Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 4, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001087

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

Applicant and Appellant: Samin Investments Limited

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: Lot 56, Registered Plan 4M-100

Municipality: City of Ottawa

Municipal File No.: D08-01-20/8-00374

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001087

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001087

OLT Case Name: Samin Investments Limited 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: Samin Investments Limited

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: Lot 56, Registered Plan 4M-100

Municipality: City of Ottawa

Municipal File No.: D08-01-20/8-00375

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001087

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001088

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Samin Investments Limited

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250

Property Address/Description: Lot 56, Registered Plan 4M-100

Municipality: City of Ottawa

Municipal File No.: D08-02-20/ A-00326

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001087

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001089

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Samin Investments Limited

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250

Property Address/Description: Lot 56, Registered Plan 4M-100

Municipality: City of Ottawa

Municipal File No.: D08-02-20/ A-00327

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001087

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001090

Heard: March 18, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Samin Investments Limited

Michael Polowin

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON MARCH 18, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Samin Investments Limited (the “Applicant/Appellant”) has property located in the City of Ottawa (the “City”). The property is municipally known as 692 Crystal Street (the “Subject Property”). The owner wants to demolish the existing dwelling at this location and to subdivide the Subject Property into two separate parcels of land in order to establish separate ownerships for the proposed construction of two two-storey semi-detached dwelling. Approval of these applications will have the effect of creating two separate parcels of land which will not be in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and therefore Minor Variance Applications (D08-02-20/A-00326, A-00327) have been filed. These applications were refused by the Committee of Adjustment (the “COA”). Consequently, the Applicant/Appellant made two consent refusal appeals under section 53(19) and one minor variance refusal appeal under section 45(12) of the Act.

2The COA did not attend the hearing.

3The notice of the hearing was served by the Tribunal.

PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

4Richard Soulliere sought Participant Status and submitted a Participant Statement to the Tribunal prior to the hearing in the matter. After review and dialog with the party and the requestor, Mr. Soulliere was granted Participant Status.

WITNESSES

5Murray Chown was called by the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. Chown was affirmed and qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

6Jeff Nadeau, a member of the City’s Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department was called under the Tribunal and issued summons by the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. Nadeau was affirmed and provided factual background regarding the application processing at the City.

EXHIBITS

7The following Exhibits were marked at the hearing:

Exhibit 1: 692 Crystal – Consolidated Book of Documents

EVIDENCE

Consents

8Mr. Chown testified that the proposed consents have regard for the provincial interest. He specifically cited section 2 of the Act and subsections (e), (f), (h), (j) and (p). He added that in the context of these provincial interest, the proposal contributes to a range of housing choices as well as provides for a modest level of intensification. Mr. Chown also reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”) and testified that these consents create efficient and market driven availability of housing stock and choices and also support intensification and redevelopment policies. Mr. Chown showed that the proposed redevelopment is in close proximity to major transit facilities and services.

9Mr. Chown reviewed s. 53(12) of the Act which directs to s. 51(24) to satisfy requirements that a plan of subdivision is not required. He opined that the key elements that apply to the proposal are (a), (b), (d), (f), (i), and (j). These are:

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services; and

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

10Mr. Chown testified that the proposed consents are not premature as they work with a fully developed neighbourhood and just facilitate the creation of a second dwelling to fit on the land. He added that the land will continue to retain the present residential uses. Mr. Chown further testified that the two lot dimensions provide for the building of suitable dwellings and the lots are of regular shape in their appearance with respect to the surrounding lots. Mr. Chown testified that municipal services and infrastructure exists and will suitably serve the two lots without any limitations of capacity or access. He also confirmed that schools exist that already serve this community and the addition of an extra residential dwelling would not create any capacity or access issues to how it works today.

11Mr. Chown and the Applicant/Appellant submitted that the conditions of consent as set out in the Staff Report are appropriate and the Applicant/Appellant would consent to their attachment to the approvals for the consents.

12Based on the uncontroverted and unopposed evidence of Mr. Chown the Tribunal finds that the requested consents have regard for the provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS 2020 and satisfy the requirement under section 53(12) that a plan of subdivision is not required.

Minor Variances

13There are two sets of variances. One set for each of the two lots created through consent.

14Mr. Chown provided his evidence by addressing the following statutory tests:

(a) Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained?

(b) Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained?

(c) Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

(d) And is it minor in nature?

15The Tribunal having regard for all the material on file and the uncontroverted and unopposed written and oral expert opinion evidence of Mr. Chown and the concurrent support for Mr. Chown’s evidence by the City summoned witness Mr. Nadeau, finds that the requested two variances for each new lot separately and together maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the subject lands and are minor in nature separately as well as when considered together.

ORDER

16The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the sketch and conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

17The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed in part and the following variances to City of Ottawa By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized:

(a) A-00326: 692A Crystal St., Parts 1 and 2 on the Draft 4R-Plan, proposed semi detached dwelling:

i. To permit a reduced lot width of 7.66 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9 metres.

ii. To permit a reduced lot area of 236.5 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 270 square metres.

(b) A-00327: 692B Crystal St., Parts 3 and 4 on the Draft 4R-Plan, proposed semi detached dwelling:

i. To permit a reduced lot width of 7.66 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9 metres.

ii. To permit a reduced lot area of 236.5 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 270 square metres.

“Jatinder Bhullar”

JATINDER BHULLAR

MEMBER

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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMNET 1

Sketch and Conditions