Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 23, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002494
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant: Flobert Deffo Kamto, Jonathan Kamto, Gaddiel Kamto
Appellant: Jacques Hamel
Subject: Minor Variance
Reference Number: D08-02-20/A-00203
Property Address: 710 L'Eglise Street
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002494
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002494
OLT Case Name: Hamel v Ottawa (City)
Heard: June 23, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES
Parties Jacques Hamel
Representative Lucas Tardioli
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER AND S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This decision concerns the Hearing of the Appeal filed by Jacques Hamel (the “Appellant”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) for the property municipally known as 710 Rue de l’Église, Ottawa (the “Subject Property).
2City of Ottawa (the “City) Planning Staff recommended the approval of the variances from Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“the ZBL”), however the Committee of Adjustment (the “Committee”) ultimately denied the application.
3The Subject Property consists of one lot known as “Part of Lot 6, Reg. Plan 222” and is zoned a “R4UA”. The R4UA Zone requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres (“sq m”) and a minimum lot width of 6.0 metres (“m”). The Subject Property is unusual as the lot depth is approximately 10 m and it has an approximate width of 50 m. The total lot size is 560 sq m.
4The Subject Property is in the Vanier neighbourhood bordered by Lapointe Street and Rue de l’Église. Due to the closure of Lapointe Street to vehicular traffic, the ZBL deems Rue de l’Église to be the front street for the Subject Property.
5The Application was to be heard at the Committee meeting on December 8, 2021. The application was adjourned at the request of Craig Hamilton, a Planner with the City’s Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department (the “PIEDD”) to the next Committee meeting on January 12, 2022 to allow time to file an additional minor variance.
6The proposal sought to demolish the existing duplex dwelling and three detached sheds to construct a new two-storey semi-detached dwelling with secondary dwelling units and two detached accessory structures. The following variances from the ZBL were requested:
a) to permit a reduced front yard setback of 2.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres (3.185 metres is the average of the adjacent neighbouring front yards).
b) to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.2 metres (10.6% of the lot depth), whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 2.83 metres, which is equivalent to 25% of the lot depth.
c) to permit the entrance to the secondary dwelling units to be located below the ground floor, whereas the By-law states that the doorway entrance that leads to a secondary unit is limited to locations on the ground floor only.
d) to permit the southerly verandah of Unit “a” only to be located 0.9 metres from the front lot line, whereas the By-law permits a maximum projection of 2 metres, but no closer that 1 metre from any lot line.
e) to permit a second-floor front facing balconies to project 1.2 metres beyond the building face, whereas the By-law states that where a lot has a depth of 23.5 metres or less, the maximum allowable projection for a balcony above the first floor is 0 metres.
f) to permit the two garbage storage structures, to be located partially in the northerly and southerly side yards, whereas the By-law states that a garbage storage area required as an accessory structure, must be located in the rear yard.
g) to permit a reduced rear yard area of 10.8% (58.23 square metres) whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard area of 25% (137.7 square metres) of the lot area.
7At the meeting, the Committee heard from the PIEDD that it had no concerns about the Application and that the proposed housing style appropriately maintained compatibility with the existing neighbourhood. The PIEDD did not have any concerns with the requested variances and stated in the report that the proposed variances met the intent of the ZBL and the City’s Official Plan (the “OP”). The PIEDD did not foresee any impacts to the streetscape with the proposed development. The Committee heard from Mr. Hamel, and he took the Committee through the proposal including drawings and shadow studies of the site.
8The Committee also heard from Michael Major and Rhonda Moore of 709 Morgan Street in opposition of the application. No. 709 Morgan Street is directly behind the Subject Property. They conveyed to the Committee that there was a lack of consultation, over intensification and that this proposal would directly impact the use of their property due to drainage, shadowing and loss of privacy.
9After considering the proposal and objections, the Committee was not satisfied that the requested variances met the four tests of a minor variance as per s. 45(1) of the Act and denied the application.
Legislative Framework for Minor Variance Appeals
10Pursuant to s. 45(1), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the requested minor variances:
a) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
b) maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s ZBL;
c) are minor in nature; and
d) are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure
11Additionally, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the variances are consistent with the PPS; have regard to matters of Provincial interest and, in making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the approval authority and the information that was before it when making its decision.
THE HEARING
12Prior to the Hearing, the City confirmed that it would not be appearing or calling a case in the Appeal.
13The following were submitted as Exhibits for the hearing:
Exhibit #1: Appellant’s Combined Book of Documents
Exhibit #2: Combined Municipal Record
14At the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal was informed that variances “a” and “d” listed above were no longer required as the lot calculation averaging eliminated these initially requested variances. The changes to the Amended Application were minor and would not change any of the facts or issues, and as such pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act, the Tribunal ruled that no further notice was required.
15In support of the Appeal, the Tribunal heard the testimony of Jacques Hamel and Craig Hamilton.
