Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 20, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200586
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-01-20/B-00221
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200586
LPAT Case Name: Falsetto Homes Inc. 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: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-01-20/B-00222
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200587
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-01-20/B-00223
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200588
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-01-20/B-00224
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200589
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-20/A-00229
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200590
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-20/A-00230
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200591
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-20/A-00231
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200592
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 609-615 Parkview Road
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-20/A-00232
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200593
Heard: April 29, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Falsetto Homes Inc. Jacob Polowin
City of Ottawa In absentia
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON APRIL 29, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the hearing of appeals by Falsetto Homes Inc. (“Falsetto”) 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 legally known as Lots 102, 103, 104, and Part of 105 of Registered Plan 265, and known municipally as 609 - 615 Parkview Road (collectively, the “subject property”).
2The subject property is within the Hampton Park neighbourhood and has a total lot area of approximately 1,329.69 square metres (“sq m”), a depth of 34.06 meters (“m”) and 9.02 m frontage along Parkview Road. The subject property is currently divided into three lots, two of which are developed with a bungalow.
3The subject property is designated General Urban Area (“GUA”) on Schedule B of the Official Plan (“OP”) and zoned Residential Third Density, Subzone R (R3R) by Zoning Bylaw No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”).
Request for Participant Status
4The Tribunal received a Request for Participant Status from Christine Peacock in advance of the hearing, and in granting that request, acknowledges that the collective concerns of Ms. Peacock and local residents are those expressed in a letter to the Ward Councillor, and subsequently provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also received numerous other Request for Participant Status forms, but in each case, the requestor simply confirmed concurrence with the written submission provided by Ms. Peacock.
The Development Proposal
5Falsetto proposes to create four lots from the extant lands, and to construct four three-storey, three-unit dwellings (“triplexes”) fronting onto Parkview Road on the resulting lots, creating a total of twelve new residential units. To regularize the newly created lots minor variances for reduced lot width and lot areas are also required.
6Two shared driveways will provide access from Parkview Road to parking spaces in the rear yards. Grants of Easements/Right-of-Ways are required to facilitate access to/from the rear yard parking areas.
7The reciprocal severance applications are as follows:
Severance Application 1: creates Part 1 and 2 (northerly lot) and will have a lot area of 332.12 sq m and 9.75 m frontage on Parkview Road. This lot will be occupied by one triplex. An easement in favour of Parts 3 and 4 is required over Part 2 to provide access to rear yard parking.
Severance Application 2: creates Parts 3 and 4 and will have a lot area of 332.34 sq m and 9.75 m frontage on Parkview Road. This lot will be occupied by one triplex. An easement in favour Parts 1 and 2 is required over Part 3 to provide access to rear yard parking.
Severance Application 3: creates Part 5 and 6 and will have a lot area of 332.51 sq m and 9.75 m frontage on Parkview Road. This lot will be occupied by one triplex. An easement in favour Parts 7 and 8 is required over Part 6 to provide access to rear yard parking.
Severance Application 4: creates Part 7 and 8 and will have a lot area of 332.72 sq m and 9.75 m frontage on Parkview Road. This lot will be occupied by one triplex. An easement in favour Parts 5 and 6 is required over Part 7 to provide access to rear yard parking.
8The required minor variances are as follows:
Parts 1 and 2:
a) to permit a reduced lot width of 9.75 m, whereas a minimum lot width of 12 m is required:
b) to permit a reduced lot area of 332.12 sq m, whereas a minimum lot area of 360 sq m is required.
Parts 3 and 4
c) to permit a reduced lot width of 9.75 m, whereas a minimum lot width of 12 m is required:
d) to permit a reduced lot area of 332.34 sq m, whereas a minimum lot area of 360 sq m is required.
Parts 5 and 6
e) to permit a reduced lot width of 9.75 m, whereas a minimum lot width of 12 m is required:
f) to permit a reduced lot area of 332.51 sq m, whereas a minimum lot area of 360 sq m is required.
Parts 7 and 8
g) to permit a reduced lot width of 9.75 m, whereas a minimum lot width of 12 m is required:
h) to permit a reduced lot area of 332.72 sq m, whereas a minimum lot area of 360 sq m is required.
9Several residents made oral presentations at the COA in opposition to the planned development proposal, and numerous others submitted letters of opposition. One letter in support of the application was submitted.
10In a report to the COA dated October 16, 2020, staff of the City’s Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department (“PIEDD”) noted that based on an assessment of the immediate surrounding area, the proposed lot width and area is consistent with the lot fabric, and the requested variances are sufficiently minor in nature and impact. The proposed development is compliant with the applicable zoning provisions for three-unit dwellings in an R3R zone, save and except for lot area and width.
