Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 15, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000119

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: To subdivide subject property into two separate parcels of land for the construction of two new detached dwellings

Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00272

Property Address: 124 Granton Avenue

Municipality: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000119

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000119

OLT Case Name: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: To subdivide subject property into two separate parcels of land for the construction of two new detached dwellings

Reference Number: D08-02-22/A-00273

Property Address: 124 Granton Avenue

Municipality: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000120

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000119

OLT Case Name: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To subdivide subject property into two separate parcels of land for the construction of two new detached dwellings

Reference Number: D08-01-22/B-00287

Property Address: 124 Granton Avenue

Municipality: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000121

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000119

OLT Case Name: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To subdivide subject property into two separate parcels of land for the construction of two new detached dwellings

Reference Number: D08-01-22/B-00288

Property Address: 124 Granton Avenue

Municipality: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000122

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000119

OLT Case Name: Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

Heard: May 11, 2023, via video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc.	Gregory Meeds and Morgan McCartney

DECISION DELIVERED BY n. eisazadeh AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Appellant, Mohamed Mostafa Real Estate Investment Inc. (“Applicant”), is appealing the decision of the City of Ottawa’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustments (“Committee”) which declined to authorize applications for minor variances (“Variances”) and consents to sever (“Consent”) an existing lot into two lots with equal frontage and two detached dwellings on each of the two new lots at the property municipally located at 124 Granton Avenue, in the City of Ottawa (“Subject Property”).

2The applications for the requested relief were filed with the City and circulated for City staff and agency comments and were returned with general support for the requested relief, other than concerns with the double-wide driveways as set out further below, subject to conditions of approval.

3Comments from the public included one in opposition of the applications from City View Community Association for reasons set out in an undated letter that was received by the Committee on October 17, 2022. Those reasons included, namely, concerns with stormwater management and sewer infrastructure, reduced greenspace, smaller lots than other recent infill development that are out of character with the neighborhood, and ultimately, that they fail the statutory test for minor variance.

4A public hearing was to take place on December 11, 2022, however, was adjourned to allow for City staff to provide additional information related to a stormwater study and its potential implications to the proposed development and/or proposed additional conditions. Despite that City staff returned with no concerns from a stormwater management perspective, a majority vote of the Committee at a hearing on January 20, 2023 refused the entirety of the applications stating they were not satisfied that: (a) the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) that promotes efficient land use and development as well as intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local conditions; (b) that the proposal had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), including the reduced dimensions of the lots, and (c) that it was in the public interest. There was a dissenting opinion from two of the five Committee members who approved of the applications, noting similar sized lots are found throughout the neighbourhood.

5On February 7, 2023, the Applicant filed this appeal of the Committee decision. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal determines that this appeal should be allowed, and provisional consent should be given for the proposed Consent, and further, that the Variances requested should be authorized, subject to the conditions set out below.

BACKGROUND AND SITE CONTEXT

6The Subject Property is located in the Cityview neighbourhood and is within the City of Ottawa’s College Ward (Ward 8). The property is located at the western end of Granton Avenue, along the south side of the street, and is in an area bounded by Baseline Road to the north, Cordova Street to the east, and Chippewa Avenue to the south. It is zoned residential first density, subzone FF, exception 632 (“R1FF[632]”), is within the Outer Urban Transect, and is designated Neighbourhood in the City’s Official Plan. It is also subject to the Evolving Neighbourhoods Overlay, due to its proximity to the Baseline Road Corridor.

7The Subject Property has a lot frontage of 26.62 metres, a lot depth of 27.42 metres, and a lot area of 787.9 m². It is an irregularly shaped interior lot and is smaller than neighbouring lots. It is currently developed with a single storey detached dwelling. A driveway is provided on the site but there is no garage on the property. There is a single tree in the front yard of the property. The surrounding area is similarly developed, with detached dwellings on all sides of the Subject Property. Many of these dwellings are also a single storey or one-and-a-half storeys, including neighbouring properties to the front, side, and rear of the Subject Property. Unlike the Subject Property, most of the neighbouring properties have a one or two car garage.