16Mr. Hamel was affirmed and indicated that he had qualifications in the area of residential architecture. Ultimately, there were no substantial issues relating to architecture that required expert evidence to assist the Tribunal and Mr. Hamel was allowed to give factual evidence regarding the proposal and the neighbourhood context. Mr. Hamel was unable to provide opinion evidence regarding land use planning which was provided through Mr. Hamilton.
17Through his witness statement and evidence, Mr. Hamel took the Tribunal through a detailed review of the proposal. He provided a description of the neighbourhood and showed the Tribunal that there are many different forms of multiplexes in the area. Many of the properties in the neighbourhood have been intensified over the last 10 to 20 years.
18The Appellant summoned Craig Hamilton, a City Planner and the author of the Planning report that was submitted to the Committee. He was affirmed and was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning.
19Mr. Hamilton opined that the Subject Property is within the general urban area and the City is generally supportive of infill developments. He stated that he stood by the opinions expressed in his report to the Committee and continued to be supportive of the proposal.
20Under s. 2.2 and s. 4.1 of the City’s OP, Mr. Hamilton opined that the proposal is consistent with urban area design and compatibility. He stated that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, it follows existing lot patterns and it conforms to the general massing in the area. It was his opinion that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.
21Mr. Hamilton stated that the proposal is permitted within the R4UA Zone (Residential Fourth Density, Subzone UA) and the proposed housing style appropriately maintains compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The R4UA Zone requires a minimum lot area of 180 sq m and a minimum lot width of 6.0 m – provisions which the two halves of the semi-detached dwellings would meet and greatly exceed, in addition to generous interior side yard setbacks.
22Mr. Hamilton stated that he has no concerns with the proposed reduction in minimum rear yard area and minimum rear yard setback as these variances support the development of a housing type permitted within the ZBL on a shallow lot. He explained that while the existing rear yard contains little to no greenspace, the proposal seeks to improve the outdoor amenity area by providing it in the side yard which, in his opinion, is appropriate. He also stated that shallow lots with minimum rear yard setbacks are commonly found on the western side of Rue de l’Église.
23Mr. Hamilton had no concerns with the proposed location of the Secondary Dwelling Unit entrances as the intent of the ZBL is to ensure that said entrances are to be secondary to the front-facing principal entrances and not result in additional doors along the front wall of the building. The witness confirmed that the proposed secondary dwelling unit entrances are appropriately located within the interior side yard at the basement level and accessed through private amenity space.
24Mr. Hamilton opined that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
25Mr. Hamilton addressed several of the issues raised by concerned neighbours. He stated that regarding overlook and privacy issues, in this proposal, most of the windows on the rear of the building are not typical viewing windows and as such would not impact the neighbouring properties. Regarding shadowing and loss of view, he opined that any impact would be minimal. It was his opinion that the proposed variances were both minor in nature and desirable.
26Mr. Hamilton confirmed that there were no conditions requested by the City, should the variances be permitted.
27It was Mr. Hamilton’s opinion that the application had regard for Provincial interests and is consistent with the PPS. He stated that the requested variances meet the four tests, the proposal is an appropriate use of the Subject Property and is considered good land use planning.
FINDINGS
28The Tribunal heard comprehensive and uncontroverted expert opinion evidence provided in support of the Appeal. The Tribunal accepts the detailed planning evidence of Mr. Hamilton and the factual evidence provided by Mr. Hamel. The Tribunal finds that the Application has regard for Provincial interests as per s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal finds that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City of Ottawa Official Plan and maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The Tribunal also finds that the variances, as they will permit the proposed development, result in no unacceptable adverse impacts upon any adjacent property and are minor and desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Subject Property. The Tribunal is thus satisfied that the minor variances requested meet the four legislative tests and represent good land use planning.
29The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal provides for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities. The Tribunal agrees that the proposal is an appropriate location for growth in the neighbourhood.
ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL, having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required;
31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part and the following variances to By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized:
To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.2 metres (10.6% of the lot depth), whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 2.83 metres, which is equivalent to 25% of the lot depth;
To permit the entrance to the secondary dwelling units to be located below the ground floor, whereas the By-law states that the doorway entrance that leads to a secondary unit is limited to locations on the ground floor only;
To permit a second-floor front facing balconies to project 1.2 metres beyond the building face, whereas the By-law states that where a lot has a depth of 23.5 metres or less, the maximum allowable projection for a balcony above the first floor is 0 metres;
To permit the two garbage storage structures, to be located partially in the northerly and southerly side yards, whereas the By-law states that a garbage storage area required as an accessory structure, must be located in the rear yard;
To permit a reduced rear yard area of 10.8% (58.23 square metres) whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard area of 25% (137.7 square metres) of the lot area.
“s. deBoer”
S. deBOER
MEMBER
“S. Bobka”
S. Bobka
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.