Oakville Committee of Adjustment Meeting

The Oakville Committee of Adjustment considered several minor-variance applications involving residential additions, a hot tub and commercial redevelopment. An application for 262 Trobridge Place was denied unanimously after members said the proposed side-yard setback and overall massing did not meet the intent of the town's recently updated zoning bylaw. Other applications were approved, while several remained under consideration in the supplied notes.

Topics Discussed

1. 262 TROBRIDGE PLACE: APPLICATION DENIED

The applicant sought variances for a side and rear addition to an existing single-family home, including:

• A 1.2-metre interior side-yard setback where 1.8 metres is required
• Residential floor area of 58.5% where 55% is permitted

The proposal included a two-storey wall about 15 metres long. Opposition focused on whether the application reflected the intent of the new zoning rules.

Mr. Talowski said, "the ink's not dry in the new bylaw and the very first application this committee hears with the new sideyard setback requirements, we're being asked to approve a 1.2 meter setback when 1.8's required for a 15 meter long two story wall."

Mr. Towski added, "The intent is clear. It's just been changed. We want narrower buildings, more separation between them." He said he could not find that the application met the intent of the zoning bylaw and recommended denial.

Another member said to the applicant, "with everything that you've said today, it just seems that you just plowed right ahead with your plans versus rechecking and reassessing what the impact of the new bylaws are to your building project."

The application was denied unanimously.

2. 448 THIRD LINE: MULTIPLE VARIANCES UNDER REVIEW

Application 109 of 2026 sought six variances, including:

• Residential floor area of 53.6% where 49% is permitted
• Northern and southern side-yard setbacks of 1.70 metres and 1.22 metres
• Lot coverage
• Building height
• A rear-yard setback of 6.01 metres where 7.50 metres is required

The applicant said the requested building height was 8.97 metres where 8.00 metres is allowed. In remarks recorded in the notes, the applicant said, "Now we are pursuing a building height variance of 8.97 meters where 8.00 meters is allowed. We were under the impression when we first started this journey we would be regulated under 2014-014. It wasn't until we made our minor variance application in June when we found out about this new ZBA."

Members questioned whether the application should be assessed against older neighbourhood conditions or the newly adopted bylaw. Member Telles said, "council said enough. We want wider side yards, lower buildings, less coverage. And yet the analysis is well, it's consistent with what was built under a different bylaw which the town made a conscious decision to change."

Another member said, "I don't believe the cumulative impacts um are minor, but I also do not believe that the sideyard setback and height variances meet the intent of the new zoning bylaw. If we're going to judge houses going forward based on what was built under the old bylaw, I'm not sure why the town changed the zoning bylaw."

The supplied notes do not identify a final decision on Application 109.

3. OTHER RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE APPLICATIONS

The committee approved another residential minor-variance application, subject to construction following the approved site plan dated June 23, 2026, and elevation drawings dated May 28, 2026.

Miss Price said, "Taking into account my previous site visit, the drawings provided by the agent, staff's comments, and there being one letter of objection, I find the variance to be minor in nature." She added that the proposal "maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts."

The committee also approved a variance for a hot tub at 3113 Cardress Court. The approval reduced the required flankage setback from 3.5 metres by 1.5 metres. Conditions require construction to follow the submitted sketch plan, with an Electrical Safety Authority permit satisfying the permit requirement. No public objections were identified in the supplied notes.

4. 1321 DUNCAN ROAD: APPLICATION 96 OF 2026

The application, previously deferred, returned with revised plans. It sought variances for:

• Residential floor area of 45.31% where 41% is permitted
• Lot coverage of 30.23% where 25% is permitted for buildings over seven metres high

The applicant's agent said the redesign included stepped-back elements and maintained required setbacks. A letter of opposition from Arthur Lang was noted in the record. The supplied notes do not identify a final decision.

5. COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Application 98 of 2026 involved redevelopment of the Suncor Petro-Canada site at 350 Airquore Road, at the southeast corner of Quashore Road and Jfalger Road. The proposal included a convenience store and an A&W restaurant. One requested variance would reduce a flankage-yard landscaping requirement from 35% to 1.4%. The applicant said that was tied to TSSA requirements that a self-serve attendant remain within 50 metres of the fuel dispensers. The application remained under consideration in the supplied notes.

A separate commercial redevelopment near Trafalgar Road was approved. The decision allowed a building setback variance and permitted the A&W restaurant and convenience store to exceed the standard combined 20% floor-area limit under Table 10.2, Footnote 5. The approved split was 43.4% for the restaurant and 56.6% for the convenience store.

Mr. Dicki said, "Based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plan, building elevations, my site visit, the presentation by the owner's consultant and the planning staff's report, I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act."

Motions

• 262 Trobridge Place: Denied unanimously.
• Residential dwelling minor-variance application: Approved with conditions, including compliance with the approved site plan and elevation drawings; approval expires after two years without a building permit.
• 3113 Cardress Court hot tub variance: Approved with conditions.
• Commercial redevelopment near Trafalgar Road: Two zoning variances approved, including the building setback and floor-area variances.
• 1321 Duncan Road, Application 96 of 2026: Final decision not identified in the supplied notes.
• 350 Airquore Road, Application 98 of 2026: Final motion not identified in the supplied notes.
• 448 Third Line, Application 109 of 2026: Final decision not identified in the supplied notes.

Attendees

The supplied notes do not provide a complete attendance list. Committee members named in the notes include:

• Peter Longo
• Nav Nanda
• Jonathan McNeice
• Cathy Duddeck
• Marc Grant
• Janet Haslett-Theall
• Natalia Lishchyna
• Jeff Knoll
• Allan Elgar
• Dave Gittings
• Sean O'Meara
• Ray Chisholm
• Rob Burton

Planning staff and agents named in the notes include Dominic Monardo, Vasili Sanopoulos, Alexander Overhalt and Mr. O'Hare.