Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 13, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210001
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Riccardo D’Angelo
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 586 Churchill Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipality File No.: D08-01-20/B-00167
LPAT Case No.: PL210001
LPAT File No.: PL210001
LPAT Case Name: D’Angelo v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Riccardo D’Angelo
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 586 Churchill Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipality File No.: D08-01-20/B-00228
LPAT Case No.: PL210001
LPAT File No.: PL210002
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Riccardo D’Angelo
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 586 Churchill Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipality File No.: D08-02-20/A-00163
LPAT Case No.: PL210001
LPAT File No.: PL210004
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Riccardo D’Angelo
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 586 Churchill Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipality File No.: D08-02-20/A-00162
LPAT Case No.: PL210001
LPAT File No.: PL210003
Heard: April 21, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Riccardo D’Angelo
Ursula Melinz
City of Ottawa
In absentia
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON APRIL 21, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the hearing of the appeals by Riccardo D’Angelo (“Applicant/Owner”) from the refusal of the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to grant provisional consent and to authorize minor variances for the property municipally known as 586 Churchill Avenue (the “subject property”).
2The subject property is a corner lot approximately 625.7 square metres (“sq m”) in area with 20.12 metres (“m”) frontage along Churchill Avenue, a major collector road, and 31.07 m frontage on Avondale Avenue, a local road. The subject property is located within the Westboro Village Neighbourhood and currently maintains a two-storey, single detached dwelling sited at the centre of the property and a detached shed and garage along the west property line.
3The subject property is designated General Urban Area (“GUA”) by the Official Plan (“OP”) and zoned Residential Third Density (R3R) Zone by Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”).
4In a report to the COA dated November 12, 2020, the City’s Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department (“PIEDD”) indicated it had no concerns about the applications but requested that consent approval be subject to the conditions contained in the report.
5One local resident attended the COA meeting and expressed her concern about the aesthetic of the proposed development, and that the existing trees on the property would be sufficiently protected during construction. A letter was submitted to the COA by the Westboro Community Association also identifying a concern about tree preservation, and another from a local resident concerned about reduced permeable surface area.
6At the meeting held on November 18, 2020, the COA refused the consent and minor variances applications, providing commentary in separate ‘Decisions and Reasons of the Committee’ reports, as follows:
Based on the evidence, the Committee, while recognizing the Applicants’ effort to address the issues raised in the correspondence on file, is not satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
The Committee is agreed that the requested variances are, from a planning and public interest view, not desirable for the appropriate use of the land, building or structure on the property, and relative to the neighbouring lands. The Committee also finds that the requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed massing and scale of the development for this lot with minimal amenity space does not contribute to the neighbourhood integration or the prevailing pattern of abutting development and does not represent a modest form of intensification.
In addition, the Committee finds that the requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law which is to regulate development in a manner that is compatible with existing land use patterns so that the mixed dwelling, residential character of a neighbourhood is maintained or enhanced, as the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site. The Committee finds that the requested variances, while individually may appear to be a slight variation from the requirements of the Zoning By-law, cumulatively are not minor because they would create in the opinion of the Committee an unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties and the neighbourhood in general.
In further noting that the concurrent applications for consent having been refused as the Committee does not consider the lands suitable for that purpose, the Committee does not authorize the requested variances.
and,
The Committee, in deciding whether to approve a Consent Application, is required by the Planning Act to have regard for s. 51(24), which sets out criteria pertaining to subdividing land. This Section stipulates that the Committee must consider such matters as adequacy of servicing, natural features, conformity with the Official Plan, land suitability, grades and elevations, etc. For the Committee to approve and application for Consent, it must find that a Plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality.
In deliberating on these applications, the Committee, in noting that the concurrent applications for minor variances which would have allowed for lot creation for this proposal having been refused as the Committee does not consider the lands suitable in this instance for that purpose, the Committee does not authorize the requested consent.
These applications are therefore refused.
7No individuals or entities sought Party or Participant status in this hearing.
The Proposal
8The Owner proposes to subdivide the subject property to create two lots and to create reciprocal easements over a shared pedestrian walkway running along the new lot line right-of-way. One lot is proposed to be developed with a two-storey long semi-detached dwelling (“long semi”) and the other, with a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, creating four residential units in total. The existing two-storey dwelling at the centre of the property will be demolished.
9The two proposed semi-detached dwellings are oriented in an east to west manner, creating a north interior lot and a south corner lot. As a result of the single frontage on Churchill Avenue of the north interior lot, that dwelling is considered to be a long semi dwelling. As a result of the dual frontages, the dwelling on the south corner lot is considered to be a traditional semi-detached dwelling.
10Access to the property will be via an existing double driveway located at the western end of the property. The current driveway will be lengthened to accommodate unit parking for two vehicles and two visitor parking spaces. The parking arrangement exceeds the minimum required parking standard.
