Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 27, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004335
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants/Appellants: Matthew Greig, Stephen Peippo
Subject: Consent
Description: To create two parcels for the construction of proposed semi-detached dwelling, with one unit on each of the newly created parcels
Reference Number: D08-01-22/B-00171
Property Address: 62 Stirling Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004335
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004335
OLT Case Name: Greig v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants/Appellants: Matthew Greig, Stephen Peippo
Subject: Consent
Description: To create two parcels for the construction of proposed semi-detached dwelling, with one unit on each of the newly created parcels
Reference Number: D08-01-22/B-00172
Property Address: 62 Stirling Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004336
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004335
OLT-Case Name: Greig v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants/Appellants: Matthew Greig, Stephen Peippo
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a reduced lot area
Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00148
Property Address: 62 Stirling Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004337
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004335
OLT-Case Name: Greig v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants/Appellants: Matthew Greig, Stephen Peippo
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a reduced lot area; roof-top access to have a reduced setback from rear exterior wall
Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00149
Property Address: 62 Stirling Avenue
Municipality: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004338
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004335
OLT-Case Name: Greig v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: January 31, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Stephen Peippo and Matthew Grieg (the “Applicants/Appellants”) | Lauren Benoit |
DECISION BY K. SMITH AND A. CORNACCHIA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1The appellant is appealing the decisions of the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) refusing to authorize a minor variance application (“MV Application”) and refusing to grant consent applications regarding the property municipally known as 62 Stirling Avenue (“Subject Property”). The applications are designed to facilitate the construction of a new semi-detached, three storey dwelling with one unit in the building on a separate parcel at the corner of Stirling Avenue and Ladouceur Avenue and the other unit on a separate interior lot on Ladouceur Avenue. The variances seek to reduce the minimum lot area required for the dwellings on separate parcels and to permit the rooftop access to abut the rear exterior wall of one of the proposed semi-detached units.
2The City planning staff report recommended that the Committee grant the consent application to subdivide the Subject Property into Part 1 and Part 2 on the sketch attached in Appendix 1 subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 (“Conditions”) and to authorize the MV application. The Committee disagreed with the planning recommendations and rejected both applications.
HEARING
3The City did not appear, and the City Planner was not summoned to give evidence. Mr. Murray Chown (“Mr. Chown” or the “Applicant’s Planner”), a registered Planner was qualified by the Tribunal as an expert to give opinion evidence in the field of land use planning and provided the only planning evidence on applications before the Tribunal.
4The appeal of the Committee decisions requires a hearing de novo by the Tribunal of the planning applications, having regard to the Committee decision and the material used to render the decisions.
Planning evidence
5Mr. Chown provided an overview of the property and the neighbourhood. The Subject Property has 30.18 metre (“m”) of frontage on Ladouceur Street, 8.65m of frontage on Stirling Avenue, and an area of 263.8 square metres (“m2”). It is currently occupied by a small, detached dwelling, with a driveway having access off Ladouceur Street. The buildings currently on the lot will be demolished pursuant to one of the proposed conditions. It is located within the Kitchissipi ward of the City of Ottawa on the south-western intersection of Stirling Avenue and Ladouceur Street. This is an older mature area with a mix of housing types and lot sizes.
6The neighbourhood has a range of housing types including single family dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and low-rise multiplexes. Many of the properties in the area are developed with structures having flat roofs and are three-storeys. Several lots in the local area are smaller than the parcels that are proposed to be severed.
7The property is west of downtown Ottawa and within walking distance of two light rail transit stations and transit on Wellington. Cycling from the area is possible to downtown and to Tunney’s pasture where there is a significant concentration of public service jobs. Clearly, the area is well serviced by public transit (“Transit Rich Area”).
8The Subject Property is designated General Urban Area on Schedule B of the City of Ottawa Official Plan (“OP”) in-force at the time that the applications were filed and zoned R4UB in the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250 (“ZB”).
9Consent applications were filed to sever the Subject Property into two parcels to subdivide the proposed semi-detached dwelling into two separate units on separate parcels of land. Severance Application No. 1 creates the easterly lot, which will have a total area of 129.5m2, a depth of 14.865m, and 8.65m of frontage on Stirling Avenue, and 14.865m of frontage on Ladouceur Street (“Part 1”). Severance Application No. 2 creates the westerly lot, which will have a total area of 134.3m2, a depth of 7.83m, and 15.315m of frontage on Ladouceur Street (“Part 2”).
