Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 06, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000554
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant and Appellant: 1000681380 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit a 12-unit rooming house
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00032
Property Address: 512 Moodie Drive
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000554
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000554
OLT Case Name: 1000681380 Ontario Inc. v Ottawa (City)
Heard: August 16, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| 100681380 Ontario Inc. | Gregory Meeds* |
| Michelle Laflamme | Self-Represented |
DECISION DELIVERED BY KEN HEWITT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal brought by 1000681380 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”), the owner of the lands known municipally as 512 Moodie Drive (“Subject Property”), located in the City of Ottawa (“City”), is seeking relief from four zoning provisions resulting in four Minor Variances under section 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”):
a) To permit an increased number of 12 rooming units along an arterial road, whereas the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) permits a maximum of seven units;
b) To permit a driveway to be located between the front wall of the dwelling and the street, whereas the ZBL does not permit a part of the driveway to be located as described;
c) To permit a reduced driveway width of 3 metres (“m”) to access the parking lot, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum of 6 m; and
d) To permit a reduced minimum length for a parallel parking space of 4.6 m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum of 6.7 m.
2Gregory Meeds, counsel for the Applicant, introduced Jacob Bolduc as his expert witness. Mr. Boldoc is a registered professional planner retained by the Applicant. Mr. Meeds wanted the Tribunal to be aware that these Minor Variances were heard at a Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) meeting on April 16, 2024. This was the second meeting scheduled, and Mr. Bolduc made his presentation at that time. The decision of the Committee did support three of the four Variances: b), c), and d). The Committee did not support a). As such, the Applicant has appealed the Committee‘s decisions in its entirety. This is found within the Applicant’s Book of Documents, marked as Exhibit 1.
3Mr. Bolduc was affirmed with no objections, and the Tribunal marked his resume and witness statement as Exhibit 2. Mr. Bolduc believes that, in his expert opinion, the four proposed Minor Variances do meet the four tests as outlined in section 45 (1) of the Act and that within the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), they meet the objectives of Policies 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, and 1.1.3.4. Mr. Bolduc stated that, in his opinion, these Variances are efficiently using existing land and resources, including the renovation and existing municipal services, to contribute to the range of housing options in the neighbourhood. It represents the intensification and redevelopment of existing local transit services and connections to the future LRT system within an existing settlement area. The Variances related to the parking are the best efforts from the Applicant to reduce the amount of hard surface and maintain the current ecosystems and natural heritage of the existing lot while being as respectful to the local neighbourhood as possible.
4Mr. Bolduc further stated that the Variances meet the objectives of Policy 1.4.3. through the provision of rooming units within an existing compact, low-rise building. The proposed density of 12 rooming units is equivalent to a single detached dwelling containing two additional units for a total of three units containing four bedrooms each. The proposed parking for six spaces meets the ZBL requirements for a 12-unit rooming house, while under the ZBL as-of-right, a single detached dwelling with two units would only require one parking space.
5Mr. Bolduc affirms that the application meets the general intent and purpose of the City Official Plan (“OP”). The proposed development provides for missing-middle housing through intensification within the neighbourhood designation in the Outer Urban Transect through the adaptation and renovation of an existing dwelling's built form.
6Mr. Bolduc also highlighted that the ZBL is currently under review by the City following the passing of the new City OP in 2022. The existing cap on the number of rooming units has not been increased following the changes made to the Act to allow for two additional residential units in a detached dwelling. This means that while a detached dwelling-built form can contain three separate units of four bedrooms in support of provincial and the City’s goals for intensification within the urban area, the ZBL has not yet been updated to reflect this increase in density across more non-traditional and missing-middle housing forms, including rooming houses.
7Mr. Bolduc included comments as they relate to community concerns that are reflected in a petition of local neighbours against this application as follows:
a) Increased density;
b) Inadequate parking and traffic;
c) Neighborhood character;
d) Loss of privacy; and
e) Noise, lighting, waste and other disruptions.
