Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 19, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003774
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Mohamed Dawoud
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Proposes to subdivide the property into two parcels of land and construct one new dwelling on each.
Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00010
Property Address: 11 Tower Road
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003774
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003774
OLT Case Name: Dawoud v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Mohamed Dawoud
Subject: Minor Variance
Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00011
Property Address: 11 Tower Road
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003775
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003774
Heard: September 28, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
11022873 Canada Inc.
Representative
Michael Segreto
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by 11022873 Canada Inc. (“Applicant”/Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) decision to deny an application for Minor Variances (“MV”) from Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, as amended, (“ZBL”) concerning 11 Tower Road (“subject property”/“subject site”).
2The subject site is legally described as Lots 890 to 893, in Registered Plan of Subdivision 375. There is an existing dwelling on the subject property which will be demolished as part of the proposed development. Two new single-family dwellings are to be built in its place on lots 890/891 (“11 Tower Road”) as well as lots 892/893 (“13 Tower Road”). A severance is not required since each of the four lots from the original parcel are separate lots on the plan of subdivision.
3The subject site is in the City’s Cityview Area, which is also known as St. Claire Gardens. This neighbourhood is in the former City of Nepean before the amalgamation and is in College Ward in the west end of the City.
4This neighbourhood contains a mix of one and two-storey homes abutting each other without an established pattern and varying in age from newer builds to war and post-war style bungalow homes. Many infill developments have taken place in the neighbourhood, and this continues to occur due to the large lots found in the area.
5The subject property is zoned Residential First Density Subzone FF Urban Exception [632], (R1FF [632]).
6The City’s Planning Staff recommended that the Application be approved (Exhibit 2).
7In advance of the hearing, the City has advised the Tribunal that it would not be participating nor attending the hearing.
8There were no Party or Participant requests filed with the Tribunal prior to the hearing.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
9The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached dwelling and to construct two, two-storey detached dwellings, with one dwelling on Lots 890 and 891, and the other dwelling on Lots 892 and 893 (the four full lots).
10The Applicant is requesting the following variances from the ZBL to authorize:
11Tower Road (Lots 890 and 891):
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 15.57 metres (“m”), whereas 19.5 m is required;
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 450.8 square metres (“m2”), whereas 600 m2 is required.
13 Tower Road (Lots 892 and 893):
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 15.57 m, whereas 19.5 m is required;
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 450.6 m2, whereas 600 m2 is required;
c) To permit a corner yard setback of 3.18 m (west side along St. Helen’s Place), whereas 4.5 m is required.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
11An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo and the Applicant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the four tests set out under s. 45(1) have been met. The four tests are:
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, building or structure; and
is minor in nature.
12In addition to the four tests, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of the provincial interests as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act to the Decision and of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act.
EVIDENCE
13Michael Wright, a Planner, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide planning evidence.
14Mr. Wright has explained that for the development to proceed, three mature trees would need to be removed.
15The Appellant retained an arborist to conduct a Tree Information Report (“TIR”) on the subject site. The TIR notes that there are three protected trees in good health on the subject property. At the City's request, the Appellant and the Arborist completed a study of the tree impacts with various setbacks. In the opinion of the Arborist, in regards to preserving one of the trees, the house needs to be set back 3 m from the trunk of the tree. That would create a 6 m setback from the property line, where 4.5 m is required, and would hinder the development of the property.
16In the Planning Report (noted as Exhibit 2), the City’s Planning Staff agreed to the planting plan that proposes to replace three mature trees with eight new trees.
17Mr. Wright has reviewed the applicable policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and concluded that the proposed development is compatible with those policies. More specifically, the proposed development will “have regard to” a number of provincial interests, such as increasing its housing supply in a manner that is orderly, sustainable and in the appropriate area for growth and development; will use existing infrastructure and is located within walking distance of current and future rapid transit.
18In Mr. Wright’s opinion, the proposed development maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The City’s Official Plan (“OP”) encourages the development to be located within proximity to a public transit. The subject property is located within 1000 m or a 15-minute walk from the Rapid Transit Station.
19Mr. Wright opined that the development of the two dwellings will maintain the intent of the ZBL. The review of the applications has indicated that the minimum lot size and lot width has been requested and granted to the number of lots within St. Claire Gardens neighbourhood. He further explained:
The R1FF Zone allows detached dwellings as a sole permitted use. The location of the proposed dwelling does not intrude into the streetscape as no variance was requested to reduce the front yard setback. As to desirable and appropriate, the proposal is appropriate as it does not seek to reduce the spacing (yards and setbacks) between the abutting properties.
20Mr. Wright’s oral testimony identified that the proposed development is desirable, as it would lead to the creation of affordable housing, intensification and infill of the lands that are located within the built boundary and will rely on the existing municipal servicing. Thus, in his opinion it is consistent with the Provincial Interests of s. 2 of the Act, consistent with the goals and objectives of the PPS and conforms with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”).
21In his expert opinion evidence, Mr. Wright identified that no unacceptable adverse impacts are expected from the proposed development, therefor it is minor.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22The Tribunal is satisfied that the application meets the criteria of the tests set out at s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
23The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will allow for the creation of two new homes and intensify the use of the subject property. This development is desirable for the subject site and is consistent with higher-level policy documents, like the Act, PPS, and OP, which promote intensification in urban areas where services are already present. The MV can be implemented without any adverse impact on the neighbouring residential lots and the surrounding community due to the sufficient setbacks between the abutting properties.
CONCLUSION
24In its Decision, The Tribunal has taken into consideration the Planning Report (Exhibit 2) and has accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence of Mr. Wright. The Tribunal finds that the residential use maintains the intent of the OP designation permitting detached residential dwellings. To the intent of the ZBL, the variances are appropriate, as the subject lands are zoned R1FF [632], which permits detached residential dwellings. The proposed development is desirable, as it would lead to the creation of affordable housing, located within walking distance from the Rapid Transit Station and will rely on the existing municipal servicing. The Tribunal finds that the variances are appropriate, are minor in nature and will not have undue impacts on the surrounding properties.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“P. Tomilin”
P. TOMILIN
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.