Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 20, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000652
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Jennifer and Mary Sarumi
Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority
Description: To permit severance of new lot and to permit 2 detached triplexes (6 units total)
Reference Number: D08-01-24/B-00057
Property Address: 154 Sanford Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000652
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000652
OLT Case Name: Sarumi v Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Jennifer and Mary Sarumi
Subject: Minor Variance - refused by Approval Authority
Description: To permit severance of new lot and to permit 2 detached triplexes (6 units total)
Reference Number: D08-01-24/B-00058
Property Address: 154 Sanford Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000653
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000652
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Jennifer and Mary Sarumi
Subject: Minor Variance - refused by Approval Authority
Description: To permit severance of new lot and to permit 2 detached triplexes (6 units total)
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00079
Property Address: 154 Sanford Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000654
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000652
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Jennifer and Mary Sarumi
Subject: Minor Variance - refused by Approval Authority
Description: To permit severance of new lot and to permit 2 detached triplexes (6 units total)
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00080
Property Address: 154 Sanford Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000655
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000652
Heard: August 30, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Jennifer and Mary Sarumi
Laura Robinson Gabriel Baril-Lavoie (Articling Student)
City of Ottawa
Did Not Appear
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was the appeal by Jennifer and Mary Sarumi under sections 45(12) and 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the City of Ottawa’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the minor variance applications (“Minor Variance Applications”) and the consent to server applications (“Consent Applications”) for the property municipally known as 154 Sanford Avenue (“Subject Property”).
2The purpose of the Applications would subdivide the Subject Property into two separate parcels of land to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. Each dwelling would contain a total of three living units.
3The Appellants submitted the Applications to the City on April 3, 2024. The Consent Applications would create two lots, which would be municipally numbered as 154 Sanford Avenue and 156 Sanford Avenue. The Minor Variance Applications would permit a reduced lot width of 16.3 metres (“m”), whereas a minimum lot width of 18 m is permitted for the property proposed as 156 Sanford Avenue. The Minor Variance Applications would also permit a reduced lot frontage of 11.2 m, whereas 18 m is permitted and allows for the reduced number of parking spaces from one to zero for the proposed Subject Property.
4City staff did not raise any concerns with the proposed Consent Applications but did request nine conditions (“Conditions”) be imposed on the Consent Applications. Concerning the Minor Variance Applications, City staff did not have any concerns with the requested lot widths, as the reduced lot widths would result in two developable lots. City staff raised concerns about the reduced parking request from one parking space to zero for the proposed Subject Property. However, City staff recommended the approval of the applications with the Conditions. These recommended Conditions are listed below.
CONDITIONS
If approved, the Planning, Development and Building Services Department requests that the Committee of Adjustment impose the following conditions on the applications:
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, as amended. Information regarding the appraisal process can be obtained by contacting the Planner.
The Owner/Applicant(s) shall prepare and submit a tree planting plan, to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development, and Building Services Department, or their designate(s), showing the location(s), species/ultimate size of one new 50 mm tree to be planted on the property frontage or right-of-way of each lot following construction, to enhance the urban tree canopy and streetscape.
That the Owner(s) provide proof to the satisfaction of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or his/her designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, that the existing dwelling/building has been removed.
That the Owner(s) provide evidence to the satisfaction of both the Chief Building Official and of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or designates, that both severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and storm connection as appropriate, and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line and are connected directly to City infrastructure. Further, the Owner(s) shall comply to 7.1.5.4(1) of the Ontario Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12 as amended. If necessary, a plumbing permit shall be obtained from Building Code Services for any required alterations.
That the Owner(s) submit a Stormwater Management Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, demonstrating a design for controlling post-development stormwater peak flows to predevelopment peak flows for all stormwater events up to the 100 year storm event, to the satisfaction of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee,
If the Stormwater Management Brief includes infiltration techniques, the Owner(s) must submit a supporting Geotechnical Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, for approval by the of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
The Owner(s) acknowledges and agrees to enter into a Development Agreement with the City to construct the required stormwater system, including posting required securities. A copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title, shall be forwarded to the Committee of Adjustment.
If applicable, the Owner(s) shall obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
The owners acknowledge and agree that should the stormwater management system cross property lines or access to the system be over multiple properties, that the owner will seek approval of the Committee to grant easement(s) for access and maintenance of the stormwater system or register a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement on title of the properties, all at the owner(s) costs.