11The report further indicated that the PIEDD had no concerns about the applications, but did comment that the proposed development and its integration within the neighbourhood would benefit from additional attention to architectural design, particularly a variation of material finishing choices over the four new buildings. Staff also provided a list of conditions for consent approval.
12City Planner Jeff Nadeau attended the COA meeting and confirmed that the PIEDD was satisfied that the application is reasonable.
13Citing concerns about the size of the proposed lots, overdevelopment of the site, and incompatibility with the existing character of the neighbourhood, the COA refused the consent applications and denied the variances.
Planning Evidence
14Murray Chown provided contextual evidence and a planning rationale and opinion evidence to support of the development proposal. He is a Registered Professional Planner and a Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and has more than 35 years experience in municipal development planning.
15Principally, Mr. Chown underscored that the OP encourages and supports infill development and other intensification within the GUA that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the long-term vitality of existing communities.
16The City’s Growth Management Strategy (“GMS”) is in place to align with the new Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) with respect to providing a minimum residential supply that has an appropriate range and mix of housing opportunities to satisfy market demand through intensification and redevelopment, while locating growth to efficiently use existing infrastructure, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.
17Mr. Chown told the Tribunal that the City is expected to grow by 402,00 people by 2046, effectively creating a need for approximately 92,100 new residential units to be developed within the built-up area. To assist the City in achieving a balanced GMS, intensification of existing neighbourhoods will be required. The subject property, in his opinion, is an excellent candidate for intensification due to its servicing availability and proximity to transit services.
18The GUA designation permits the development of a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes, and life circumstances. The predominate form of development and intensification in the GUA is intended to be semi-detached and other ground-oriented multiple-unit housing. Triplexes are a ground-oriented, multi-residential unit that is a permitted use within the GUA. The development proposal is an example of intensification within the GUA that provides for a range and choice of housing types.
19The proposed consent applications support a permitted form of housing that complements the pattern, scale, and desirable characteristics of development along Parkview Road. The development of the triplexes is an example of infill and intensification in an urban area that is consistent with the existing character of the community and the neighbourhood. In Mr. Chown’s opinion the intensification of the subject property as proposed is in keeping with the direction of the PPS and the OP and will contribute to the implementation of the GMS.
20The requested minor variances facilitate the development of four triplexes, which are an as-of-right use under the R3R zoning. The triplexes being proposed meet the zoning performance standards for building height, front and rear yard setback and interior side yard setbacks. The smaller lot width and lot area will have no impact on the streetscape or the functionality of the site.
21Mr. Chown contends that the reduced lot width of 9.75 m (from 12 m) is compatible with the lot fabric of this neighbourhood. There have been many lots in the surrounding neighbourhood that have been subdivided, including on Parkview Road, where the resulting lot widths range between 6.3 m and 11 m, with the majority of lots being around 8.5 m in width.
22The proposed infill development supports intensification while having regard for existing uses, built form, and the lot fabric of the neighbourhood. The reduced lots widths allow the proposed development to fit in with the surrounding built form, and in his opinion, the proposed 9.75 m lot width is appropriate for this area.
23The reduced lot areas, ranging from 332.12 to 332.72 sq m, allows the proposed infill development to fit in with the surrounding built form. Mr. Chown submits that allowing a smaller lot area promotes intensification and provides for development that is compatible with the overall character and lot fabric of the neighbourhood as there are many properties in this neighbourhood with similarly small lot areas. In fact, most of the subdivided lots on Parkview Road and the surrounding block have lot areas of between 280 and 350 sq m. The smaller lot area being proposed is consistent with the lot fabric of the street and the surrounding neighbourhood and will facilitate infill development/intensification that is compatible with the existing patterns of residential development along Parkview Road.
24In his opinion, the requested variances are desirable for the use of the subject property and are minor in nature. Overall, the proposed development represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.
Findings
25In determining these applications, the Tribunal accepts the uncontradicted planning analysis and opinion evidence of Mr. Chown and has had due regard for the PIEDD report to the COA and the opinions and recommendations of City planning staff.
26The 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 in accordance with s. 53 (1) a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the lots proposed to be created.
27The Tribunal finds that the development proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the OP. The development proposal adheres to and supports the Provincial directive and the City’s development policies regarding the creation of new housing opportunities on lands with existing available infrastructure, and supports the promotion of the use of public transit services and active transportation.
28The development form being proposed is an appropriate and permitted use of the subject lands and the overall proposal is consistent with the provincial land use direction established in the PPS, and in conformity with the land use and development principles, objectives and policies of the OP, and in particular, the GMS adopted by the City.
