Town of Oakville's detailed…

Town of Oakville's detailed comments can be found in the attachment.

Comments to the Province: The Town’s Zoning By-law has evolved in response to the evolution of house design and orientation on properties. Oakville is now finalizing broad residential amendments designed to improve efficiency, ease of use, and support for development by reducing barriers.

The most effective way to streamline the approval process is to have predictable parameters for development applications. Compliance with in-effect zoning regulations is preferred, but not in every circumstance can zoning regulations address the evolution of development patterns.

Should the Province choose to move toward an as-of-right approach for variances, it should be part of a thorough by-law review, ensuring changes align with other municipal policies and standards. For example, side yard setbacks are often established to provide access to rear yards and ensure proper drainage and enable fire protection. Reducing setbacks without proper evaluation could restrict access for dwelling unit entrances or cause drainage issues for neighbouring properties, potentially causing unforeseen complications.
While the proposed amendments aim to expedite building processes, Oakville already employs best practices by facilitating a process that allows minor variance applications to achieve a decision within four to six weeks from submission.
Oakville also offers a voluntary pre-consultation service designed to support applicants in navigating the application process more efficiently. This allows applicants to confirm the scope of their applications, resolving potential issues early. This proactive approach contributes to a smoother process with fewer deferrals or denials.
In staff’s opinion, a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate. Municipalities like Oakville, have made substantial efforts to maintain a modern and relevant Zoning By-law and have achieved an efficient Committee of Adjustment process. Therefore, if enacted, the Town should be exempt from the proposed 10% as-of-right reductions to minimum setback.
Furthermore, based on staff experience, it is uncommon for an applicant to only apply for a 10% reduction to minimum setbacks. The result of reducing as-of-right minimum setbacks, as proposed, will exonerate proponents from evaluating the implications of reduced setbacks.

Additional detail for each reduction to the minimum standards follows.

Front & Rear Yard Minimum Setbacks:

Allowing “as-of-right” variations of up to 10% for front and rear yard setbacks may be appropriate for larger properties, as these typically have more design flexibility and less impact on neighbouring properties. In newer greenfield developments though, allowing an “as-of-right” variation of up to 10% can be problematic. Many current house designs maximize building footprints on smaller properties, and municipalities often rely on landscaped areas to manage stormwater, either by directing it toward natural features or allowing it to infiltrate into the ground. Permitting a 10% as-of-right increase in setback reductions could compromise these drainage and infiltration functions, potentially causing negative impacts on neighbouring properties or downstream areas.

In addition, a decrease in front yard may not practically allow the minimum length needed for a parking space.

Side Yard Minimum Setbacks:

Applying an “as-of-right” reduction to side yard setbacks, without site-specific review, raises concerns. Side yards serve critical functions as they provide access for emergency services, ensure fire safety by separating structures, and accommodate essential drainage and utility infrastructure. Arbitrary reductions to these setbacks can increase the risk of property damage due to inadequate drainage and restrict access for both maintenance and emergency response.

An “as-of-right” reduction of 10% that may result in a 0.6 metres setback or less is especially problematic. At this width, the building wall must be fire-rated, and windows are prohibited. Moreover, a minimum setback of 0.9 metres is required to allow access to side entrances for Additional Residential Units (ADUs), which was a clear direction with previous Provincial legislation. By permitting a 10% “as-of-right” reduction in side yard setbacks, the Province risks directly undermining its own objectives.

Province’s “Request for Thoughts” – Other opportunities to allow variations “as-of-right” for additional performance standards (e.g. height, lot coverage).

Height:

Having slight differences in building heights – specifically in areas of shorter built form – is acceptable within a constrained range. In such cases, these are carefully reviewed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Lot Coverage:

Allowing increased lot coverage “as-of-right” raises significant concerns, particularly related to drainage and water runoff. Larger building footprints reduce the amount of permeable surface, which can lead to increased runoff and exacerbate flooding on neighbouring properties and across the broader area.

The Province recently passed legislation which overrides local zoning regulations where there are increased coverage permissions for additional dwelling units. The challenge with this provision is while it allows for a more expansive built form, there is no ability to enforce the delivery of up to three dwelling units within the development.