Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 28, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001760
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 9078347 Canada Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 551 Edison Avenue / 348 Princeton Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-01-21/B-00213
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001760
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001760
OLT Case Name: 9078347 Canada 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: 9078347 Canada Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 551 Edison Avenue / 348 Princeton Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-01-21/B-00214
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001760
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001761
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 9078347 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 551 Edison Avenue / 348 Princeton Avenue
Variance from By-law: By-law No. 2008-250
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-21/A-199
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001760
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001762
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 9078347 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 551 Edison Avenue / 348 Princeton Avenue
Variance from By-law: By-law No. 2008-250
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipal File No.: D08-02-21/A-200
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001760
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001763
Heard: April 7, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties 9078347 Canada Inc. (“Appellant”)
Counsel Philip Osterhout and T. Stanton (student-at-law)
DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE and M.A. SILLS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was an appeal by 9078347 Canada Inc. (the “Appellant”) concerning the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (the “CoA”) to refuse the minor variance and consent applications for its property at 551 Edison Avenue (the “Subject Property”).
2The variances and consents sought would facilitate the subdivision of the property into two separate parcels of land in order to establish separate ownerships for the construction of two detached dwellings with detached garages on each newly created lot.
3Interior Lot (Part 1) 348 Princeton Ave., severed parcel will have a lot area of 307 square metres (“m2”), a lot width of 15.24 metres (“m”) on Princeton Avenue, and a lot depth of 20.10 m.
4Corner Lot (Part 2), 551 Edison Ave., severed parcel will have a lot area of 306.55 m2, a lot width of 15.24 m on Princeton Avenue, and a lot depth of 20.12 m. The existing detached dwelling is to be demolished.
5An initial application was presented on September 1, 2021, at the CoA hearing. The Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department (“PIEDD”) Report requested an adjournment and identified alternative wording of the requested variances as well as a zoning interpretation. The CoA adjourned the applications sine die.
6Subsequently, a revised application was submitted to the CoA hearing on October 20, 2021. In their Report PIEDD Staff indicated that they had no concerns with the applications and included rationale in support of the requested variances. The CoA reserved their Decision at the Hearing.
7On October 29, 2021, the CoA indicated that all consent and minor variance applications were refused.
8Although planning staff recommended approval of the variances at issue, the CoA refused the application for the following reasons: The proposed reduction of the rear yard soft landscaping represents a significant departure from the minimum standard and a more compatible form of development could be achieved for this site. The CoA found the proposal would amount to overdevelopment of the site and the proposed detached dwellings are not an appropriate or compatible form of intensification for the Residential Fourth Density – Subzone UA (“R4UA zone”).
9For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the Appeal.
Minor Variances
10The application sought relief from the zoning provisions as summarized below:
348 Princeton Avenue, Part 1
a) To permit a portion of a detached garage in an interior side yard, whereas the Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, as amended (“ZBL”) requires, where an attached garage is prohibited according to the dominant pattern, parking may be provided in a rear detached garage.
b) To permit a detached garage, partially located in an interior side yard, with an interior yard setback of 0.6 m , whereas the ZBL requires the setback applicable to the principal structures of 1.5 m for an accessory structure located in a side yard.
c) To permit a front façade to have no setback, whereas the ZBL requires that at least 20% of the front façade be set back at a minimum of 0.6 m from the front wall.
d) To permit a total of 46 m2 of soft landscaping in the rear yard, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard soft landscaped buffer along the rear lot line of 4.5 m in this case 68.8 m2.
e) To permit an elevator and stair penthouse with an area of 14.3 m2, whereas the ZBL requires the total area not to exceed 10.5 m2.
551 Edison Avenue, Part 2
f) To permit a front façade to have no setback, where the ZBL requires at least 20% of the front façade be set back at a minimum of 0.6 m from the front wall.
g) To permit a total of 16.7 m2 of soft landscaping in the rear yard, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard softly landscaped buffer along the rear lot line of 4.5 m in this case 68.5 m2.
h) To permit an elevator and stair penthouse with an area of 18.5 m2 and a setback from the exterior rear wall of 0 m, whereas the ZBL requires a setback distance equal to its height from the exterior rear wall and the total area not to exceed 10.5 m2.
11Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the City of Ottawa (“City”) did not intend to take a position on the appeal and would not be appearing. No individuals or entities requested Party or Participant status.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
12The Subject Property is located at 551 Edison Avenue, which is legally described as Lot 27, East Edison Avenue, Registered Plan 204, in the City. The Subject Property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Edison Avenue and Princeton Avenue.