8The lots in the surrounding area are generally quite large. However, there are a number of smaller lots in the area as well, including four lots at the other end of the block, southwest of the intersection of Granton Avenue and Cordova Street. These lots, in combination with smaller lots on the east side of Cordova Street and a number of townhouses and mid-and-high-rise apartment buildings within walking distance of the Subject Property, show that the area is gradually changing and experiencing intensification.

9The proposed development would result in two detached dwellings, both two-storeys in height and would include a driveway and a two-car garage on each, both fronting onto Granton Avenue. Each dwelling would also contain a secondary dwelling unit, located in the basement. A side entrance would be provided for each of these basement units.

PROPOSED CONSENT AND REQUESTED VARIANCES

Proposed Severance

10The proposed reciprocal Severances are as follows:

Severance Application 1:

This application will create the lot to the west, labelled as Part 1 on the Draft Reference Plan with municipal address of 124 Granton Avenue. This lot will have a frontage of 13.31 metres on Granton Avenue, a lot depth of 27.42 metres, and a lot area of 422.1 m².

Severance Application 2:

This application will create the lot to the east, labelled as Part 2 on the Draft Reference Plan with municipal address of 122 Granton Avenue. This lot will have a frontage of 13.31 metres on Granton Avenue, a lot depth of 27.42 metres, and a lot area of 365.8 m².

Requested Variances

11The proposed Variances sought are as follows:

Part 1:

a) To permit a reduced lot width of 14.1 metres, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot width of 19.5 metres.

b) To permit a reduced lot area of 450.4 m², whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 600 m².

c) To permit a 5.5 metre double-wide driveway, whereas the ZBL does not permit a double-wide driveway on lots less than 15 metres in width.

Part 2:

d) To permit a reduced lot width of 13.3 metres, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot width of 19.5 metres.

e) To permit a reduced lot area of 387.1 m², whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 600 m².

f) To permit a 5.5 metre double-wide driveway, whereas the ZBL does not permit a double-wide driveway on lots less than 15 metres in width.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Consent Appeals – s.53(19) of the Planning Act

12The Tribunal must consider and decide the following issues:

i. The threshold question in accordance with s. 53(1) of the Act and be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and can proceed by way of application for Consent;

ii. Under s. 53(12), have regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act which includes: that the proposed Consent has regard to the effect that the Consent will have on matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act; whether the proposed Consent is premature or in the public interest; whether the Consent conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“City OP”); the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot; and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

iii. As required by s. 3(5) of the Act, be satisfied that the approval of the proposed provisional Consents are consistent with the PPS, and conform to such Provincial plans that may be applicable;

iv. Have regard to the decision of the approval authority relating to the Consent applications that are before the Tribunal and the information and material that was before the approval authority in making the decision;

v. Under s. 53(12), consider and impose such conditions as may be determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed Consents, and such conditions may include such requirements as are set out in s. 51(25) of the Act; and

vi. Whether the giving of provisional consent to the Applicant, with any required conditions, represents good planning in the public interest.

Minor Variance Appeals – s.45(1) of the Planning Act

13The Tribunal must be satisfied that the requested minor Variances:

i. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s OP;

ii. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;

iii. Are minor in nature; and

iv. Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

14Additionally, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Variances are also consistent with the PPS; have regard to matters of Provincial interest, as well as the decision of the approval authority and the information that was before it.

THE HEARING, EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

15City Council resolved to take no position on this Appeal and did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal heard viva voce evidence from only the Applicant’s sole witness, Mr. Murray Chown, who was qualified as an expert in land use planning. The Tribunal also received a fulsome Document Book from the Applicant which was marked as Exhibit 1. That Document Book included, among other documentary and visual evidence, original and revised Variances and Consent applications with covering letter from the Applicant’s initial agent and Planner, Ms. Simran Soor, a Survey Plan, a Draft Reference Plan, a Site Plan, Consent and Variances sketches, elevation drawings, and a tree information report. The Tribunal also had the Municipal Record available to it as forwarded by the municipality, containing all the information and documentation before the Committee and Council when the applications were received, considered, and decided.

16No other persons requested participant or party status for the purposes of this appeal.

