Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000517
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Jersey Developments Inc.
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
To construct a three-storey, 16-unit low rise apartment building
Reference Number:
D08-02-24/A-00027
Property Address:
370 Athlone Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000517
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000517
OLT Case Name:
Jersey Developments Inc. v. City of Ottawa
Heard:
July 3, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Jersey Developments Inc.
Crystal McConkey
(“Applicant”)
Jordan Rivera, student-at-law
City of Ottawa
Not represented
(“City”)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-pierre blais ON july 3, 2024 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant seeks to redevelop a property at 370 Athlone Avenue (“Subject Property”) in the City through the construction a three-story building containing 16 units, with an accessory building to accommodate a garbage shed and a 16-unit bike-parking area. To this end, the Applicant requested the following four minor variances from the City’s By-law No. 2008-250 (“By-law”):
a. To permit 16 dwelling units in a low-rise apartment building, whereas the By-law permits a maximum of 12 dwelling units in a low-rise apartment building (s. 162, Table 162A);
b. To permit zero parking spaces, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of two parking spaces (s. 101);
c. To permit a reduced setback for an accessory building of 0.15 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires 0.6 metres (s. 55, Table 55(3)(II)(ii); and,
d. To permit a reduced interior side yard setback for an accessory building of 0.55 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres (s. 55, Table 55(3)(II)(ii).
2On April 26, 2024, the City’s Committee of Adjustment denied the requested variances.
3The Applicant filed an Appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (“Act”).
4The City’s Legal Services informed the Tribunal that it did not have instructions to appear at the hearing.
NOTICE
5Notice of the hearing was sent administratively by the Tribunal on May 29, 2024. No other person sought Party or Participant status.
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDINGS
6The Subject Property is located on the west side of Athlone Avenue in Westboro. It has a frontage of 15.24 metres, a depth of 33.47 metres and a total area of approximately 508 square metres. Pursuant to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”), it is designated ‘Neighbourhood’ with an ‘Evolving Neighbourhood’ overlay within the Inner Urban Transect.
7The Subject Property is currently occupied by a one-storey detached dwelling and two accessory buildings, which are all to be demolished.
8The Subject Property is surrounded by single-storey dwellings to the south and the north. A commercial site at 277 Richmond Road is to the west, and a parking lot for a commercial building across the street to the east.
9The Subject Property is located approximately 45 metres from Richmond Road, a Mainstreet Corridor, and 300 metres from Westboro Transit Station (approximately a 4-minute walk).
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
10The Tribunal considered the uncontested evidence of Christine McCuaig, a Principal Senior Planner with Q9 Planning and Design Inc. The Tribunal qualified Ms. McCuaig to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. Her evidence is summarized in her Witness Statement filed with the Tribunal on June 24, 2024 and marked as Exhibit 1.
11Ms. McCuaig testified with respect to the four-part test set out at s. 45(1) of the Act, as well as the other relevant statutory tests under the Act.
General Intent and Purpose of the By-Law is Maintained
12Ms. McCuaig testified that the general intent and purpose of the By-law is to allow a wide mix of residential building forms ranging from detached to low-rise apartments in the R4UB zone. The By-law seeks, in her opinion, to regulate development in a manner that is compatible with existing land use patterns and allows other residential uses to provide additional housing choices. A low-rise dwelling is permitted in the R4 zone. She opined that increasing the maximum number of units from 12 to 16 will not compromise landscaping, as well as the ability to accommodate waste storage and bike parking. She noted that there was no variance sought for the yard setbacks for the primary building.
13With respect to parking, she explained that the By-law does not require parking spaces for low-rise apartment buildings with 12 or fewer units, and only requires two parking spaces when the number of units is increased to 16. She opined that the By-law acknowledges the Inner Urban areas of the City are more bikeable, walkable and are in proximity to transit. The intent, she explained, is to encourage smaller infill apartments that prioritize greenspace and housing on smaller lots, rather than paved parking space. Thus, in her opinion, the absence of parking spaces for the proposed development is acceptable, particularly given that the bicycle parking rate is proposed to be one per unit rather than 0.5 per unit as set out in the By-law. The elimination of parking spaces is highly supportable.
14Ms. McCuaig testified that the purpose of setbacks for accessory building is to ensure adequate space for maintenance. She explained that materials for the proposed accessory building have a 40-year life span and will not require maintenance for the life of the proposed buildings. She also explained that the fence has been removed and will thus not require maintenance. She opined that there was no justifiable reason to provide additional setbacks. In her view, the proposed variances with respect to setbacks would eliminate unutilized space and would prioritize useable space for amenities and landscaping.
15It is her professional opinion that the general intent and purpose of the By-law is met.
General Intent and Purpose of the OP is maintained
16Ms. McCuaig testified that the requested variances fully contribute to the planned direction for growth within the urban area in the City’s OP by prioritizing housing, intensification, greenspace, 15-minute neighbourhoods and active transportation. She also explained that proposed three-storey built form is permitted and is compatible with existing building heights in the area. She noted alignment with s. 2, 3, 4.1.2, 4.6, 5.2, 5.6.1 and 6 of the OP, while noting the proximity of the Subject Property to amenities, Richmond Road (a Mainstreet Corridor) and the Westboro Transit Station.
17It is her professional opinion that the general intent and purpose of the OP is met.
Desirable for the Appropriate Development and Use
18Ms. McCuaig testified that the proposed development is appropriate and desirable. She noted that the proposed development would contribute, through intensification, to the supply of new housing in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area. The increase in the number of residential units will not increase the permitted built form and will not compromise space for amenities and landscaping. She underscored that the reduction of parking spaces and the reduced setbacks represents a more efficient land use in a transit-supported area.
19It is her professional opinion that the “appropriate development” test is met.
Variances are Minor
20Ms. McCuaig testified that the increase in the number of units does not alter the zoning-compliant built form, which is also fully compliant with yard set back performance standards for the primary building. The proposed development includes studios, 1-bedroom units and 2-bedroom units, the latter meeting the 25% requirement in the By-law. The proposed development will offer accessible units using an accessible ramp on the south side of the building. The distance between the primary building and the accessory building exceeds the minimum requirements.
21Ms. McCuaig opined that the reduction of vehicle parking spaces will have no impact on the residents of these rental units as they will be aware of the absence of dedicated parking spaces before renting, as well as the availability of active transportation option to amenities and the availability of transit in proximity to the Subject Property.
22The witness also explained that the proposed accessory building is significantly smaller than the existing two accessory structures. The Subject Property abuts to the rear a commercial property, where loading and other operations occur. The proposed setback variances will allow an appropriately sized accessory building. In her opinion, there will be no impact because of these two setback variances.
23It is her professional opinion that the requested variances, both individually and collectively, are minor.
CONCLUSION
24Based on the uncontested evidence of Ms. McCuaig (which the Tribunal accepts), the Tribunal finds that the requested variances meet the four-part test set out at s. 45(1) of the Act. Considering the resulting intensification, the proximity of transit and amenities, and the increased supply of housing, the Tribunal also finds that the proposed development has regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest set out at s. 2 of the Act and that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as required under s. 3(5)(a) of the Act.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law No. 2008-250 of the City of Ottawa are allowed.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
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.