Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 28, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001465
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: George Elias
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 248 Ferland Street
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-21/A-00262
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001465
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001465
OLT Case Name: Elias v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: George Elias
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 248 Ferland Street
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-21/A-00263
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001465
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001466
Heard: February 8, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| George Elias | Ursula Melinz |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER and jatinder bhullar on february 8, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1The subject property is located at 248 Ferland Street (“Subject Property” or “SP”), in the City of Ottawa (“City”). There exists a single residential dwelling at the Subject Property. George Elias (“Applicant/Appellant”) filed two applications with the City. An Application for Consent (D08-01-21-00275) to create two separate lots was approved by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the City and this is not before the Tribunal. The Applicant/Appellant plans to demolish the existing residential dwelling and construct two semi-detached dwellings. In order to build the proposed dwellings, the Applicant/Appellant requested minor variances from Zoning By-Law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”) specific to each of the two lots. The COA refused the minor variance applications, which, as appealed by the Applicant/Appellant, are before the Tribunal in this Hearing.
2The City did not attend the hearing.
3The requested minor variance relief from the ZBL is as follows for each of the lots known as 248A and 248B:
248A Ferland Street (Part 1) – one half of the proposed semi-detached dwelling
a) To permit a projection (balconies) to project 1.14 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law states that balconies may not project into a required yard on lots 30 metres or less in depth. In this case, the lot depth is 29.11 metres.
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 177.56 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres.
c) To permit a reduced side yard setback of 0.67 metres (3rd floor level), whereas the By-law requires a side yard setback of 1.2 metres.
d) To permit a reduced rear yard of 24.15% of the lot depth (7.03 m) and 24.07% of the lot area (42.74 m2), whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 30% of the lot depth (8.73 m) and 25% of the lot area (44.39 m2).
248B Ferland Street (Part 2) – other half of the proposed semi-detached dwelling
a) To permit a projection (balconies) to project 1.14 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law states that balconies may not project into a required yard on lots 30 metres or less in depth. In this case, the lot depth is 29.11 metres.
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 177.58 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres.
c) To permit a reduced side yard setback of 0.65 metres (3rd floor level), whereas the By-law requires a side yard setback of 1.2 metres.
d) To permit a reduced rear yard of 24.15% of the lot depth (7.03 m) and 24.07% of the lot area (43.02 m2), whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30% of the lot depth (8.73 m) and 25% of the lot area (44.39 m2).
EVIDENCE
4The Applicant/Appellant filed three documents as identified below:
a. Witness Statement of Lisa Dalla Rosa, marked as Exhibit 1.
b. Joint Book of Documents, Exhibit 2.
c. Section 144 of the City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law No. 2008-250, Exhibit 3.
5The Applicant/Appellant called Ms. Dalla Rosa to provide land use planning evidence on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant. Ms. Dalla Rosa was affirmed and qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
6Ms. Dalla Rosa stated that the Subject Property is located on a dead-end street and is currently going through revitalization and intensification. She added that the location is within walking distance to Beechwood Avenue, which is an arterial road and is a traditional main street that serves the community. She stated that the Subject Property is also located within 200 metres of Optimiste Park, which contains outdoor fitness equipment, basketball courts and other play structures. The Subject Property has an existing one-and-a-half storey duplex dwelling in the middle of the SP and is in good condition. The building typologies in the area are a mix of two and three storey forms. The SPs are within an area that is zoned R4UA. The R4 zone stands for the Residential Fourth Density and allows for a wide mix of residential building forms ranging from detached to low rise apartment dwellings, in some cases, limited to four units, and in no case, more than four storeys.
7Ms. Dalla Rosa stated that the Planning Department’s main concerns of the minor variances focused on the rear balconies projecting into the rear yard. She stated that since the time of the appeal, the Zoning By-Law had changed and allows these balconies. As such, this requested minor variance for each of the lots is no longer needed. Only the remaining four variances per lot are required to be determined by the Tribunal.
8Ms. Dalla Rosa opined that the minor variances sought meet the Provincial Interests under s. 2 of the Planning Act, in that these provide for a development that has regard for the following applicable policies in s. 2:
(h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities
(h.1) The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies.