- That the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner, 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 property is located next to lands that have an existing source of environmental noise (arterial road – Prince of Wales Drive) and may therefore be subject to noise and other activities associated with that use.”
The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.
That the Owner(s) shall 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 Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services 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 Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
That the Owner convey a 3m x 3m corner sight triangle located at the intersection of Sanford and Morley to the City, with all costs to be borne by the Owner(s), to the satisfaction of the Surveys and Mapping Branch of the City. This area will be free of all structures, plantings, etc. and will allow a proper sighting distance for motorists when performing turning movements within the intersection. The Committee must receive written confirmation from City Legal Services that the transfer of the lands to the City has been registered.
That the Owner(s) enter into a Development Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, to require that an asphalt overlay will be installed, at the Owner(s) expense, on Sanford and Morley Street, 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 the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their 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 Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate determines that a Development Agreement requiring an asphalt overlay is no longer necessary, this condition shall be deemed as fulfilled.
5The COA heard the Applications at its meeting on May 14, 2024. The COA issued its decision to refuse the Applications on May 24, 2024. The Appellants filed their appeals to the Tribunal on June 13, 2024.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AREA CONTEXT
6The Subject Property currently contains a one-storey family dwelling located on the corner of Sanford Avenue and Morley Boulevard. The Subject Property has a frontage of 29.44 m on Sanford Avenue and a frontage of 23.02 m on Morley Boulevard. The property is designated “Neighbourhood” within the Outer Urban Transect and is subject to an “Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay” as per the City Official Plan (“OP”). The Subject Property is located within the Carleton Heights Secondary Plan.
7The Subject Property is zoned as “Residential First Density Zone, Subzone GG” (“R1GG”), which permits a single detached dwelling with additional dwelling units as a permitted use.
8The Subject Property is within the Courtland Park area, a residential neighbourhood with a mix of dwelling types. The mix of dwelling types includes one and two-storey residential units, single and semi-detached units, and townhouses. The area does not have sidewalks, and stormwater drainage is mainly through shallow ditches.
9The Prince of Wales Rapid Transit Station is within an approximate 400 m walking distance from the SP. The proximity of this Rapid Transit Station provides access to the downtown area. The Subject Property is within an approximate 15-to-20-minute walk to Carleton University (“University”) and an approximately 24-minute bus ride to Algonquin College.
THE HEARING
10The Tribunal notes that since the appeals are being heard in part under section 45(12) of the Act, the Hearing event before the Tribunal is considered to be a de novo hearing. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to prove to the Tribunal how the Minor Variance Applications meet the four tests of a minor variance. The four tests of a minor variance that need to be met are listed below:
a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP;
b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL");
c. Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
d. Are minor in nature.
11Also, in this matter before the Tribunal, the onus is on the Appellant to prove how the Consent Applications meet all the applicable tests of a consent application.
12The Tribunal marked the following as Exhibits to the Hearing:
Exhibit 1 – Document Book of Appellant
Exhibit 2 – Planning Opinion of Rosaline Hill
Exhibit 3 – Official Plan Extract s. 4.1.4
13It must be noted that the Tribunal granted the Participant status request of Elizabeth Anderson and accepted her Participant Statement for this Hearing event.
14The Appellant presented Ms. Roseline Hill to the Tribunal. Ms. Hill was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the Applications.
Consent Application
15When determining whether provisional consent should be granted, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), as required by s. 3(5) of the Act. Pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act, consent may only be given if the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the Municipality.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
16Ms. Hill gave opinion evidence that the Consent Applications are consistent with the applicable PPS policies. It was her opinion that the Consent Applications would provide for the efficient development of the Subject Property by using the existing municipal services and providing a form of intensification that would be sustainable and support public transit. Ms. Hill continued to opine that the City OP has identified the Courtland Park area as ideal for intensification due to the “Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay.”
17Ms. Hill opined that the proposed dwellings would be used for student housing and that these students would walk to the University for their studies. Due to the proximity of the Subject Property to the University, no vehicles are expected to be used by the tenants.
City OP
18Regarding the City OP, it was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the Consent Applications conform to the City OP. The OP – which was approved in 2022 – has shifted its focus from suburban low-rise growth patterns to infill housing, specifically focusing on infill housing in proximity to rapid transit. The OP permits three-to-four-storey dwellings in the Outer Urban Transect and the Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay. The proposal before the Tribunal is for two two-storey dwellings and meets the “ground oriented” criteria of the OP. Ms. Hill opined that the proposed hardscape and soft landscape are within the proposed limits and will meet the 40% tree canopy standards.