13Edison Avenue is a north-south street, one block west of Churchill and runs for six blocks between Ravenhill and Tillbury Avenues. Edison Avenue is a two-lane, paved local road with gravel shoulders.
14The Subject Property has a lot frontage of 20.12 m on Edison Avenue, 30.48 m on Princeton Avenue, and a lot area of 613.55 m2. The Subject Property contains a detached dwelling with attached garage, on the westerly portion of the site, with main vehicular access from Edison Avenue.
15The immediate neighbourhood consists primarily of detached dwellings on lots of varying sizes, as well as link-detached and semi-detached dwellings with height profiles ranging from one to three storeys. Abutting land uses to the east and south sides include detached dwellings.
16The neighbourhood block is characterized by a number of parcels, which vary in size with frontages ranging from approximately 9.3 m to 20 m, and areas ranging from approx. 267 m2 to 611 m2. Similarly, dwellings on the surrounding blocks range in style, date of construction, building height and setbacks.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 45 - Minor Variance
17An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (the “Act”) is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely, that the requested variance:
a. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
b. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);
c. is minor in nature; and,
d. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
18Concerning a consent application, the Act gives authority to grant consent to sever land under s. 53(1) of the Act, when a Plan of Subdivision is not required for the orderly development of the lands. The Act also requires when making a decision on planning matters, that approval authorities have regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 and matters under s. 51(24) of the Act.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
19The Tribunal heard from Tess Gilchrist who was affirmed and qualified by the Panel to provide expert testimony in land use planning, on behalf of the Appellant. Being the only land use planner providing evidence at this hearing, the Panel accepts her uncontroverted evidence.
20Ms. Gilchrist provided an overview of the applicable designations and zoning. The Subject Property is designated General Urban Area on Schedule B and all abutting lands are also within this designation.
21The General Urban designation, s. 3.6.1 of the OP, contemplates residential infill that is compatible with the neighbourhood, and which best utilizes existing infrastructure. The designation permits a full range of housing types and densities, with conveniently located employment, retail service, cultural leisure, entertainment, and institutional uses. The proposed detached dwellings are a conforming use.
22Ms. Gilchrist informed the Tribunal that s. 3.6.1.5 of the OP sets out the general criteria for considering a proposal for residential intensification through infill or redevelopment in the General Urban Area, requiring that it complement the existing pattern and scale of development and planned function of the area. The City will:
a) assess the compatibility of new development as it relates to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns of built form and open spaces; and,
b) consider 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 through the General Urban Area.
Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL 2008-250”)
23The Subject Property is zoned R4UA (Residential Fourth Density – Subzone UA, Urban Exception 2686 with a height limit of 8.5 m). Ms. Gilchrist explained, at the time she was retained to prepare applications for this Subject Property, it was zoned R3R (Residential Third Density – Subzone R) and the minimum lot area requirement was 360 m2 per parcel among other performance provisions, which differed from the current zoning.
24According to Ms. Gilchrist, the R4UA zoning was implemented February 24, 2021 by Zoning By-law No. 2021-75 (“ZBL 2021-75”), prior to the date on which the applications were filed. The R4UA zone permits a wide range of residential building forms from detached to low-rise apartment containing no more than six dwelling units.
25Ms. Gilchrist testified the Urban Exception is a minimum lot width of 10 m for all uses except semi-detached and townhouse dwellings, and a minimum lot area of 300 m2 for all uses except semi-detached and townhouse dwellings.
26The Subject Property is also subject to the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay and the Westboro Development Overlay.
27Ms. Gilchrist informed the Tribunal a Streetscape Character Analysis was completed for the Subject Property as per the ZBL and it was confirmed by Planning Staff that a Front-facing Attached Garage was not the dominant character and therefore, not permitted for the proposed dwellings. The dominant character with respect to the driveways was that a single driveway was permitted and the dominant character with respect to Main Door Entry required it to be facing the street.
28In conclusion, Ms. Gilchrist advised the Tribunal that considerable efforts were made to achieve compliance with as many zoning provisions as possible, first under the R3R Zoning and then under the R4UA zoning, to ensure compatible built form with respect to setbacks, height and context.
CONSENT REVIEW
29With respect to the consents, Ms. Gilchrist opined s. 51(24) of the Act: a) Regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act - criteria have all been met.
30Ms. Gilchrist specifically highlighted the applicable sections namely:
Criteria (h): where the proposed lots represent good planning with respect to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, given the availability of adequate existing municipal infrastructure, and services of all types, the potential for safe accesses to the lots from the existing road network.
Criteria (p): The City directs the bulk of development to the urban area, in accordance with Provincial policy. The proposed severance is an appropriate location for growth and development.
