Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 07, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001047
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Heather and Allan Godding
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Proposing to construct a new two-and-a-half storey, single detached dwelling with a front-facing attached garage
Reference Number: D08-02-23/A-00193
Property Address: 626 Tweedsmuir Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001047
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001047
OLT Case Name: Godding v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: January 18, 2024 by video hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Heather and Allan Godding (“Applicant”)
Counsel Alice Mihailescu Roberto Aburto
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS ON JANUARY 18, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Allan and Heather Godding (“Applicant”) are appealing the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) decision to refuse their application for minor variances to permit the construction of a front-facing attached garage, with an increased driveway width, and a reduced landscape buffer between the driveway and walkway, relating to the construction of a new two-and-a-half-storey single-detached dwelling at 626 Tweedsmuir Avenue (“Ave.”) (“Subject Property”), Ottawa, Ontario.
2The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-and-a-half–storey dwelling on the Subject Property and construct a new two-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling that would feature a front-facing garage with the planting of one new tree in the front yard and one in the rear yard.
3On August 8, 2023, the Applicant submitted the application for the minor variances to the CoA. On September 29, 2023 the CoA refused the application citing that the requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as the proposal maximizes hard surfaces and the visual dominance of the automobile on the streetscape, and that it is not compatible with the surrounding area. Further, the CoA found that the cumulative impact of the requested variances is not minor and would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.
VARIANCES REQUESTED
4The minor variances requested are as follows:
To permit a front-facing garage; seeking relief from Section 140, Table 140A, where the By-law identifies that per the results of the Streetscape Character Analysis, front-facing garages are not permitted;
To permit an increased driveway width of 3.972 metres (“m”); seeking relief from Section 139, Table 139(3)(iii), where the By-law requires a maximum permitted driveway of 3 m; and
To permit a 0 m landscaped buffer between a driveway and walkway, seeking relief from Section 139, Table 139(4)(c)(ii), where the By-law requires the minimum required landscaped buffer between a driveway and walkway is 0.6 m.
Parties and evidence
5Ms. Mihailescu and Mr. Aburto attended the Hearing, representing the Applicant. The City confirmed with the Tribunal in advance of the Hearing that it would not participate. There were no additional Party or Participant status requests.
6The Applicant’s Book of Documents, which included the minor variance application form, the package provided to the CoA, site and neighbourhood context images, the City Planning Staff Report (“Staff Report”), CoA presentation and Decision were received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 1.
7The Tribunal heard evidence from Christine McCuaig, who was affirmed and deemed qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.
SUBJECT SITE AND CONTEXT
8The Subject Property is located on the west side of Tweedsmuir Ave., between Duncarin Ave. and Dovercourt Ave., and is located within the Westboro neighbourhood.
9The total lot area of the Subject Property is 516.51 square metres (“m2”), with 15.55 m of lot frontage, 32.70 m of depth, is similar in size to the abutting property to the south at 630 Tweedsmuir Ave. and slightly deeper than the abutting lot to the north at 622 Tweedsmuir Ave.
10The Subject Property is one of four properties that form the short side of the block, and the immediate area features a variety of architectural styles with predominantly single-detached and semi-detached dwellings.
11The application is subject to the requirement of a Streetscape Character Analysis (“SCA”). The intent of the SCA is to ensure that new development demonstrates good urban design and does not adversely impact the streetscape. The SCA was purportedly an assessment of 21 lots surrounding the Subject Property that were analyzed for attached garages/carports, access and parking character, and main door character. The results of the SCA were that six out of the 21 lots had front-facing garages; 19 had single driveways, one had no driveway, and one had a double driveway. All 21 lots had doors facing the street. Variances (1) and (2) are required only due to the results of the SCA.
12Ms. McCuaig provided evidence that four out of the six lots that front on Tweedsmuir Ave. between Dovercourt Ave. and Duncarin Ave. have front-facing garages and one of the six that does not contain a front facing garage has a double-driveway front yard parking space.
13Within a 200 m radius of the Subject Property, Ms. McCuaig stated that there were 67 properties with front-facing garages.
Appellant’s position and [Section 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
14The Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) when making a decision regarding a minor variance (“MV”) application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”).
15When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act to determine if the requested variance:
Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
Is minor in nature.
16All four elements must be satisfied.
17With the City being absent from the proceedings, the Tribunal received no contradictory evidence to the following opinion evidence of Ms. McCuaig.
[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
18Ms. McCuaig opined that the proposed development does have regard for matters of provincial interest as it offers a functional housing for lifestyle changes, it is compatible, appropriate, would not impact the environment, and would not result in any adverse impact with a compliant build form and green spaces.
Provincial Policy Statement
19The modifications sought through the minor variance allow the combining of two hardscape components, the driveway and walkway, so that both can be easily heated and maintained during weather events. It was Ms. McCuaig’s opinion that the required sliver of landscaping is difficult to maintain, and the combination of the hard surfaces supports greater accessibility and is consistent with Section 1.1.1 of the PPS.
20Evidence was provided by Ms. McCuaig that the application is within the urban boundary and is an appropriate redevelopment of a site, that makes use of existing infrastructure and services, while ensuring the sustainability of a healthy, liveable and safe community.
21Therefore, Ms. McCuaig opined that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.
1. General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
22It was the opinion of Ms. McCuaig that the application conforms to the policies of the applicable Neighbourhood designation under the City Official Plan (“OP”), that the proposed front-facing garage is de-emphasized by its seamless integration into the front facade of the building, and that the proposal results in a functionally and aesthetically superior design to the permitted cantilever design.