Stormwater Management

17As earlier referenced, the public hearing in this matter returnable December 11, 2022, was adjourned to allow City staff an opportunity to provide further comments on concerns shared by the City View Community Association regarding a stormwater study that was completed in the City View area. The City engaged Robinson Consultants Inc. (“RCI”) to conduct field work to evaluate drainage conditions related to infrastructure inclusive of the City View neighbourhood. In summary, the study found that the most common deficiency contributing to ponding and poor draining were culvert blockages. A follow-up report by RCI addressed remediation strategies but did not provide recommendations for new development. City planning staff found, among other things, that there was no stormwater management requirement for residential development that is not also subject to site plan control approval. Additionally, regarding imposing further conditions, City engineering staff stated that drainage issues related to ditches would be addressed at the building permit stage as grading and drainage are addressed comprehensively during that process. Accordingly, City planning staff concluded that they had no concerns concerning stormwater management in relation to the requested Consent and Variances at this stage. The Tribunal raises this overall concern for the purposes of completeness and the concerns raised by the City View Community Association during the initial application phases while noting it was not a specific issue raised on this appeal.

The Consent Applications

Is a Plan of Subdivision Required?

18The proposed development involves a single reciprocal consent which does not necessitate the construction of new public infrastructure. The Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and this issue does not apply.

Matters of Provincial Interest:

19Mr. Chown testified that both the Consent and Variances create development that are both within an appropriate location for growth and development and which are supportive of public transit. While there were additional factors, Mr. Chown opined it was predominantly for these reasons that the proposed development upholds matters of Provincial interest. Ms. Soor’s written opinion submitted in support of the initial applications sets out additional factors, namely, that the Consent and Variances creates development which promotes: the efficient use and conservation of energy and water; efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and services and waste management systems; minimization of waste; orderly development of safe and healthy communities; and adequate provision of a full range of housing including affordable housing. The Tribunal accepts this uncontested evidence and agrees that both the Consent and Variances propose development which has appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act.

The Provincial Policy Statement:

20It was Mr. Chown’s evidence that both the Consent and Variances propose development which is consistent with the policies under the PPS. Specifically, Mr. Chown opined as follows:

i. Under policy 1.1.1, he stated that the proposed development promotes efficient development and land use patterns by more effectively using an existing lot and providing additional housing within an urban area. It promotes a mix of housing units and provides additional affordable housing in the form of smaller homes as well as additional basement dwelling units which caters to different house sizes and types, and different families with varying incomes. It is also transit supportive development given Baseline Road has been identified for a future rapid public transit system.

ii. Policy 1.1.2 directs that within settlement areas, sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas. Mr. Chown opined that this policy clearly articulates the Province’s direction that growth needs to be accommodated through intensification first which is achieved through the development proposal.

iii. The Subject Property is considered part of the “settlement area” as defined in policy 1.1.3, and policy 1.1.3.1 directs that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development.

iv. The proposed development is an appropriate and efficient use of the land. It also reduces the extent of uneconomical expansion outside of the urban area and is transit supportive, thereby furthering policy 1.1.3.2 subsections (a), (b) and (f).

v. Policy 1.1.3.3 directs that appropriate locations shall be identified which, among other things, promotes opportunities for transit supported development. Mr. Chown stated the City’s OP does exactly this by designating the subject area along Baseline Road as ‘evolving overlay’, as set out further below under the discussion of the City’s OP.

21The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Chown and agrees that both the Consent and Variances propose development which is consistent with the policies set out under the PPS.

Conformity with the City’s Official Plan

22City Council amended and passed a new OP which was adopted and subsequently approved with modification on November 4, 2022, which OP is currently applicable to the Subject Property and proposed development. While Mr. Chown opined that the proposed Consent and Variances are in conformity with both the City’s former official plan, 2003, and the new OP, the analysis within this decision will deal strictly with the new City OP currently in effect and applicable.