Criteria (r): The promotion of a built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant. The proposed severance would create two new parcels of land to be developed each by a detached dwelling, which was designed by an architect, which is consistent with the built form on the street and would contribute to the residential character of the neighbourhood by introducing a complementary built form. The existing interface at the street would be maintained, with a grassed lawn, in combination with a single lane wide permeable driveway.
Criteria (f): Both parcels are generally consistent with the lot fabric in the area, being that they are regularly shaped with sufficient frontage to accommodate the units.
31In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the proposed consents to establish two lots for the purpose of constructing two new detached dwellings are consistent with s. 51(24) of the Act.
MINOR VARIANCE REVIEW – FOUR TESTS
Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS 2020”)
32Ms. Gilchrist opined the variances have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, including the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; protection of public health and safety; and the appropriate location for growth and development.
33Ms. Gilchrist highlighted s. 4.1 of the PPS, which requires municipal planning decisions to be consistent with the PPS. In addition, s. 1 of the PPS speaks to supporting efficient land use and development patterns, such that promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, within urban areas, is expected – specifically, in the form of intensification and redevelopment. Furthermore, the PPS directs development to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet current and future demand. The PPS directs intensification and redevelopment to areas on municipal services, for the efficient use and optimization of existing municipal sewage and water services.
34In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the applications are consistent with the PPS, which is to encourage intensification through, among other means, infilling on vacant and underutilized parcels.
City Official Plan (“OP”)
35Ms. Gilchrist took the Tribunal through a detailed evaluation of each of the requested variances against the four tests in s. 45(1).
36Ms. Gilchrist informed the Tribunal the General Urban Area designation contemplates residential infill that is compatible with the neighbourhood and which best utilizes existing infrastructure. The General Urban Area designation policies permit many types and densities of housing, including detached dwellings such as those proposed for the subject properties. Specifically, OP policy for the area clearly contemplates detached dwellings as a permitted and appropriate use for lands in the General Urban Area.
37In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the proposed detached dwellings located on urban serviced lots in an established residential neighbourhood are consistent with the intent and purpose of the OP. The proposed development meets the test of respecting and being compatible with the existing established character and built form of the area and would coexist with existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties.
38The infilling objectives, residential land use, compatibility, and complementarity of design in terms of height, bulk, mass, scale, and built form to existing established neighbourhoods are met.
Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL 2008-250”)
39Ms. Gilchrist informed the Tribunal the intent of the R4UA zone is to allow a wide mix of residential building forms and to regulate development in a manner that is compatible with existing land use patterns such that the residential character of a neighbourhood is maintained or enhanced.
40Ms. Gilchrist testified the proposed development with detached dwellings is in keeping with the existing built form and lot fabric of the neighbourhood and will both maintain and enhance the relatively low-density residential character of the neighbourhood. The intent of the ZBL is to create a mixed neighbourhood through providing for a variety of building forms, with greater masses, volumes and footprints than was originally built. Notwithstanding the ZBLs intent to facilitate the development of larger and typically higher density building forms, it also clearly identifies detached dwellings as an anticipated use on any R4UA lot.
41Ms. Gilchrist’s analysis highlighted the rooftop access, front façade, and the locations of the detached garage and the rear yard landscaping. In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, all adverse impacts have been addressed for the Subject Property in that a Streetscape Character Analysis was completed and fully complied with, the proposed dwellings are within the 8.5 m height limit and the 3 m height limit for the rooftop access, an architectural design to ensure a degree of sensitivity and visual interest, the required front, corner, interior and rear yard setbacks are achieved, amenity areas are provided in rear yards and on the rooftops, and the least amount of parking, being a single space, is provided within detached structures, with permeable driveways.
42Ms. Gilchrist informed the Tribunal the intent of the ZBL provisions around streetscape and the building form is to promote good urban design and attractive streetscapes. This intent is met by the proposed dwellings, through the location of the front entrance door facing the street, and the ample soft landscaping in the front yard, complying front and side yard setbacks, as well as parking provided in detached garages behind the principal dwelling facades.
43In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, the requested variances comply with the purpose and intent of the ZBL with respect to streetscape, building, spacing, massing, shadowing, privacy or other concerns.
Desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and buildings
44Ms. Gilchrist informed the Tribunal, that desirability relates to whether or not the variance is desirable from the perspectives of good planning and is in the public interest.
45Ms. Gilchrist testified the proposed detached dwellings are a desirable use for the subject properties as they introduce modest residential intensification through a built form that is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood and is proportional to the size of the proposed parcels. The proposed massing of the dwellings is appropriate and is similar to many of the recently constructed dwellings along Edison Avenue, and within the larger Westboro neighbourhood.
