Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 28, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001251

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant Appellant: Jeremy Nixon

Subject: Consent

Property Address/ Description: 2880 Roger Stevens Drive

Municipality: City of Ottawa

Municipal File No.: D08-01-21/B-00131

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001251

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001251

Heard: March 2, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Jeremy Nixon

Rod Price

City of Ottawa

Timothy Marc*

DECISION DELIVERED C. HARDY AND S. MANN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Jeremy Nixon (“Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Ottawa (“City”) to sever a portion of the property located at 2880 Roger Stevens Drive, Ottawa (“Subject Property”) and convey the severed portion to the abutting property owner at 2875 Pierce Road (“Application”).

2Planning staff at the City recommended against the Application. However, in the event that the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) approved the Application, planning staff requested that the specific conditions identified in the Comments to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 28, 2021 be imposed.

3The COA agreed with planning staff and refused the Application. In its decision, the COA was “…not satisfied that the proposal is in the public interest or has adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, particularly the parcel size proposed to be conveyed to the abutting landowner. The Majority of the Committee finds that the proposed lot line adjustment cannot be justified for legal or technical reasons as required under the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan because 2875 Pierce Road is notably compliant with the Zoning By-law.”

4The Applicant appealed the decision of the COA to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

Preliminary Matters

5Timothy Marc appeared at the hearing as Counsel for the City. Mr. Marc called Mark Gordon as his sole witness who was qualified by the Tribunal, without challenge, to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.

6The Applicant did not appear at the hearing but was represented by Rod Price. Mr. Price sought both to present evidence as a witness and act as a representative before the Tribunal. Mr. Marc raised issue to this proposal citing Jones v. Toronto, 2016 CarswellOnt 16590 wherein “one cannot be the witness and the agent for a party at the same time, one has to make a choice.” The Tribunal explained the distinction between these roles and ruled that it would not be appropriate for Mr. Price to act as both agent and witness. Mr. Price elected to act as agent and the Tribunal reminded him that submissions must be limited to factual evidence and not to enter into the realm of giving opinion. The Tribunal noted that Mr. Marc could dispel anything Mr. Price raised that the City deemed incorrect through its opening statement or through its witness.

7There were no requests for Party or Participant status at the hearing.

8The Tribunal received and marked the following documents as Exhibits to the hearing:

• Exhibit 1 – Book of Documents of the City

SUBJECT PROPERTY

9The Subject Property is approximately 104 acres and is designated Agricultural Resource Area in the City Official Plan (“OP”) and zoned Agricultural Area under the City Zoning By-law (“ZBL”). The adjacent neighbouring property at 2875 Pierce Road (“Pierce Property”) is a residential parcel which is approximately 2.14 acres and is zoned Agricultural Area under the ZBL.

10The Pierce Property is an irregularly shaped residential parcel which includes a narrow laneway from the frontage on Pierce Road.

PROPOSED CONSENT

11The Application proposed to sever a 1.6 acre portion (“Severed Parcel”) to provide additional lot area to the Pierce Property and allow the Subject Property to remain in a contiguous state (“Proposed Consent”). The Severed Parcel is currently vacant and if severed, will be landlocked.

12The Severed Parcel is located north and west of an existing farm ditch which acts as a natural barrier to agricultural use on the Subject Property. The Severed Parcel will have a depth of 78 metres (“m”) and a lot area of 6,756 square metres (“sq m”).

13The Application proposed that the retained lot would have a frontage of 130 m on Roger Stevens Drive, a depth of 1,482 m and a lot area of 41.4 hectares (“Retained Parcel”).

HEARING

14Mark Gordon, a