23Mr. Chown highlighted the strategic directions under section 2 of the City’s OP, and specifically “Big Policy Move 1” which directs growth by intensification over greenfield development, with a particular target of 60% increase in existing built-up areas by 2046. This policy also directs a variety of affordable, low-rise housing options for residents within existing neighborhoods close to hubs and corridors. “Big Policy Move 2” speaks to intensification that is supportive of an increase in sustainable transportation to meet the City’s climate change goals. Under section 2.2.1 of the OP, regarding intensification and diversifying housing options, policy 1 directs development supportive of an evolution towards “15-minute neighborhoods’ with an intensification target of 60% by 2046. Policy 2 encourages more housing options for larger households, including ground-oriented units such as single detached, semi-detached and rowhouses. Mr. Chown stated the proposed development achieves these directives with ground-oriented detached dwellings being proposed that offer 4-bedroom homes with additional accessory basement dwelling units. Additionally, under section 2.2.3, regarding energy and climate change, Mr. Chown opined that policy 1 is achieved with higher-density development being in areas that are close to transit and within walking distance of a wide range of services.

24Section 3 of the OP, dealing with the Growth Management Framework, sets out that most growth is to occur in the urban area and built-up area through intensification. Section 3.2 speaks to intensification being supportive of “15-mintue neighbourhoods” with a target growth of 51% in the urban area. Policy 3 within this section of the OP also locates the Subject Property south of Baseline Road which is designated as a “corridor” with a nearby transit station immediately north of the property, factors which comprise 15-minute neighbourhoods. Mr. Chown opined that collectively, this all supports the policy objectives of having residential intensification focused on such 15-minute neighbourhoods. In addition, policy 4 within section 3.2 speaks to intensification in areas with adequate municipal water and sewer services, which is achieved in the location of the proposed development. Section 4.2 of the OP provides policy direction on housing and Mr. Chown opined that policy 3 of s. 4.2.1 is achieved as each of the proposed new lots would offer an additional accessory basement dwelling unit furthering the goal of increasing the City’s affordable housing stock.

25Outer urban transects are dealt with under section 5 of the OP, provides direction for the neighbourhoods in the overlay, and is generally characterized by low-to-mid density development. Section 5.3.4 directs that the ZBL shall implement development standards that transition away from a suburban model and move towards built forms that support a wide variety of housing types, up to three-to-four storeys in height where appropriate. The proposed development maintains a low-rise, ground-oriented built form, proposing a two-storey dwelling which fits comfortably within this permitted height and the surrounding neighbourhood. Section 5.6 deals with overlays and 5.6.1 deals with built form overlays. Those sections set out that the designation of evolving overlay, which applies to the Subject Property, signals a gradual evolution over time that shifts in character to support intensification, including a change in character from suburban to urban to allow new built forms and more diverse functions of land. Mr. Chown opined that per policy 1 under s. 5.6.1.1, the proposed built form and site design are consistent with the character of the neighbourhood in this case as evidenced by the visual photographs of the neighbouring properties tendered within the Applicant’s Document Book.

26Section 6.3.1, dealing with neighbourhoods, directs that they permit a mix of building forms and densities and where an Overlay directs evolution, stresses the need for gradual well-planned transformation. Both the Consent and Variances propose development which meets the intent of allowing intensification in the area by providing additional housing while maintaining the low-rise ground-oriented form in the surrounding context. Additionally, policy 4 under s. 6.3.1 directs that the ZBL and approvals under the Act are to allow a range of built forms in the neighbourhood designation including housing options sufficient to meet or exceed the residential intensification target of 49,000 for ground-oriented or large-household dwellings, which this development proposal helps to achieve.

27The Tribunal agrees with the evidence tendered by the Applicant’s expert witness which reflects that both the Consent and Variances are in conformity with, and maintain the general intent and purpose of, the City’s OP.

Other Section 51(24) Criteria:

28The Tribunal is satisfied that the Consent has sufficient and appropriate regard for the other applicable criteria set out in section 51(24) of the Act. As Mr. Chown testified, per subsection (b), the Subject Property is located within the City’s urban boundary and is in a fully developed neighborhood already serviced by both hard and soft services. Accordingly, the Consent is not premature and is in the public interest. Under subsection (c), the City’s OP supports infill development and intensification through built-up areas with a focus on “15-minute neighbourhoods”. The Consent supports such intensification and proposes additional housing in the area that is consistent with the lot fabric of the surrounding sub-division. Further to subsection (d), the land on which the Subject Property is located is suitable for the development of two detached dwellings on smaller lots. While Variances are required, the proposed development meets the required front, rear yard and interior side yard setbacks, and have been designed to fit comfortably on the new lots. As discussed further below under the discussion of conformity with the ZBL, the proposed development meets all other performance standards under the R1FF[632] zone.