46The proposed development reflects a proportionality of development where the size and footprint of the proposed dwelling is balanced in relation to the size of the lot. Lot coverage, although not a ZBL requirement, is 37.5% for the interior lot and 38.2% for the corner lot, which is typical by most mature urban lot standards. Furthermore, the proposal hasn’t gone vertical in order to make up for horizontal constraints imposed through yard and other provisions of the ZBL and is able to achieve three storeys within the 8.5 m height limit for the principal dwelling and 3 m for the rooftop access.
47In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the property, having regard to both good planning and the public interest.
Minor
48Ms. Gilchrist considered whether the requested variances are minor in relation to the scale and impact. In addition, the concept of compatibility in relation to infill development was also considered. Ms. Gilchrist advised compatible development will fit with the existing development, without causing undue adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
49Ms. Gilchrist testified the plans submitted demonstrate that the proposed properties are of sufficient size to functionally accommodate the proposed dwellings and detached garages. Proposing a dwelling with 1.5 m interior side yards and a 4.5 m corner side yard with a maximum height of 8.5 m, as per zoning requirements, will not have a negative impact on the streetscape as the dwelling will be proportionate to the lot.
50In Ms. Gilchrist’s opinion, the variances sought will have no undue adverse impact and are of negligible consequence in terms of their importance or impact. The variances are minor, having due consideration for their size, importance in terms of their practical effect, and impacts on all stakeholders.
FINDINGS
51In the absence of any planning evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds and accepts the uncontradicted land use planning evidence of Ms. Gilchrist that the proposed variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the variances have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest; are consistent with the PPS; and overall, represent good planning in the public interest.
52In addition, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Consent conforms with the applicable municipal Plans and, correspondingly, satisfies all of the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act, and otherwise, represents good planning and is in the public interest. Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the Municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act.
ORDER
53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this Order, and the minor variances to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“Eric S. Crowe”
eric s. crowe MEmber
“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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
SCHEDULE 1
Conditions
That the Owner(s) provide evidence that payment has been made to the City of Ottawa for cash-in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes, plus applicable appraisal costs. The value of land otherwise required to be conveyed shall be determined by the City of Ottawa in accordance with the provisions of By-Law No. 2009-95, as amended.
That the Owner(s) enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate to address the following: 134 a) The Owner/Applicant(s) shall prepare and submit a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, showing the location of one new 50mm tree to be planted on the property frontage or right-of-way of each lot following construction, to enhance the urban tree canopy and streetscape. If tree #2 is permitted for removal these trees can be counted toward the required compensation. b) The Owners agree to provide a revised tree information report to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. This report shall be prepared by an Arborist, identifying all trees protected under the Tree Protection By-law, and meeting the standards of the Tree Information Report Guidelines, including specific mitigation measures where work is proposed within the Critical Root Zone of a protected tree.
That the Owner(s) provide proof to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within 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 Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within 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) 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 Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within 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 Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch 135 within the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate.
That the Owner convey a 3m x 3m corner sight triangle located at the intersection of Princeton Avenue and Edison Avenue to the City, with all costs to be borne by the Owner(s), to the satisfaction of the Surveys and Mapping Branch of the City. This area will be free of all structures, plantings, etc. and will allow a proper sighting distance for motorists when performing turning movements within the intersection. The Committee must receive written confirmation from City Legal Services that the transfer of the lands to the City has been registered.
The Owner(s) shall: a) prepare a noise attenuation study in compliance with the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. The Owner(s) shall also enter into an agreement with the City that requires the Owner to implement any noise control 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. The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within 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.
or
b) Design the dwelling units with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant’s discretion and enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner, which is to be registered on title to deal with the covenants/ notices that shall run with the land and bind future owners on subsequent transfers, warning purchasers and/or tenants of expected noise levels due to the existing source of environmental noise. The following two conditions will be included in the above-noted Agreement:
Notices-on-Title respecting noise:
i) “The Purchaser/Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns acknowledges being advised that this dwelling unit has 136 been fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting, etc. was sized to accommodate central air conditioning. Installation of central air conditioning by the Purchaser/Lessee will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the City of Ottawa’s and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's noise criteria;” and
ii) “The Purchaser/Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns acknowledge being advised that noise levels due to increasing roadway traffic may be of concern, occasionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the outdoor sound level exceeds the City of Ottawa’s and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s noise criteria.” (Property is less than 60m from Churchill Rd).