29The variances facilitate the orderly division of the subject lands and meet the criteria established in s. 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL is being appropriately maintained. The development proposal will further the provincial and local initiatives aimed at the creation of new housing opportunities and represents an appropriate and desirable use of the subject lands.
30The Tribunal 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 detract from the varied nature and character of the area and does not adversely impact or otherwise affect other properties, or the neighbourhood as a whole. The variances facilitate the development being proposed and are minor in nature.
31The Tribunal has also considered the collective concerns of local residents as identified in the written submission provided by Ms. Peacock. Essentially, these concerns relate to traffic congestion and availability of on-street parking; reduced greenspace, soft landscaping area and permeable surface area; non-conformity with the neighbourhood character; visual intrusion; reduction of tree coverage on the street; and the lack of snow storage area.
32These same types of concerns are typically expressed by local residents whenever this type of multi-residential unit development form is being proposed within a mature residential neighbourhood. However, the City has established as-of-right development forms and zoning permissions, and triplexes are a permitted use in the R3R Zone. In this case, except for what amounts to a minor variation of lot frontage and lot area zoning provisions, the structures being proposed are fully compliant with the zoning standards, including building height and yard setbacks.
33Furthermore, the severance applications are subject to the fulfillment of a number of conditions, which include, among other things, the requirement for a servicing plan; a grading and drainage plan prepared by a Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario; a noise attenuation study possibly leading to the requirement for a noise control agreement; and a registered Reference Plan prepared by Ontario Land Surveyor registered in the Province of Ontario.
34In accordance with the Municipal Trees and Natural Areas Protection By-law all road allowance trees are to be protected and compensation will be required if any tree is damaged or lost. The Urban Tree Conservation By-law requires that a permit be obtained to remove any distinctive trees from the subject property. Parking control is a matter for the City’s By-law Enforcement Department, and snow removal on City streets is a municipal operations matter.
35Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the development form 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. The Tribunal finds that the intended residential use 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
36The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed, and provisional consent and reciprocal grants of easement are to be given subject to the Conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
37The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“M.A. Sills”
M.A. SILLS
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.
609 and 615 Parkview Road
LPAT Case No.: PL200586
LPAT File No.: PL200586, PL200587, PL200588, PL200589, PL200590, PL200591, PL200592
List of Recommended Conditions for Consent
That the Owner(s) provide proof to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, that the existing dwelling has been removed, that the existing sewer services are capped at the sewer and that the existing water service is blanked at the watermain.
That the Owner(s) provide evidence (servicing plan), to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, that both the severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and sewer connection, as appropriate, and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line and are connected directly to City infrastructure. If they do cross the proposed severance line, or they are not independent, the Owner(s) will be required to relocate or construct new services from the city sewers and/or watermain at his/her own costs.
That the Owner(s) enter into a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement, at the expense of the Owner(s), setting forth the obligations between the Owner(s) and the proposed future owners. The Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement shall set forth the joint use and maintenance of all common elements including, but not limited to, the common party walls, common structural elements such as roof, footings, soffits, foundations, common areas, common driveways and common landscaping.
The Owner shall ensure that the Agreement is binding upon all the unit owners and successors in title and shall be to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, and City Legal Services. The Committee requires written confirmation that the Agreement is satisfactory to the City’s General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, and is satisfactory to City Legal Services, as well as a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.
That the Owner(s) shall provide evidence that a grading and drainage plan, prepared by a qualified Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, an Ontario Land Surveyor or a Certified Engineering Technologist, has been submitted to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee. The grading and drainage plan shall delineate existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained properties, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate.
The Owner(s) shall prepare a noise attenuation study (or noise and vibration attenuation study if applicable) in compliance with the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. The Owner(s) shall enter into an agreement with the City that requires the Owner to implement any noise control (and vibration if applicable) attenuation measures recommended in the approved study. The Agreement will also deal with any covenants/notices recommended in the approved study, that shall be registered on the land title and bind future owners on subsequent transfers, warning purchasers and/or tenants of expected noise levels due to the existing source of environmental noise (arterial, highway, airport, etc.). The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.
That the Owner(s) file with the Committee a copy of the registered Reference Plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor registered in the Province of Ontario, and signed by the Registrar, confirming the frontage and area of the severe land. If the Registered Plan does not indicate the lot area, a letter from the Surveyor confirming the area is required. The Registered Reference Plan must conform substantially to the Draft Reference Plan filed with the Application for Consent.
That upon completion of the above conditions, and within the one-year period outlined above, the Owner(s) file with the Committee, the “electronic registration in preparation documents” for the Conveyances for which the Consent is required.