Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004362
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Firooz Hatam
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Proposes to reduce northerly and southerly side yard setback of 0.81 metres
Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00183
Property Address: 986 Laporte Street
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004362
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004362
OLT Case Name: Hatam v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: January 18, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Firooz Hatam | R. Leavoy |
| City of Ottawa | T. Marc* |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 18, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Hearing in the matter of the appeal filed by Firooz Hatam (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) arising from the decision of the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny an application for a Minor Variance (“MV”) from Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”), concerning 986 Laporte Street (“subject property” / “subject site”).
2The subject site is located south of Montreal Road, east of Ogilvie Road, in the Gloucester neighbourhood in the City of Ottawa (“City”). The neighbourhood is characterized by low-rise residential development consisting of one- to two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. It has 9.35 metres (“m”) of street frontage, a lot depth of 39.49 m and a lot area of 369.23 square metres (“m2”), and is zoned Residential First Density Subzone W (R1W).
BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
3In 2020, the COA approved Consent Application (D08-01-20/B-00209), pertaining to the development of the subject property, which was not completed within the statutory timeframe. The Applicant has reapplied to sever the subject site into two separate parcels in order to construct a new detached dwelling on the vacant parcel. The other parcel will retain the existing semi-detached dwelling. The severed land will be municipally known as 988 Laporte Street and the retained land will retain its address of 986 Laporte Street. The Severance Application does not form a part of the appeal before the Tribunal.
4The COA has approved the Consent Application. As a result of the severance, one of the parcels does not conform to the ZBL requirements. The Applicant has filed an MV Application to address this issue and the COA has denied that request.
5The Appellant is seeking relief from the ZBL to authorize:
- north side yard setback of 0.81 m, whereas 1.0 m is required;
- south side yard setback of 0.81 m, whereas 1.0 m is required.
6Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal had received an email stating that the Parties had reached a settlement and that the City now supports the revised MV application.
PRELIMINARY MATTER – AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION
7The Appellant submitted a revised proposal in which the north side yard setback is now in compliance with the ZBL and the south side yard setback is now 0.61 m, thus eliminating one of the MVs.
8Pursuant to s. 45 (18.1) and (18.1.1) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow amendments to an MV application without the requirement for further public notice if it is of the opinion that such amendments are minor by virtue of s. 45(18.1) and (18.1.1) of the Act. In this case, the Tribunal finds the amended application to be minor and no further notice is required.
HEARING
9The requested MV for the new development is to reduce the south side yard setback to 0.61 m, whereas 1.0 m is required.
10Siobhan Kelly, a Candidate Member of both the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal.
11Ms. Kelly has provided a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale in support of the MV.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (2020)
12The Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), in Policies 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2 and 1.1.3.4, encourages efficient land use patterns with an appropriate range and mix of residential housing and directs development to the established settlement areas where infrastructure exists.
MINOR VARIANCE
13Ms. Kelly explained that the Official Plan 2003 (“OP”) was in force at the time of the appeal. The OP designates the property General Urban Area (Schedule B) and supports intensification within the General Urban Area where it will complement the existing pattern, scale of development, and planned function of the area (s. 3.6.1, Policy 5). Ms. Kelly stated that, at the time of the application, the City’s New Official Plan (“New OP”) was not fully in force, as some of its portions were under Appeal. Since that time, the New OP has been approved. According to Ms. Kelly, the New OP supports intensification “in all designations” and proposed applications shall conform with transect and overlay policies (s. 3.2, Policy 3). She opined that the intent and purpose of the General Urban Areas is to provide for a full range of dwelling types and housing choices while ensuring new development is compatible in massing, height, and scale.
14In Ms. Kelly’s opinion, the variance for a reduced side yard setback reflects urban built form characteristics planned for Evolving Neighbourhoods in the Outer Urban Transect (New OP) and meets the general purpose and intent of the OP and the New OP.
15Ms. Kelly noted that the intent of the R1 Zone is to restrict residential development to detached dwellings, regulate development in a manner that is compatible, and permits different development standards that promote efficient land use and compact form. The intent of the interior side yard setback is to provide access to rear yards and ensure appropriate separation from adjacent buildings and structures.
16In Ms. Kelly’s view, the rear yard access maintained with the southern interior side yard setback of 1.0 m and the Building Code Service concerns regarding separation distances will be addressed through the Building Permit Application. It is Ms. Kelly’s opinion that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL are met.
17Ms. Kelly brought to the Tribunal’s attention the geoOttawa map (Exhibit 1, p. 66) which demonstrates that there a number of other properties in the vicinity of the neighbourhood with side yard setbacks of under 1.0 m. It is her opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature.
18Ms. Kelly concluded that the proposed variance is desirable as it facilitates the development of a single detached dwelling on a narrow lot in an area planned for gentle intensification.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
19The Tribunal is satisfied that the application meets the criteria of the tests set out at s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. The MV can be implemented without any adverse impact on the neighbouring residential lots and the surrounding community.
CONCLUSION
20In making its Decision, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the Municipal records and the staff Planning Report, and has accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence of Ms. Kelly. Based on the planning evidence presented by Ms. Kelly, the Tribunal finds that the variance is appropriate, is minor in nature, will not have undue impacts on the surrounding properties and meets all four of the tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
ORDER
21The Tribunal, having been asked to consider an Application which has been amended from the original Application, and having determined that no further notice is required in accordance with s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act:
22THE 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.