23The Subject Property is designated as Inner Urban Transect, which is a neighbourhood consisting of homes constructed pre-war, with an urban pattern of built and mix of uses. Ms. McCuaig provided evidence that the proposed variances offer compliant yard setbacks without significant exceedances, a higher lot coverage, minimum two storeys, space for trees, and limited automobile parking. Ms. McCuaig stated that the proposed development maintains the consistency of built form setbacks, preserves the landscaping and urban tree canopy, which aligns with the urban design policies of the OP.
24Ms. McCuaig provided evidence that the OP policy intent to build accessible, inclusive communities, designed for all ages, is supported by the application variance seeking to eliminate the soft landscaped space between the driveway and the walkway. Ms. McCuaig stated that the design supports aging-in-place by reducing barriers as the design in the application allows for a heated driveway and walkway to support easier maintenance for persons with physical limitations, and further, that the space allows for easier maneuverability for strollers or wheelchairs.
25Therefore, it was the opinion of Ms. McCuaig that the application’s requested variances meet the intent and purpose of the OP.
2. General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
26Ms. McCuaig provided evidence that it is not the intent of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) to expressly prohibit the provision of garages, but rather to ensure that garages are deigned in a manner that do not detract from the streetscape character. Ms. McCuaig stated that the proposed development integrates the garage into the façade of the building through the use of uniformed material, a greater setback of the garage door than required, and utilizes a prominent front porch that will reduce the emphasis on the garage and increase the visual presence of the rest of the house. The testimony of Ms. McCuaig provided evidence that the proposed front-facing garage maintains similar proportions and symmetry to most of the homes along Tweedsmuir Ave. Ms. McCuaig opined that the presence of front-facing garages has been demonstrated and that proposed front-facing garage in the application is consistent with the streetscape character for the neighbourhood. It was the opinion of Mc. McCuaig that the variance to permit a front-facing garage meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL.
27Ms. McCuaig stated that the intent of the ZBL provisions related to maximum driveway width and securing landscape space between the driveway and the walkway, is to maintain the appearance of a single driveway, to ensure hardscape is not detracting from the required landscaping, and to ensure that a permitted single driveway does not create a second legal parking space. It was the opinion of Ms. McCuaig that the application variances met the intent of the ZBL as landscaping is exceeded, and the character of a single driveway is maintained, as the application provides aggregate landscaping that exceeds the requirement by 16% and includes the provision for a new front yard tree and the proposed driveway is designed with a 3 m asphalt portion with a paver border.
28The total width of the paver border and the walkway is 1.6 m. Ms. McCuaig opined that this is not wide enough to accommodate a legally sized second parking space and that parking a second vehicle on the walkway is prohibited and enforceable by City By-law, and further, that street space parking is maintained.
29As such, it was Ms. McCuaig’s opinion that the proposed variance does not create a second legal parking space and therefore meets the intent of the ZBL.
3. Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land
30Ms. McCuaig stated that the requested variances collectively would not negatively impact the streetscape and that they exceed landscaping requirements and provide good design that supports an already demonstrated existing character within the area, where the front-facing garages exist and the same driveway and walkway configurations are present.
31Therefor, Ms. McCuaig opined that the proposed development is desirable for the appropriate development or the use of land.
4. Is Minor in Nature
32The variance requesting the front-facing garage is required because of the SCA. Ms. McCuaig provided evidence that the SCA assessment did not consider approved, but not constructed garages, or garages that are visible in context but that do not face Tweedsmuir Ave. directly. Ms. McCuaig stated that all the lots immediately surrounding the Subject Property have front-facing garages and that despite the technical results of the SCA, it would be less compatible to not have a front-facing garage. It was the opinion of Ms. McCuaig that the application for a front-facing garage is good urban design that does not adversely impact the streetscape, and that the plan will deliver better results than the permitted cantilever design.
33Mc. McCuaig opined that there is a demonstrated character of existing front-facing garages, which indicates that the application does not deviate from the neighbourhood character and would not result in undue or adverse impacts.
34Evidence was presented by Ms. McCuaig that the Subject Property has a width of 15.54 m, and while the ZBL allows for a double driveway for a lot of this width, it is restricted based on the SCA prohibiting a double driveway. Ms. McCuaig opined that the ZBL supports the balance between the hardscape and landscaped areas that is being proposed by the application, and that the degree of hardscape for the proposed development remains less than what is considered as-of-right for the Subject Property.
35It was the opinion of Ms. McCuaig that the widening of the driveway with the use of permeable paver stones would not impact stormwater management, and further, that the balance of hardscape and landscaping allows for the Subject Property to retain a greater degree of aggregated landscaping and would improve stormwater management.
36Further, Ms. McCuaig opined that the resulting width of the paver stone strip and the walkway is not sufficient space to park a vehicle, and as such, there is no expected impact from that variance requested to eliminate the landscaping strip of 0.6 m.
37In conclusion, Ms. McCuaig stated that collectively the proposed variances do not impact stormwater management, do not impact landscaping, maintain the appearance of a single driveway, and align with the existing neighbourhood character. As such, it was the opinion of Ms. McCuaig that the impact of the application’s variances are minor in nature.
FINDINGS
38The SCA is intended to encourage development to maintain the existing character on the street and provide an objective account of building elements within the vicinity. The existing character of the neighbourhood has been demonstrated by Ms. McCuaig. The Tribunal finds that the SCA does not accurately reflect that character, and further, that the variances requested in the application do in fact align with the existing streetscape character.
39The Tribunal accepts the evidence from Ms. McCuaig that the limited parking for the Subject Property, as permitted, is concealed with a front-facing garage, and the character of a single use driveway is maintained through a design that would not permit additional legal parking and allows for greater landscaping.
40The Tribunal accordingly comes to the same conclusion as Ms. McCuaig, finding that the requested variances have regard for the provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and satisfy all four elements of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
ORDER
41THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No 2008-250 of the City of Ottawa are authorized.
“J. Innis”
j. inniS
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.