8Mr. Bolduc has stated that the increase of 70% (four-bedroom dwelling to a 12-rooming unit) does not properly characterize the Applicant’s request as the zoning already permits three units consisting of up to four bedrooms. Therefore, the application is what is already as-of-right permitted density on the Subject Property by the Applicant. Noise is regulated by the City, and any noise complaints associated with the rooming house should be reported as per the ZBL. The parking of six spaces meets the current ZBL, and there is no desire to reduce the number of parking spaces. The proposed development intends to make the best use of the existing single-detached building, ensuring that it maintains the existing community character and enhances it by providing new residential housing options within the existing form. Privacy impacts on neighbours are not clearly defined in that residents are able to enjoy the rear yard amenities.
9In his expert opinion, Mr. Bolduc concluded that this application meets the four tests under the Act for a Minor Variance and is consistent with the PPS and the City OP.
10Mr. Leeds introduced Ms. Samantha Gatchene, who was sworn in with no objections and is a planner with the City. Her resume is included in the Applicant’s Book of Documents (Exhibit 1). Ms. Gatchene, when asked, stated that as the planner working on this application with the Committee, she had fully supported it in principle and believes that it meets the general intent of the OP, and the requested Variances are minor in nature. Ms. Gatchene did make note that the application was circulated to all staff departments, and no concerns were brought forward. Furthermore, the current ZBL is not up to date in meeting the requirements of the PPS, and that is currently being reviewed.
11Ms. Michelle Laflamme was affirmed with Party status. While there were no objections, it was noted that while her concerns were taken at the Committee and have been received by the Tribunal, she is not an expert, nor can she provide expert evidence on items such as traffic, etc. It was noted that most of her presentation would only be heard to reiterate her objections to this application.
12Ms. Laflamme stated that she resides at 510 Moodie Drive, located next to the Subject Property and that she has been living there for many years and has seen many changes to the neighbourhood. However, she believes that the proposed application is not a good change for the area, and she opposes it for several reasons:
a) Ms. Laflamme believes that the change from a single-family dwelling to 12-rooming units is a 70% increase, which is significant in terms of impacts on the local community and does not represent a Minor Variance.
b) A 12-unit rooming house could mean more than 24 people living at all times, affecting the privacy of the neighbourhood. The increased level of noise comes with more residents using their rear yard space. The increased amount of garbage that will be stored in the rear yard and the number of bicycles coming in and out of the property will all have major impacts on local properties.
c) The increased number of cars entering this property poses a danger and risk to the neighbourhood as it already is a busy arterial road that peaks at times when the local mosque is being used.
13Ms. Laflamme’s primary concern is the privacy she currently enjoys on her property, and this application will negatively affect that. She believes that this application is not minor in nature and that it would be much better suited in another location in the City.
14The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following materials and submissions:
i) Opinion evidence of Samantha Gatchene, a registered professional planner for the City of Ottawa, contained in her affidavit, as part of Exhibit 1 submitted by the Applicant in the Book of Documents;
ii) Opinion evidence of Jacob Bolduc, a registered professional planner retained by 1000681380 Ontario Inc., contained in his affidavit as part of Exhibit 2 submitted by the Applicant;
iii) Written and oral comments by Michelle Laflamme, registered for Party status and contained in her submissions, as Exhibit 3;
iv) Written submissions by Tanya Ladurantaye and Karen Lam, both registered as Participants, as Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5; and
v) Petition submitted on behalf of several residents within the neighbourhood, as Exhibit 6.
CONCLUSION
15After a thorough review of all materials, The Tribunal recognizes the sworn affidavits and oral evidence provided by both Mr. Bolduc and Ms. Gatchene and agrees that the application does meet the four tests to support a Minor Variance. The Tribunal finds that this application is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the City OP, recognizing that the OP is in the process of being updated to reflect higher density targets. Furthermore, the current zoning already allows for a density similar to that being applied for. Along with the support of staff and the fact that no adverse impacts are being highlighted by all departments, this application otherwise reflects principles of good land use planning and fills a gap of missing middle housing.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Variances to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 and Zoning By-law No. 2018-206 are authorized.
“K. Hewitt”
K. HEWITT
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.