through either the City, County of Lambton, or Province of Ontario. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds it is inappropriate to require the enrollment of the proposed units into any formal affordable housing program as there was no evidence provided as to the details of any specific program. The Tribunal finds that the proposed units will be generally affordable in the context of the City given their small size and austere characteristics.

47The Tribunal finds that the remaining elements of the proposed development can be addressed through the following conditions:

1. Parking (including tenant and visitor) shall be provided at an aggregate rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit in a paved, delineated parking area
2. A minimum of 24 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in an enclosed, secure structure
3. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 2.75 m wide with the exception of up to a maximum of four (4) parking spaces designated as “Small Car Parking Only” which may be 2.6 m wide within the proposed parking area
4. The applicant shall obtain approval from the City of Sarnia of a parking layout containing the required number of parking spaces at a rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit which demonstrates functionality from a parking accessibility perspective and having regard for waste management, and OBC compliance including, but not limited to emergency egress;

CONCLUSION

48The Tribunal finds that the Revised Application for extension and enlargement of the proposed structure meets the two tests as contained in s. 45(2) of the Act, is desirable for the appropriate use of the Subject Property and existing buildings and will not result in any undue adverse impacts to the surrounding community and should be approved.

49The Tribunal finds that the proposed variance related to a reduction of the minimum parking space width to 2.75 m and 2.6 m for up to four spaces designated for “small cars” from the minimum 3 m required in ZBL 85/2002 is desirable for the appropriate use of the land, building, and structures, meets the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and ZBL 85/2002, is minor in nature, and therefore, should be authorized.

50The Tribunal finds that the requested variances align with the provincial interests of s. 2 of the Act and are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

ORDER

51THE TRIBUNAL having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required;

52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and the variances to the City of Sarnia Zoning By-law No. 85 of 2002 to permit 21 residential dwelling units and associated parking, provided at a rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit, which are 2.75 metres in width and up to four parking spaces 2.6 metres in width, designated as “Small Car Parking Only” spaces, whereas the City of Sarnia Zoning By-law No. 85 of 2002 requires a minimum width of 3 metres, are authorized, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“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.

Attachment 1

Conditions

1. Parking (including tenant and visitor) shall be provided at an aggregate rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit in a paved, delineated parking area
2. A minimum of 24 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in an enclosed, secure structure
3. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 2.75m wide with the exception of up to a maximum of four (4) parking spaces designated as “Small Car Parking Only” which may be 2.6m wide within the proposed parking area
4. The applicant shall obtain approval from the City of Sarnia of a parking layout containing the required number of parking spaces at a rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit which demonstrates functionality from a parking accessibility perspective and having regard for waste management, and OBC compliance including, but not limited to emergency egress;