29Additionally, and further to subsection (d.1), an additional accessory basement dwelling unit is being proposed on each of the new proposed lots which are suitable as additional dwelling units offering more affordable housing in the existing neighborhood. Under subsection (f), the Consent would result in two lots with equal frontage translating to minimal impact to the streetscape. The proposed lot dimensions and shapes would also comfortably fit the proposed detached dwelling. Per subsection (i), the Subject Property is located within the urban boundary and is connected to existing utilities and municipal services which are unimpacted by the proposed development. Under subsection (j), the Subject Property is located near various existing public schools and this criterion presents no issues. Finally, under subsection (k), the Applicant is agreeable to the proposed condition that payment for cash-in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes be made.

Summary – Consent Application:

30Having considered the broader Provincial policy concerns, the matters of Provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Act, and all of the criteria as set out in s. 51(24), the Tribunal finds that the proposed Consent has due regard for such matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to, or is not in conflict with the City OP, represents good planning and is in the public interest. Provisional Consent should accordingly be granted.

31As to the matter of Conditions, the Tribunal finds that the Conditions to the proposed Consent, as proposed by City staff, agreed to by the Applicant, and set out further below, are appropriate and should be imposed.

The Minor Variance Applications

Matters of Provincial Interest and the Provincial Policy Statement

32As set out above at paragraphs 19-21 of this decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that both the Variances and Consent have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest and the PPS.

Intent and Purpose of the OP

33For the purposes of completeness and as set out at paragraphs 22-27 of this decision, the Tribunal agrees with the evidence tendered by the Applicant’s expert witness which reflects that both the Consent and Variances propose development that is in conformity with, and which maintains the general intent and purpose of, the City’s OP.

Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law

34Mr. Chown confirmed that the Subject Property is zoned R1FF[632] under the City’s ZBL. The purpose of the zoning is set out under Part 6 of the ZBL and states:

The purpose of the R1- Residential First Density Zone is to:

(1) restrict the building form to detached dwellings in areas designated as General Urban

Area in the Official Plan;

(2) allow a number of other residential uses to provide additional housing choices within

detached dwelling residential areas;

(3) permit ancillary uses to the principal residential use to allow residents to work at home;

(4) regulate development in a manner that is compatible with existing land use patterns so

that the detached dwelling, residential character of a neighbourhood is maintained or

enhanced; and

(5) permit different development standards, identified in the Z subzone, primarily for areas

designated as Developing Communities, which promote efficient land use and compact

form while showcasing newer design approaches.

35The following chart prepared by Ms. Soor and submitted with the initial applications neatly sets out the applicable zoning provisions and the three areas of relief required from those provisions:

Zoning Provision	Required	Provided – Part 1	Provided – Part 2
Minimum Lot Width (m)	19.5 m	14.1 m	13.3 m
Minimum Lot Area (m2)	600 m2	450.4 m2	387.1m2
Maximum Building Height (m)	8.5 m	Two Storeys	Two Storeys
Minimum Front Yard Setback (m)	6 m	6.6 m	6.6 m
Minimum Corner Yard Setback (m)	4.5 m	N/A	N/A
Minimum Rear Yard Setback (m)	28% of the lot depth (8.1 m)	6.6 m	6.6 m
Minimum Interior Yard Setback (m)	2.1m with one yard and no less than 0.94 m	2.2 m / ½ m	1.2 m / 1.2 m
Maximum Lot Coverage	45%	34.3%	39.9%
Minimum Aggregate Front Yard Soft Landscaping	40%	41.7%	40.6%
Maximum Driveway Width	3 m Double-wide driveway not permitted	5.5 m	5.5 m

36Mr. Chown opined that the intent and purpose of the lot width and lot area provisions is to require larger lots in the R1-zone so as to protect and retain the detached dwelling form in the neighbourhood, ensure a consistent streetscape and to ensure adequate amenity space. Mr. Chown stated the proposed two severed lots are still large for urban standards for single family homes in the area, and are consistent with the changing streetscape and character of the neighbourhood. Other than the driveway requirements discussed further below, the proposal also fully conforms to the other performance standards of the ZBL including but not limited to height, setbacks, permitted number of bedrooms, accessory dwelling units, and parking.