Carleton Heights Secondary Plan (“CHSP”)
19It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the Consent Applications conform to the CHSP as the Consent Applications will allow for two two-storey single detached dwellings to be built, with each dwelling having three living units. All trees will be preserved in the building of the two dwellings. Site grading and stormwater runoff will be designed in such a way as to protect the existing tree canopy while maintaining the stormwater runoff standards. No additional driveways are being proposed as this would put the existing tree canopy at risk and would harm the stormwater runoff.
[Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
20Pertaining to s. 2 of the Act pertaining to appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, Ms. Hill gave the opinion that the Consent Applications do have appropriate regard. The Applications will help provide for an orderly development of safe and healthy communities, provide for a full range of housing options, and provide for a sustainable and pedestrian-oriented type of housing. Ms. Hill continued with her opinion that the Applications will provide for an appropriate and sustainable intensification with a well-designed built form.
[Section 51(24)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
21Ms. Hill opined that the Consent Applications meet the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act. The Consent Applications will not have any site grading issues and will use the existing municipal services for both properties. The Subject Property is suitable for severance as the proposed lot sizes and shapes are like other lots in the area. The proposed lots will be of an adequate size for the proposed dwellings. The Applications will allow for a form of student housing that will attract students to both the University and Algonquin College and utilize the existing public transportation network.
Conditions of Approval for the Consent Applications
22It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the requested Conditions for approval of the Consent Applications were appropriate, except for Condition 5. It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that this Condition was a more suitable condition for a large site that receives large amounts of water. The requested Condition would require civil engineering design standards that may not be achievable on a smaller lot. Due to the size of the Subject Property and the goal of retaining the large oak tree for tree canopy purposes, the revised proposed Condition 5 by the Appellant would result in the same intent without putting undue burden on the Appellant.
Minor Variances
23The Appellants are seeking two Minor Variances pertaining to the two proposed lots. The first variance pertains to the minimum lot width. If the Consent Applications are allowed, then the two lots will not meet the minimum 18 m frontage requirement. The requested relief is for a frontage of approximately 16.3 m for the proposed 156 Sanford Avenue and a frontage of approximately 11.2 m for the proposed Subject Property.
24The second Minor Variance is asking for relief from the requirement of one on-site parking space for the proposed Subject Property. The Appellants are seeking to reduce this parking requirement from one parking space to zero parking spaces for the Subject Property.
Minor Variance for Lot Width Reduction
Does the Minor Variance meet the General Intent and Purpose of the OP?
25It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the OP has an intent to allow infill and an increased density in an area that is close to public transit. The OP allows for this intensification to occur in a form that is low-rise (up to four storeys) and that is ground oriented. The OP directs that the dwelling typologies would be consistent with the urban form of the Neighbourhood Low-Rise Designation. The OP does not specify any limitations about lot dimensions as long as it does not deviate from what is in the area. Ms. Hill opined that the requested lot frontage reduction is similar to other lots in the area and thus meets the general intent and purpose of the OP.
Does the Minor Variance meet the General Intent and Purpose of ZBL No. 2008-250?
26It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that Table 156 Endnote 3 of the ZBL allows for the construction of two detached dwellings on a corner lot, whereas the ZBL would otherwise allow for one. The two dwellings include only one driveway but two parking spaces. This is due to the tree preservation that is required in the ZBL. Ms. Hill opined that the lot width variance meets the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Is the Minor Variance for a lot width reduction desirable and appropriate?
27Ms. Hill opined that the requested lot width reduction would create two lots with a frontage that is similar to the area. This similar lot size reduction was approved in 2019 by the COA for the lot that is now addressed as 237 and 239 Hudson Avenue. The requested variance would allow the building of two dwellings that are compatible with the neighbourhood. The requested variance will provide a lot size that is appropriate for the neighbourhood.
Is the Minor Variance for a lot width reduction minor in nature?
28It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the proposed lot width reduction would produce lots of similar sizes in the area and would not have adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed created lots would fit harmoniously into the neighbourhood and would be compatible with the existing dwellings in the area.
Minor Variance for Parking Space Reduction
Does the Minor Variance meet the General Intent and Purpose of the OP?