11The proposed Draft R-Plan illustrates eight different parts. Parts 1, 2 and 6 form the north interior lots (the “North Lot”). Parts 1 and 2 consist of the rear unit and connection to Churchill Avenue, and Part 6 consists of the front unit of the long semi. These lots combined comprise a total area 285.3 sq m, with a depth of 31.1 m and 9.75 m frontage on Churchill Avenue.
12Parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 form the south corner lot (the “South Lot”). Parts 5 and 7 consist of the front and rear units of the long semi and Parts 3 and 4 represent areas where vehicular and pedestrian rights-of-ways (“ROW”) are proposed in favour of the interior lot to the north. Part 8 will be dedicated to the City for a corner site triangle. The combined lots comprise an area of 340.4 sq m, with a depth of 31.1 m and 10.95 m frontage on Churchill Avenue.
13Grants of Easement/Rights-of-Ways over Parts 3 and 4 in favour of Parts 1, 2 and 6, and Part 2 in favour of Parts 3, 4, 5 and 7 are proposed to provide access to rear yard parking. Part 8 will be dedicated to the City for a site triangle.
14The Owner is requesting that the consent application for the ROW on the South lot be expanded to a reciprocal consent to sever. Brain Casagrande, a land use planner retained by the Applicant, explained that the consent applications effectively amount to one severance and a ROW over the South Lot, and the reason for requesting the amendment is to avoid a situation in future where these lots would inadvertently merge.
15In order to facilitate the consents, the Applicant also submitted an application for minor variances. The Applicant is seeking permission to amend the original application as it relates to the yard setback variances, only. The purpose of the amendments (as identified below in brackets) is to correct discrepancies between the original application forms and the final site plan. The revised list of variances required is as follows:
North Lot:
to permit a reduced lot width of 9.175 m, whereas a minimum lot width of 10 m is required;
to permit a reduced front yard setback of 3 m (amended from 3.09 m), whereas 6 m is required;
to permit a reduced minimum lot area of 285.3 sq m, whereas 360 sq m is required.
South Lot:
to permit a reduced minimum corner side yard setback of 3 m (amended from 3.05 m), whereas 4.62 m is required;
to permit a minimum front yard setback of 3.0 m (amended from 3.09 m), whereas 6 m is required;
to permit a reduced minimum lot area (Parts 7 and 8) of 119.3 sq m, whereas 180 sq m is required;
to permit an increased maximum driveway width of 5.62 m, whereas a maximum driveway width of 3 m is allowed.
Planning Evidence
16Mr. Casagrande provided contextual and land use planning evidence and opinion on behalf of the Owner. He is a Registered Professional Planner and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners.
17It is Mr. Casagrande’s professional opinion that the consent applications meet the criteria established in s. 2 and s. 51 (24) of the Planning Act.
18The lot creation proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest. There is no impact to ecological systems or natural areas; the proposal allows for the efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; and the health and safety of the community is maintained.
19Provincial policies generally identify infill development as appropriate for growth and development. Infill development by its nature promotes sustainable principles and locations like the subject lands that are close to public transit and oriented to pedestrians and active transportation.
20The applications are consistent with provincial and municipal polices that encourage intensification and the efficient use of land and public services. This area has available municipal roads, lights and services, and the proposed lot creation is designed to integrate into the existing lot fabric.
21The applications encourage intensification and make efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services, and there are no known servicing capacity concerns in this area. In his opinion, the proposed lot creation is not premature.
22The subject lands are suitable for the intended use. The subject property is suitable for semi-detached dwellings and each of the proposed parcels will enjoy frontage and direct access to a public street. The proposed lots are rectangular in shape and have widths and areas that are within the broad range of lot dimensions in this area. The property is surrounded by similar development forms and the orientation of the proposed lots is consistent with other properties on Churchill and Avondale Avenues. One influencing factor in the site plan design is the desire to retain the mature trees on the property and the Avondale Avenue right-of-way.
23There are no known restrictions on the property or significant naturals resources in the vicinity of the subject lands. Public transit services and existing schools are available in the area.
24The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS emphasizes intensification of built-up areas in order to promote the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure and public services facilities and to avoid the need for unjustified and uneconomical expansion.
25Mr. Casagrande referred the Tribunal to four planning policy themes of the PPS which he considers to be particularly relevant in the assessment of the proposed applications: section 1.1.1. (a) – promotes efficient development and land use patterns in the interest of the financial well being of municipalities; section 1.1.1 (d) – promotes integrating transit supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to optimize transit and minimize land consumption and servicing costs; section 1.1.3.2 – restates these same provincial interests for settlement areas and adds the notion of supporting active transportation; and section 1.1.3.4 – supports development standards that promote intensification and compact form.