37With respect to the relief requested on the provisions dealing with double-wide driveways, City staff reported concerns citing that the driveway would occupy nearly half of the lot width contrary to the intention of the provision, which in conjunction with minimum soft landscaping requirements, was to reduce the visual impact of the driveways and cars parked thereon within the greenbelt. City staff stated that infill development should prioritize soft landscaping before parking. However, the Tribunal notes that the proposed double-wide driveway does not actually equate to half of the total lot size. As Mr. Chown pointed out, the proposed development in this case not only meets the minimum aggregate soft landscaping requirement of 40%, but in fact exceeds that requirement. Additionally, Mr. Chown highlighted that the double-wide driveway would have been permitted as of right if this lot were like the neighbouring lots and rectangularly shaped, however, unfortunately in this case the lot is irregularly shaped.

38The Tribunal is not satisfied that the double-wide driveway fails to meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL based on relegating the soft-scaping requirements, given that those requirements are met in this case. The Tribunal rather accepts that the general intent and purpose of driveway requirements is to ensure that adequate soft landscaping is maintained, and that the façade of the building and front yard is not dominated by a driveway and garage. The Tribunal accepts that the minimum soft landscaping requirements are met and that any impact of the proposed double-wide driveways and garages on the streetscape in this case are minimized by its location at the end of the street, the soft landscaping, and proposed porches which highlight the building rather than the driveways. Additionally, the Tribunal accepts that that the proposed double-wide driveways are more consistent with the evolving character of the neighbourhood and existing streetscape rather than single driveways permitted as of right and are more aligned with the intensification goals of the City OP and PPS in accommodating large families. Finally, the Tribunal notes that the City’s infill and forestry department had no concerns with the double-wide driveway, on the condition that enough space is left for a single large tree requiring a soil volume of 30 square meters in the front yard, accompanied by a planting plan following construction. The Applicant has accepted and agreed to the conditions raised by the City’s infill forester and suggested by City planning staff, as set out in the Schedule A Conditions appended to this decision.

39The Tribunal further accepts that the statutorily set out purpose and intent of the ZBL is maintained as the Consent and Variances propose two detached dwellings on one former lot which conforms to the built form intent. Additionally, it provides two additional basement units which conforms to the intent of additional housing choices within detached dwellings. The proposal is also compatible with existing land use patterns such that the residential character of the neighbourhood is maintained as demonstrated by the visual evidence within the Applicant’s Document Book, which shows similar infill intensification of homes of similar sizes with similar driveways on similar severed lots.

Are the Variances Minor in Nature?

40Mr. Chown testified that the question of whether variances are minor is typically measured via its impact and any undue adverse implications of the variance. In this case, Mr. Chown stated that the proposed Variances would not result in any adverse impacts. He stated that the proposed development would be in a form that is consistent with redevelopment that has already occurred and is continuing to occur in the neighbourhood. Additionally, he stated that the double-wide driveway would minimize any concern regarding the impact of residents and guests parking on the street as the driveways would offer additional parking spaces. The Tribunal accepts this uncontested evidence and further notes that the Subject Property is already serviced by adequate municipal water and sewer services and would not require any expansion of such municipal infrastructure. The Variances are considered minor in nature.

Desirability for the Appropriate Development or Use of Land, Building or Structure

41Upon the totality of the evidence tendered and discussed above, the Tribunal accepts that the proposed Variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. The proposed infill development supports intensification while having regard for existing use, lot fabric and built form of the neighbourhood. It better utilizes the site while providing additional housing units in the area, including affordable housing options in the form of basement accessory dwellings. The proposal, inclusive of the double-wide driveways, offers housing options for larger households and is more aligned with the evolving streetscape. The proposed development is also transit supportive being located near a bus stop and within walking distance to various amenities and schools.