29Ms. Hill opined that the intent of the proposal is to build two dwellings, each with three units for student housing. The Subject Property is within walking distance of public transit and is within walking distance to the University. It is contemplated that the students take advantage of this proximity to public transit and the University and either cycle or walk to these locations. The need for a parking space for each dwelling unit is contemplated by adding a second designated parking space to 156 Sanford Avenue. This would allow for the required tree canopy of 40% to be preserved as required in the OP and the CHSP.
Does the Minor Variance meet the General Intent and Purpose of ZBL No. 2008-250?
30It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the provision of “sufficient parking” has evolved over time. Since the proposed two dwellings are contemplated for student housing, it is fair to assume that the proximity of public transit and the University would eliminate the need for vehicles and vehicular parking. 156 Sanford Avenue will have two designated parking spaces, one of which can be used by the occupants of the Subject Property if needed. This would help save the large oak tree in the backyard of the Subject Property and allow for the 40% tree canopy requirement to be met.
Is the reduction in the parking requirement desirable and appropriate?
31It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that the reduction in the parking requirement would allow for an appropriate intensification to occur while keeping the required tree canopy and stormwater management. The parking requirement reduction has been answered by allowing a second parking space on the adjoining property and, thus, indirectly meeting the minimum parking requirement.
Is the reduction in the parking requirement minor in nature?
32Ms. Hill opined that the ZBL has a parking requirement of 33% for a multiple-dwelling unit. As such, one parking space is required per dwelling unit. Adding a second space to 156 Sanford Avenue still maintains the average of 33%. It was Ms. Hill’s opinion that this proposed parking reduction would not have any adverse impact on the neighbourhood as there would still be one parking space per unit; only both parking spaces would be located together.
Overall Opinion
33It was Ms. Hill’s overall opinion that the Consent Applications and the Minor Variance Applications should be approved by the Tribunal as the proposed development would be an appropriate level of intensification for an infill development and would provide much-needed student housing for the nearby University. The Conditions required by the City are considered to be appropriate except for Condition 5. It was her opinion that the proposed revised Condition 5 before the Tribunal would effectively meet the same provisions as contemplated by City staff. The City’s proposed Condition 5 would require civil engineering standards and reports that have been used in past practice for larger lots and plans of subdivision. These requested requirements can be met in a manner that is more efficient and less costly, which would result in the same standard being met for this Condition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
34In rendering a Decision, the Tribunal must consider the evidence that has been presented before it, including any Participant Statements. The Tribunal must give regard to the decision of the COA and items presented before the COA, including public comments, both written and orally submitted.
35The Tribunal notes that the City did not attend the Hearing, and the Tribunal must now use the evidence presented before it to render a final Decision.
36The Tribunal heard the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Ms. Hill through her oral testimony and through the Exhibits that were presented. Based on this opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Consent Applications will allow for the development of two dwellings that will be compatible with the area and will provide student housing that is within walking distance to the University and to public transit. The Appellant – through their professional land planning expert – has proven that this level of infill and intensification is needed in the area and is contemplated through the OP’s “Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay.”
37Pertaining to the Minor Variance for a reduction of lot frontage, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has proven that the reduction of lot frontage is appropriate and is consistent with other lots in the area. Ms. Hill’s testimony has proven that the requested variance has met the four tests, and the reduced lot frontage will be compatible with the neighbourhood and will provide needed student housing in the area. This requested Minor Variance should be approved by the Tribunal.
38As for the Minor Variance concerning the parking reduction from one to zero for the Subject Property, the Tribunal finds that while an unusual request, the variance will allow for a parking space located on the adjacent property and the tree canopy to be protected. The Tribunal finds that this requested variance is appropriate for this specific situation and circumstance. The Appellant has proven that this requested variance has met the four tests and should be approved.
39As for the Conditions requested by the Appellant, the Tribunal finds that the change to Condition 5 is appropriate and that the rest of the Conditions are the same as requested by City staff. As such, the revised Conditions will be attached to the final Decision of the Tribunal.
40It must be noted that the Tribunal did take into consideration the Participant Statement of Elizabeth Anderson and her concerns pertaining to, inter alia, on-street parking, lack of sidewalks, stormwater runoff, and the “evolving Neighborhoods” designation. However, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has met these concerns – as to what the Appellant could control or have responsibility for – pertaining to the Subject Property.
41The Tribunal finds that the Consent Applications and the Minor Variance Applications have met all the legislative tests under s. 53(19), 51(24) and 45(1) of the Act and represent good land use planning for the Subject Property.
ORDER
42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the Conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“S. deBOER”
S. DEBOER
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.
ATTACHMENT 1