Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200518
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sameer Patil
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 5569 McLeod Street
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipality File No.: D08-02-20/A-00174
OLT Case No.: PL200518
OLT File No.: PL200518
OLT Case Name: Patil v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: September 28, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Sameer Patil | Michael Wright |
| City of Ottawa | No one appeared |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This appeal was filed as a result of the refusal of the Committee of Adjustments (“COA”) for the City of Ottawa (“City”) on an application for variances sought to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, to create a fourth dwelling unit in an already existing three dwelling unit building, pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
2The Subject Property is municipal known as 569 McLeod Street in the City. The property fronts onto McLeod Street (north side). The building is located between Percy and Bronson Streets.
BACKGROUND
3In 2017, the COA granted an application for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width, lot area and interior side yard setback for the construction of a three-storey, three-unit dwelling. The variances applied to the use of the property as a three-unit dwelling and being restricted to this use only.
RELIEF REQUESTED
4In 2020, the Applicant decided to convert the three-unit dwelling into a four-unit low-rise apartment. Site Plan approval was required and, given that a low-rise apartment's zoning performance standards are different from those of a three-unit dwelling, a new application to the COA was required.
5The relief sought includes:
To reduce the minimum lot width to 10 metres (“m”), whereas the By-law requires a lot width of 15 m.
To reduce the minimum lot area to 302.8 m2, whereas the By-law requires a lot area of 450 m2.
To reduce the minimum interior side yard setback to 0.6 m, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 m for any part of a building located within 21 m of a front lot line.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
6The issue for the Tribunal was whether the proposed development will be consistent with or in conformity with the Provincial Policies and legislative requirements and whether the variance requested meets the statutory tests pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
7Michael Wright provided evidence in support of the variance application on behalf of the Applicant. He was qualified by the Tribunal to give expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters and was affirmed.
8The City did not appear at the hearing. An email communication received by the Tribunal from Tim Marc, Legal Services Department of the City stated that the City raises no concerns with the requested variances given that the building is existing, the changes are internal, and the impact of the variances will be minimal.
9Mr. Marc informed the Tribunal in his email that development has gone through the Site Plan Control process and has been approved subject to certain requirements and conditions, one of the conditions is to obtain approval for the variances to permit the conversion from a three-unit dwelling to a four-unit low-rise apartment.
10Mr. Wright took the Tribunal through a comprehensive review of the planning justification report the Applicant/Appellant submitted to the City.
Provincial Policy Statement 2020
11The Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) states that land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development. The PPS goes on to describe what is meant by intensification and that it is an appropriate tool for development and redevelopment (policy 1.1.2). Mr. Wright opined that the PPS requirements have been met through an appropriate range of housing types and development (policy 1.1.1(b)). He emphasized the word "appropriate" which is attached to the theme of intensification and redevelopment that embraces the terms suitable for a person, condition, and place as well as proper and fitting (policy 1.1.3.4). It was his opinion that the proposed addition of a fourth dwelling unit within the already existing three dwelling unit building embraces the intent of the PPS through intensification.
City of Ottawa Official Plan
12The Official Plan designates the subject site as General Urban Area as shown on Schedule ‘B’ of the Official Plan. Mr. Wright explained this designation allows a wide range of land uses, not the least of which is residential uses. Section 3.6 (Urban Designations) of the Official Plan “permits the development of a full range and choice of housing types” to meet the demands of all sectors of the City's population and in this respect, will provide an alternative to what is found and proposed next to and near the site.
13The policies of section 3.6.1 ask that the City consider new development in light of existing community character and provide a full range of housing types (scale, size, scale, height). Item 3 of section 3.6.1 ask that a proposal for redevelopment recognize existing community character, assess the existing ground-oriented housing, as a means of intensification and, most importantly consider the policies of section 2.5.1 (Urban Design and Compatibility) and section 4.11 (Urban Design and Compatibility). All of which he demonstrated has been considered with this application.
14Mr. Wright informed the Tribunal that in his opinion, the proposal meets the tests of section 2.5.1 which encourages intensification of development in the urban area. It was explained that the built form of the proposal is found in other dwellings in the community similar in size, shape, and configuration.
15He spoke to section 4.11 (Urban Design and Compatibility) which asks that a proposal create its own identity that is like other residential forms of development found in the immediate area, provides private space for each dwelling unit and respects the character of the surrounding residential community. Section 4.11.2 has several criteria to allow assessment of a development proposal and in this regard, criteria (b) to (e) and (h) apply in this instance and he advised have been addressed appropriately. The criteria for evaluating the compatibility of the development proposal inside stable, low rise neighbourhoods (section 4.11.14) deals with three items, (a) and (b) are applicable in this instance. It was his opinion that the proposal meets the tests of the criteria as well and thus he opined; section 4.11 has been satisfied as to complying with the policy the Official Plan.
16Volume 2A – Secondary Plans describes the Centretown Secondary Plan in Section 3 entitled Centretown. Mr. Wright informed the Tribunal he had undertaken a review of the policy which does provide direction as to how this property should be developed (redeveloped) but, it does not go into detail as to how such should be done.
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 as amended
17The City's Zoning By-law at present zones the property as R4S (478). The subzone allows a wider range of residential uses beyond those contemplated for the Zone. Mr. Wright stated this does not affect the proposal as a low-rise apartment dwelling is a permitted use.
18He turned to the "Urban Design Guidelines" which he elaborated were created to provide further direction and guidance to broaden and embrace the policy found in sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the Official Plan and are written to "help create infill development" to support established landscapes, be a more compact form of development and achieve a good fit in the existing neighbourhood. It was his opinion that the proposal meets the objective of the Guidelines.
19Section 2.0 (Streetscapes) asks that the proposal contribute to a streetscape which is oriented at ground level without intrusion such as parking spaces at the front of the building (section 2.2). He stated that in this instance, the proposal provides rear yard parking and seeks to reduce the impact of outdoor parking on the streetscape.
Desirable and Minor in Nature
20Mr. Wright having visited the site and the surrounding properties, provided his opinion that with the existing building having already been constructed and with the addition of the fourth dwelling unit to be located in the basement of the building, there will be no impact on the surrounding properties or the area in general. The desirability of additional housing with sufficient parking will add to housing stock in an already existing residential area.
21He opined that the variances meet the s. 45(1) requirements of the Act.
FINDINGS
22The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted findings of Mr. Wright.
23The Tribunal finds that under the PPS, the proposal is an efficient use of land for intensification and redevelopment.
24The Tribunal finds the Subject Property is designated General Urban Area in the Official Plan and meets the requirements set out with respect to compatibility and character within the surrounding land uses of the neighbourhood. There is no evidence to show any unacceptable adverse impact on the occupants or owners of surrounding properties.
25The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is appropriate use for the Subject Property and represents good planning.
26The Tribunal is satisfied that the variances are minor in nature.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“D. Chipman”
D.CHIPMAN 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.