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

42For the reasons set out in the analysis above, and upon the various findings made in this decision, the Tribunal will allow the Consent application and give provisional consent subject to the Conditions set out in the Order below. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act have been met and the requested Variances are approved.

43While concerns from City View Community Association were expressed during the public hearings over the course of the initial applications, there was no evidence on the record that supported their stated concerns. Further, no persons sought Party or Participant status to tender any evidence at the hearing. The City also tendered no contrary evidence as it resolved not to participate and to take no position on this appeal. In fact, for the purposes of the initial applications, City planning staff reviewed the City commissioned study by RCI and reported no concerns regarding stormwater management in relation to the subject Consent and Variances. The Tribunal is persuaded by the uncontroverted evidence of the sole expert witness, Mr. Chown, as tendered by the Applicant on the subject matter of this appeal. There is no basis upon which the Tribunal can consider the opinion evidence of Mr. Chown to have been challenged or shaken by the personal views expressed by the community association, however earnest their views might be. Neither is the Tribunal concerned that this approval would constitute an adverse precedent as each application and appeal is dealt with on its own merits, and on the facts of each case.

44In all respects, the Tribunal finds that the Consent and Variances applications, respectively, are consistent with the PPS and have adequate regard to the Provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Variances also maintain the general purpose and intent of both the City’s OP and ZBL, are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Property and constitute good planning.

45In making these decisions, the Tribunal has had regard for the decisions of the Committee and the information and documentation that was before the Committee and Council prior to making those decisions.

ORDER

46With respect to the applications for Consent, and the appeals pursuant to s.53(19) of the Act, the Tribunal hereby orders that the appeal is allowed and provisional consent is to be given, subject to the Conditions set out in Schedule A to this Order.

47With respect to the applications for Variances, the Tribunal orders that the appeals pursuant to s.45(12) of the Act is allowed and the following Variances to ZBL No. 2008-250 are authorized, subject to the Conditions set out in Schedule A to this Order:

i. D08-02/A-00272: 124 Granton Avenue, Part 1:

a) To permit a reduced lot width of 14.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 19.5 metres.

b) To permit a reduced lot area of 450.4 m2, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 600 m2.

c) To permit a 5.5 metre double-wide driveway, whereas the By-law does not permit a double-wide driveway on lots less than 15 metres in width.

ii. D08-02-22/A-00273: 122 Granton Avenue, Part 2:

d) To permit a reduced lot width of 13.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 19.5 metres.

e) To permit a reduced lot area of 387.1 m², whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 600 m².

f) To permit a 5.5 metre double-wide driveway, whereas the By-law does not permit a double-wide driveway on lots less than 15 metres in width.

“N. Eisazadeh”

n. eisazadeh

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.

SCHEDULE A – CONDITIONS

1. That the Owner(s) provide evidence that the accompanying Minor Variance Applications (D08-02-22/A-00272 to D08-01-22/A-00273) have been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.

2. That the Owner(s) provide evidence that payment has been made to the City of Ottawa for cash-in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes, plus applicable appraisal costs. The value of land otherwise required to be conveyed shall be determined by the City of Ottawa in accordance with the provisions of By-law No. 2022-280. Information regarding the appraisal process can be obtained by contacting the Planner.

3. That the Owner(s) provide proof to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, that the existing dwelling has been removed, that the existing sewer services are capped at the sewer and that the existing water service is blanked at the watermain.

4. That the Owner(s) provide evidence (servicing plan), to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, that both the severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and sewer connection, as appropriate, and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line and are connected directly to City Real Estate. If they do cross the proposed severance line, or they are not independent, the Owner(s) will be required to relocate or construct new services from the city sewers and/or watermain at his/her own costs.

5. That the Owner(s) enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s), which is to be registered on Title to deal with the covenants/notices that shall run with the land and bind future owners on subsequent transfers.

The Owner(s) shall:

a) Prepare a noise attenuation study in compliance with the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. The Owner(s) shall also enter into an agreement with the City that requires the Owner to implement any noise control attenuation measures recommended in the approved study. The Agreement will also deal with any covenants/notices recommended in the approved study, that shall be registered on the title and bind future owners on subsequent transfers, warning purchasers and/or tenants of expected noise levels due to the existing source of environmental noise. The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.

or

b) Design the dwelling units with central air conditioning and enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s), which is to be registered on title to deal with the covenants/notices that will bind future owners on subsequent transfers, warning purchasers and/or tenants of expected noise levels due to the existing source of environmental noise.