26It is his professional opinion that the consent applications are consistent with the PPS and meet the applicable criteria for approval under the Planning Act.
27The GUA designation permits all types of densities of housing, as well as other urban uses. The OP sets out that the City supports intensification in the GUA where it will enhance and complement its desirable characteristics and long-term renewal. Generally, new development, including redevelopment, proposed within the interior of established neighbourhoods will be designed to compliment the area’s pattern of built form and open spaces. The predominant form of development and intensification will be semi-detached and other ground related multiple units housing.
28When considering a proposal for residential development through infill or redevelopment in the GUA, the City will consider the compatibility of the new development as it relates to existing character and its contribution to the maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles. The policies of the OP indicate that this precise building typology and other ground oriented multiple housing forms will be the predominant form of intensification in the GUA. The proposal balances housing types and tenures while adding a variety for the demographic profile as there are less semis than singles in the area.
29The general intent and purpose of the performance standards in the ZBL are essentially to ensure proper functionality of developments while mitigating impact on adjacent properties. In the case of all the proposed variances, the zoning standard variation is either profoundly close to the as-of-right standard or is consistent with either the condition on the adjacent lands and/or has already been amended to a similar or more permissive standard.
30In Mr. Casagrande’s professional opinion, the proposed variances are consistent with the intent of the policies of the OP and the ZBL and present an opportunity to meet provincial and OP policies and goals of intensification to take advantage of existing municipal services and infrastructure.
31The proposal will accommodate a modest amount of intensification in a manner that will be compatible to the existing context in an area where such intensification is both supported and encouraged. The proposal represents balanced and compatible intensification of an existing property within the GUA to accommodate future development on existing services.
32The area variances relate to the proposed building type and the setback variances relate to the street front edges where undue adverse impacts are not generated.
33In his opinion the proposed variances, as amended, are desirable for appropriate development and use of the land because they will accommodate a modest amount of intensification in a manner that will be compatible to the existing context in an area where this kind of intensification is supported and encouraged.
34Overall, it is Mr. Casagrande’s professional opinion that the applications are consistent with the PPS and meet all relevant criteria and tests under the Planning Act and represent good planning.
35City Planner Sole Carvajal was appearing under summons by the Owner. Ms. Carvajal is employed as a planner in the City’s PIEDD and prepared the report to the COA, in which she recommended that the applications be approved subject to a prepared list of conditions for consent approval.
36Ms. Carvajal indicated her concurrence with the thorough review of the applications provided by Mr. Casagrande, and confirmed it was her opinion that the consent application should be approved subjected to the conditions recommended in her report to the COA, and that the minor variances meet the four tests and should also be approved.
Disposition
37In determining these applications, the Tribunal accepts the uncontested planning analysis and opinion evidence of Mr. Casagrande and has taken into consideration the PIEDD report and recommendations of Ms. Carvajal.
38The Tribunal is satisfied that the matters of provincial interest identified in s. 2, and the relevant criteria enumerated in s. 51 (24) of the Planning Act have been duly regarded, and finds that in accordance with s. 53 (1), a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the lots proposed to be created.
39The Tribunal finds that the development form being proposed is appropriate for the subject lands and the overall proposal is consistent with the provincial direction as established by the PPS and is in conformity with the land use and development principles, objectives and policies of the City’s OP. The overall proposal supports the provincial objective and the City’s residential development policies for the creation of new housing opportunities on lands with existing available infrastructure, and the promotion of the use of public transit services and active transportation.
40The Tribunal further finds that the development form that is being proposed is consistent with, and complementary to, the existing development and established character found in this stable residential neighbourhood. The proposal does not adversely impact or otherwise affect other properties or the broader neighbourhood.
41In consideration of the concerns identified by local residents to the COA, the Tribunal notes that the City’s Forestry Services Department has provided comment and a condition of consent approval requiring that all trees on the road allowance be protected, and a permit will be required for any removal of trees from the subject property. In response to the concern about the adequacy of permeable surface area, the Owner is required to provide a grading and drainage plan to be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer as a condition of consent approval.
42The variances facilitate the consents and meet the tests established in s. 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL are being appropriately maintained and the proposed development is an appropriate and desirable use of the subject lands. The variances facilitate the division of the property and do not result in the creation of unacceptable adverse impact, and therefore, are minor in nature. The Tribunal is satisfied that overall, the use and development of the subject lands in the manner being proposed aligns with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest.
ORDER
43The Tribunal having been asked to consider applications which have been amended from the original applications, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in s. 45 (18.1.1) and s. 53 (35) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required.
44The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed and the provisional consent, as amended to include a reciprocal consent to sever for the ROW on the south lot, is to be given subject to the conditions set out in the PIEDD Report dated November 12, 2020.
45The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, as amended, are authorized.
“M.A. Sills”
M.A. SILLS
VICE-CHAIR
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.