(p) The appropriate location of growth and development.
(q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians.
(r) The promotion of built form that,
(i) is well designed,
(ii) encourages a sense place
(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.
9Ms. Dalla Rosa also opined that the proposal is consistent with the applicable policies in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”). She opined that, specifically, the proposal is consistent with Policies 1.1.3.1 and 1.1.3.2. She added that these policies promote efficient development and land use patterns, which sustain the financial well-being of the province and municipalities over the long term; provision of different densities and a mix of land uses for efficient use of land and an appropriate, plus efficient use of the infrastructure and public service facilities, which are planned or available. She further opined that the proposal is also consistent with Policies 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4 in that it is in an appropriate location and is transit supportive and integrates well with surrounding context while providing for housing options through intensification and redevelopment; and it does not create any risks to public health and safety.
10As to the City Official Plan (“OP”), Ms. Dalla Rosa opined that the minor variances conform to Schedule B (The Urban Policy Plan), Schedule C (Primary Urban Cycling Network) and Schedule E (Urban Road Network) of the City OP. She opined that the minor variances also conform with s. 2.2.2 of the OP as the proposal contributes towards intensification of underutilized Subject Property.
11Ms. Dalla Rosa also reviewed s. 2.5.1 of the OP. She stated that the proposal conforms with directions in s. 2.5.1 as the proposal maintains, plus enhances the existing community character in the neighbourhood through aligned setbacks, heights and projections. She further added that the proposal also provides for appropriate fronting and entrances to be similar to existing adjacent properties.
12Ms. Dalla Rosa opined that in her expert analysis she found that the variances will not create an undue adverse impact on the SP or surrounding properties. The relief sought is similar to other properties in the immediate vicinity and therefore meets the requirement of being minor in nature.
13Ms. Dalla Rosa opined that the minor variances represented an opportunity to meet PPS and OP policies and goals of intensification to take advantage of existing municipal services and infrastructure. The surrounding neighbours were in favour of the variances as they saw it as an improvement to the existing rear yard. The variances are desirable for the 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 such intensification is supported and encouraged. As such, Ms. Dalla Rosa deems the application desirable for the appropriate use of the lands.
14Ms. Dalla Rosa opined that the minor variances requested maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law for a use that conforms with the R4UA zoning. R4UA allows for a wide mix of residential building forms ranging from detached to low rise apartment dwellings, in some cases, limited to four units, and in no case, more than four storeys. She thus opined that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law.
ANALYSIS
15In order for the variances to be authorized, the Tribunal must determine if the following four test are met:
a. Do the minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP?
b. Does the minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL?
c. Are the variances minor?
d. Do the minor variances allow for the appropriate and desirable development of the Subject Property?
16The Tribunal received comprehensive and uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Ms. Dalla Rosa. Based on this expert opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the variances are consistent with the PPS; maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP and the Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, as amended. The Tribunal additionally also finds based on the evidence of Ms. Dalla Rosa that the variances are minor individually and when considered together for each of the proposed lots and provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the Subject Property.
17The Tribunal has had regard to the decision of the COA and the materials it considered.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part and the variances to the City of Ottawa By-Law No. 2008-250, as amended, are authorized as listed below:
a. For lot identified as 248A Ferland Street:
Whereas a 180 square metres (“sq m”) Minimum Lot Area is required, a Minimum Lot Area of 177.56 sq m is authorized.
Whereas a Minimum Rear Yard Setback of 8.73 m is required, 7.03 m is authorized.
Whereas a Minimum Rear Yard Area of 44.39 sq m is required, 42.74 sq m is authorized.
Whereas a Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback of 1.2 m is required, 0.67 is authorized (for the third floor only).
b. For lot identified as 248B Ferland Street:
Whereas a 180 sq m Minimum Lot Area is required, a Minimum Lot Area of 177.58 sq m is authorized.
Whereas a Minimum Rear Yard Setback of 8.73 m is required, 7.03 m is authorized.
Whereas a Minimum Rear Yard Area of 44.39 sq m is required, 43.02 sq m is authorized.
Whereas a Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback of 1.2 m is required, 0.65 is authorized (for the third floor only).
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
MEMBER
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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.