10Relief from the following requirements of the ZB is also sought:
Part 1 (easterly corner lot fronting onto Sterling):
- To permit a minimum lot area of 129.5m2 for a semi-detached dwelling; whereas the ZB requires a minimum lot area of 180m2 for a semi-detached dwelling (Section 162, Provision 1, Table 162A, R4UB, Semi-detached, V).
Part 2 (westerly interior lot fronting onto Ladouceur Street):
To permit a minimum lot area of 134.3m2 for a semi-detached dwelling; whereas the ZB requires a minimum lot area of 180m2 for a semi-detached dwelling (Section 162, Provision 1, Table 162A, R4UB, Semi-detached, V).
To permit a roof-top access to have a setback of 0m from the rear exterior wall; whereas the ZB requires a roof-top access to have a setback equal to the height of the roof-top access from a rear exterior wall (Section 55, Table 55, Row 8) d) i)).
11In reviewing the applications, the Tribunal will first deal with the MV applications. Mr. Chown provided the following planning evidence related to the MV applications’ compliance with section 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
general intent and purpose of the official plan (“OP”)
12The OP encourages infill and intensification for lands designated the General Urban Area like the Subject Property. Section 2.2.2 and 3.6.1 of the OP state:
2.2.2 Within lands designated General Urban Area, opportunities for intensification exist and will be supported… The scale of intensification will vary, depending upon factors such as the existing built context and proximity to major roads and transit.
3.6.1 City supports intensification in the General Urban Area where it will complement the existing pattern and scale of development and planned function of the area. The predominant form of development and intensification will be semi-detached and other ground oriented multiple unit housing.
13The MV application facilitates the development of a semi-detached dwelling with two units to replace one small dwelling. It clearly supports the infill and intensification goals of the OP in a Transit Rich area. The intensification is compatible with existing development since it compliments and is consistent with the development currently found in the area.
14The Tribunal finds that the MV application maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.
general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law
15The intent of the minimum lot area provisions of the ZB is to avoid overdevelopment by limiting the built form within the lot. The proposed development meets the performance standards for lot width, front yard setback, corner side yard setback, rear yard setback, interior side yard setback, interior yard area, front yard landscaping, corner side yard landscaping and maximum permitted building height. The reduction in minimum lot area facilitates an appropriate built form without resulting in overdevelopment. The reduced lot area will not be perceptible from the street, is consistent with other smaller lots in the neighbourhood and there will be no undue adverse impacts from the variance.
16The intent of the rooftop access provisions of the ZB is to ensure that rooftop access does not make the building appear taller when viewed from the street, or from the rear of the building. The proposal only requires relief from this provision of the ZB due to the proposed severance. If the semi-detached dwelling was not severed into two separate units on Parts 1 and 2 then the variance would be unnecessary. The southern lot line of Part 2 will become the rear lot line. The intent of the ZB is to ensure that the perceived height of the building has no undue adverse impacts on the neighbours to the rear.
17The Tribunal finds that the MV application maintains the intent and purpose of the ZB.
desirability
18Allowing a smaller lot area promotes intensification and is compatible with the overall character and lot fabric of the neighbourhood.
19The proposed 0m setback of the rooftop access is considered desirable as it facilitates access to an appropriate rooftop amenity space, without causing any undue adverse impacts on neighbours. The development will be compatible with the neighbourhood.
20The Tribunal finds that the MV application is desirable.
Minor
21The proposed lots resulting from the proposed severance will comply with all other performance standards of the ZB except for minimum lot area. The proposed reduced lot areas will be 129.5m2 and 134.3m2, whereas the ZB requires a minimum lot area of 180m2. Such a lot area is consistent with others in the area, where twenty-four properties in close proximity have lot areas less than 130m2. Furthermore, given the corner and frontage for Part 1 on Stirling and frontage on Ladouceur for Part 2, the reduced lot areas are not perceptible from a street view, thus there is no adverse planning impact.