The following two conditions will be included in the above-noted Agreement:

Notices-on-Title respecting noise:

i. “The Purchaser/Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns acknowledges being advised that this dwelling unit has been fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting, etc. was sized to accommodate central air conditioning. Installation of central air conditioning by the Purchaser/Lessee will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the City of Ottawa’s and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s noise criteria;” and

ii. “The Purchaser/Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns acknowledges being advised that noise levels due to increasing roadway traffic may be of concern, occasionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the outdoor sound level exceeds the City of Ottawa’s and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s noise criteria.”

6. The subject site is below take-off / approach surface 14 and within the AVDZ. The following should be registered on title of all new parcels/units created and included in all agreement for sale or lease.

• Noise warning clause:

“Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the airport, noise from the airport and individual aircraft may at times interfere with outdoor or indoor activities”.

Notice:

“Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Zoning Regulations” HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA off all new parcel units created.

7. That the Owner(s) provide evidence that a grading and drainage plan, prepared by a qualified Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, an Ontario Land Surveyor or a Certified Engineering Technologist, has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee. The grading and drainage plan shall delineate existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained properties, to the satisfaction of the Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate.

8. That the Owner(s) enter into a Development Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of Development Review Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to require that an asphalt overlay will be installed, at the Owner(s) expense, on Granton Avenue, fronting the subject lands, over the entire public driving surface area within the limits of the overlay, if the approved Site Servicing Plan shows three or more cuts within the pavement surface. The overlay must be carried out to the satisfaction of Development Review Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title. If the Development Review Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate determines that a Development Agreement requiring an asphalt overlay is no longer necessary, this condition shall be deemed as fulfilled.

9. Prior to the stamping of the deed(s)/issuance of a building permit, the Owner/Applicant(s) shall enter into a Development Agreement or a Letter of Undertaking (LOU) with the City of Ottawa, at the expense of the Owner/Applicant(s), and to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Real Estate, and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. A Development Agreement is to be registered on Title of the property.

a) The Owner(s) agree to provide proof to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the West Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, that the tree protection fencing around the Critical Root of the protected tree is installed as shown in the Tree Information Report, prior to capping of services, to prevent any excavation within this zone. The sanitary and storm services if present, must be abandoned and capped outside of the Critical Root Zone of the City tree as clearly demonstrated on the Existing Conditions, Removals, and Decommissioning plan.

b) The Owner(s) agree to provide a Grading and Servicing Plan showing that proposed structures such as services, retaining walls, projections, etc. will be designed to allow for the retention and protection of existing trees, as detailed in the Tree Information Report prepared by Dendron Forestry Services on September 6, 2022.

c) The Owner(s) agree to provide securities for a period of 2 years following the completion of construction, which is equivalent to the value of the tree(s) to be protected (Tree #1). The Owner(s) agree that the security shall be returned to the owner only upon the City having received a report from an arborist or appropriate professional confirming that Tree #1 is in good health and condition and remains structurally stable. The Owner(s) acknowledge and agree that if, in the opinion of the City Forester and/or the Development Review Manager of the West Branch within Planning, Real Estate, and Economic Development, the report indicates that Tree #1 is declining and must be removed, the Security for that tree, will be forfeited.

d) The Owner(s) shall prepare and submit a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the West Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, showing the location of one new 50-millimetre tree to be planted on each lot following construction, to enhance the urban tree canopy.

10. That the Owner(s) file with the Committee a copy of the registered Reference Plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor registered in the Province of Ontario, and signed by the Register, confirming the frontage and area of the severed land. If the Registered Plan does not indicate the lot area, a letter from the Surveyor confirming the area is required. The Registered Reference Plan must conform substantially to the Draft Reference Plan filed with the Application for Consent.

11. That upon completion of the above conditions, and within the two-year period outlined above, the Owner(s) file with the Committee, the “electronic registration in preparation documents” for a Conveyance for which the Consent is required.