Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001196
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Chelsea Realty Investments Incorporated
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 2008-250
Property Address/Description: 11 & 13 Acacia Avenue, (131) Putnam Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Municipality File No.: D08-02-21 / A-00044
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001196
OLT File No.: OLT-21-001196
OLT Case Name: Chelsea Realty Investments Incorporated v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: January 12, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Chelsea Realty Investments Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”)
Agent
Dave Crapper
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal was an appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), by Chelsea Realty Investments Inc. (the “Applicant/Appellant”) from the refusal by the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) of an application for two minor variances to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, for the property municipally known as 11 and 13 Acacia Avenue, and (131) Putnam Avenue (“Subject Site”).
2The Applicant wishes to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land in order to create a new vacant lot for future residential development. The existing two-storey residential building will remain while the existing shed located at the rear of the property is to be demolished.
3The retained land is shown as Part 1 on said plan, will have frontage of 12.22 metres on Acacia Avenue, to an irregular depth of 20.79 metres and will contain a lot area of 253.1 square metres. This parcel contains the existing two-storey residential building known municipally as 11 and 13 Acacia Avenue. The existing apartment building fronting on Acacia Avenue is remaining as-is.
4The severed land is shown as Part 2 on a Draft 4R-Plan filed with the application, will have a frontage of 13.22 metres on Putnam Avenue, to an irregular depth of 22.57 metres and will contain a lot area of 243.2 square metres. This parcel is vacant and will be known municipally as 131 Putnam Avenue. No new construction is being proposed at this time as the Applicant/Appellant stated the new lot is to be sold as a developable lot.
5The Applicant explained that the CoA had granted provisional consent to sever the property and granted four of the required six variances. The remaining two variances, which have been appealed are before this Tribunal for consideration. If approved, it will allow the consent to move forward. At this time there is no appeal of the consent before the Tribunal.
6There were two requests for Participant status received by the Tribunal. James Steele and Paul Kerry were granted Participant status by virtue of their written submissions. The Tribunal noted that their comments would be weighed accordingly in this Decision.
Planning Context
7When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, to determine if the requested variance:
- Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
- Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
- Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- Is minor in nature.
8All four elements must be satisfied.
9For the sake of clarity, the Tribunal was provided with an overview of the six variances by the Applicant to enable an understanding of the relief sought for the two that have been appealed. The following were the initially requested variances.
a. To permit a reduced lot area of 253 square metres for a low-rise apartment building, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 300 square metres.
b. To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 2.87 metres - a reduced rear yard area of 36 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a rear yard setback of 25% of the lot depth (5.17 metres) and a rear yard area of 25% of the lot area (63 square metres).
c. To permit a reduced amenity area of 36 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum amenity area of 90 square metres (15 square metres per dwelling unit up to 8 units).
d. To permit the existing balconies to project into the required rear yard on a lot 30 metres or less in depth, whereas the By-law does not permit balconies to project into the required yard on a lot 30 metres or less in depth.
e. To permit no soft landscaping for a lot of less than 360 square metres in area, whereas the By-law requires at least 35 square metres of soft landscaping for a lot less than 360 square metres in area.
f. To permit no aggregated rectangular area of soft landscaping, whereas the By-law requires at least one aggregated rectangular area of at least 25 square metres.
10It was stated by the Applicant/Appellant that the two outstanding variances e) and f) are required for the retained Acacia Avenue parcel to ensure the viability of the severed lot.
11Jeff Nadeau, Planner II at the City, had been summoned to appear on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. Nadeau provided testimony on the Staff report he had authored, which recommended approval of the severance application as well the variances reviewed by the CoA.
12He stated that the report focused on the retained parcel and the associated variances necessary to ensure the viability of the severance as the severed portion was going to remain vacant.
13He described the retained lot as being similar to neighbouring lots on Acacia Avenue, which are generally small and characterized by older development with minimal setbacks and, particularly in the case of lots to the east along Acacia, with minimal rear yards. The newly introduced lot line is a continuation of the existing rear lot line to the southeast and thus, results in some consistency in the lot fabric insofar as this is possible in an irregularly patterned area.
14He reviewed the relief sought and concluded that in his opinion the variances meet the four tests as outlined in s. 45 of the Act.
15He stated that subject to the conditions attached to the Planning report, the relief sought will meet both the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is minor in nature and desirable for the retained land in order to facilitate the severance requested.
16Mr. Nadeau stated the subject property is zoned R4-UC which states:
In the case of a Three-unit Dwelling, Low-rise Apartment Dwelling or Stacked Dwelling in the R4-UA, R4-UB, R4-UC and R4-UD zones:
The minimum area of soft landscaping per must be:
in the case of a lot of less than 360 square meters in area, at least 35 square meters,
17The retained lot has 36.2 square metres, so the first requirement has been met.
As such, no soft landscaping is required within the reduced amenity area.
18The second portion of the by-law states:
In all cases, [it] must comprise at least one aggregated rectangular area of at least 25 square metres and whose longer dimension is not more than twice its shorter dimension, for the purposes of tree planting.
19The Applicant/Appellant submitted, the prescriptive, formulaic approach of the 2nd element of the by-law renders it impossible to meet, even though absent this prescription, the space itself meets the minimum requirement.
20The area in question is covered in paving stones, acts as the entrance to the apartments on the lower level and is partly covered by protruding decks that provide amenity space for the units above. The Applicant/Appellant stated that an exemption allowing the decks to modestly encroach on the rear yard setback provisions for decks had been obtained.
21As illustrated in photos provided to the Tribunal of the overhang of the deck, it is evident it would not be possible to grow trees under the deck. The Applicant/Appellant discussed the use of planter boxes as a means to providing greenery to the interlocked patio portion of the rear yard under the deck in lieu thereof, adding that seeking the outstanding variances is still required.
Participants’ Concerns
22The Tribunal in addressing the concerns raised by the Participants, notes that all but one of the concerns are related to the future development of the severed parcel of land. It is premature at this time to comment what that development may be.
23The remaining concern related to the accuracy of the survey submitted by the Applicant/Appellant. The Tribunal will leave this matter to the Applicant/Appellant and the City to ensure property boundary lines are accurate.
DECISION
24After hearing the viva voce testimony of the City Planner, and reviewing the staff report to the CoA, the Tribunal is satisfied based on this uncontroverted evidence that the applications meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature.
25The Tribunal has reviewed and supports the conditions and requirements outlined in the Planning Report dated May 14, 2021 as part of this approval and requests the Applicant/Appellant work with the City to ensure these are met.
ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“D. Chipman”
D. CHIPMAN
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.
ATTACHMENT 1