22The requested minor variance to roof top access is to permit a 0m setback of the rooftop access to the rear wall of Part 2, whereas the ZB requires a 1.5m setback to the rear exterior wall. The proposed rooftop access on Part 2 abuts the southern lot line, which abuts the interior side lot line of 68 Stirling to the south. The variance is required, as the severance application makes the southern lot line the rear wall of the building. If the severance was not proposed, the variance would not be required. There will be no adverse impact from the variance to the neighbouring dwelling.
23Since no undue adverse planning impacts are anticipated from the MV application, the Tribunal finds that it is minor in nature.
consent criteria - SECTION 51(24) OF THE PLANNING ACT
24The Tribunal also considered the consent applications. Mr. Chown advised the Tribunal that the proposed severances do not necessitate the construction of new public infrastructure, including roads and services. As such, a plan of subdivision is not required for the proper and orderly development of the City. He also provided his planning evidence regarding the consent applications which is summarized in the following table:
| CRITERIA | Planning Evidence |
|---|---|
| (24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to, | Not Applicable. |
| (a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2; | The proposed development has regard for the following matters of provincial interest: a) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water; b) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; c) the minimization of waste; d) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; e) the appropriate location of growth and development; and f) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians. |
| (b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest; | The proposed severances are not premature since the Subject Property is located within a fully developed neighbourhood where hard and soft services are available. |
| (c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; | The OP encourages infill and intensification in the General Urban Area. The proposed severances facilitate the development of a semi-detached dwelling with two units on an existing lot within the General Urban Area where one exists today and thus supports the infill and intensification goals of the OP. |
| (d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; | The proposed severances will result in two lots that fully comply with the R4UB lot width requirements for a semi-detached dwelling with two units. Relief is required to permit a reduced lot area. The proposed lots are suitable for development with a semi-detached dwelling. |
| (d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing; | There is an opportunity for secondary units in the two proposed units that may result in affordable housing. |
| (e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them; | Not Applicable. |
| (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; | The proposed severances will result in lots that fully comply with the R4UB lot width requirement for semi-detached dwellings. The proposed severances will require relief from the minimum lot area requirements of the R4UB zone for semi-detached dwellings. The proposed lot widths and lot areas are compatible with existing land use patterns and the lot fabric of the neighbourhood. |
| (g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land; | Not Applicable. |
| (h) conservation of natural resources and flood control; | Not Applicable. |
| (i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services; | The existing detached dwelling is connected to existing utilities and municipal services. As such, adequate municipal services are available to service the site. |
| (j) the adequacy of school sites; | There are several schools that service the area including Connaught Public School, Saint-François-d'Assise, and Devonshire Community Public School. |
| (k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; | A condition is proposed by the City that payment of cash in lieu of parkland will be a condition of severance. |
| (l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and | Infill and intensification within the urban area efficiently utilizes energy (infrastructure, services, transit, etc.) and land. |
| (m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. | Not Applicable. |
25The planning evidence also reviewed the applications for consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The applications clearly support the intensification goals of the PPS by using current infrastructure within a built-up City area. The Tribunal finds that the applications are consistent with the PPS.
26Mr. Chown recommended the conditions proposed by the City of Ottawa planning staff and confirmed that they conform with the requirements of the Act.
27In summary, the proposed severances will support a permitted form of housing that complements the pattern, scale, and the desirable characteristics of the neighbourhood. The proposed lots have regard for matters of provincial interest, are not premature, are in the public interest, conform to the OP, are suitable for the land, will have adequate utilities and municipal services, are located close to schools, and utilize services efficiently. The Tribunal finds that the consent applications conform with the consent criteria under the Act, and proposed conditions in Appendix 2 are reasonable.
28Based on the planning evidence presented by Mr. Chown, the Tribunal finds that the MV application maintains the intent and purpose of the OP and ZB. It is desirable since it promotes intensification in a Transit Rich Area and has no adverse impact from a planning point of view to neighbouring properties.
ORDER
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and
- The provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 to this Order.
- The appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law 2008-250 are authorized.
“K. Smith”
K. SMITH MEMBER
“A. Cornacchia”
A. CORNACCHIA MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.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.
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2