Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 29, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000363
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 204 Ste Monique Street Holdings Inc. (Bielecki)
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Minor variance to seek an increase in number of permitted residential units
Reference Number: D08-02-25/A-00076
Property Address: 204 Ste Monique Street
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000363
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000363
OLT Case Name: 204 Ste Monique Street Holdings Inc. (Bielecki) v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: August 6, 2025 by Written Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Agent*
204 Ste Monique Street Holdings Inc. (Bielecki) (“Appellant”)
Jonathan Bielecki*
DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the City of Ottawa’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for Minor Variances (“Application”) to permit an increased number of residential units to ten on the lands municipally known as 204 Ste. Monique Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The City advised the Tribunal in writing that the City would not participate in the Hearing and did not submit any materials for the matter before the Tribunal.
CONTEXT
3The Subject Lands, located in the Vanier North neighbourhood within Rideau-Vanier, are a corner lot with a frontage of 24.38 meters (“m”) along Ste-Céile Street and 15.24 m along Ste. Monique Street, a depth of 15.26 m and an area of 371.57 m2.
4There is a low rise, two-storey residential building, which previously contained a total of five dwelling units, on the Subject Lands. Construction activities have been undertaken to facilitate the development.
5The area of the Subject Lands is predominantly characterized by low-rise residential typologies, interspersed with commercial uses throughout the neighbourhood, which is a well-served mixed-use community adjacent to the City’s major employment and service hubs. The Subject Lands have access to a public transit system and existing amenities.
6The Subject Lands are located within the “Inner Urban Transect” on Schedule A-Transect Policy Areas and designated Neighborhood, as shown in Schedule B2-Inner Urban Transect of the City’s Official Plan (“OP”)
7The City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”) zones the Subject Lands R4-Residential Fourth Density Subzone UA.
8The Appellant sought the approval of a total of five variances listed in Appendix “A” to facilitate a 10-unit low-rise apartment building on the Subject Lands.
STATUS REQUEST
9The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant status before or during the Hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
10There is no issue with notice of this Hearing.
EXHIBIT
11A package of Written Hearing Materials was marked as Exhibit “1” during the hearing.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12The Appellant states that the Application was supported by planning professionals, City staff, and neighbours. The Appellant also indicates that the COA approved the variances with the exception of variance A, which is proposed to increase the number of dwelling units to ten.
13In the Appellant’s opinion, the Application was refused by the COA due to procedural irregularity and misapplied framework, such as questions related to construction timing and possible renovictions, which are unrelated to the planning merits and led to prejudice to the Appellant.
14The Appellant states in writing that the Application aligns with the policies related to intensification, efficient use of serviced lands, gentle density under the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the More Homes, More Choice Act (2019), and More Homes Built Faster Act (2022).
15In the Appellant’s written evidence, he indicates that the Application is compatible to the neighbourhood and is walkable with the access to the public transportation network as encouraged by the City OP and ZBL.
16The Appellant confirms in writing that there will be no changes to the built form of the existing building, or the streetscape and safety will be upgraded to the applicable standards and guidelines of the City.
17Further, the Appellant’s written submission indicates that the City’s Draft 2 of the new Zoning By-law (2024-2025) (“New ZBL Draft”) permits a maximum of 10 dwelling units in N3 zones, which serves as the direct successor to existing R4 areas, including the Subject Lands.
18The Appellant references to the Planning Rational provided by their consultant and the City staff’s recommendation report to COA, both of which were prepared by planning professionals to assess the applicable legislative framework and related policies, including the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, the Act, the City’s OP and ZBL. Finally, the Appellant holds the same opinion as the consultant and the City staff that the Application does meet the four tests as set out in s.45(1) of the Act.
19The Appellant requests the Tribunal to approve all the variances in the Application under the Act to reinforce the modest policy-aligned nature of the proposed intensification.
20The Tribunal finds that the City’s existing ZBL supports a maximum eight dwelling units on the Subject Lands and the proposed 10 units are slightly more than the permitted number of dwelling units. Further, the Tribunal recognizes that the City’s New ZBL Draft reflects the desirability of housing stock at the City and community levels, as well as it supports the increase of the dwelling units to 10 dwelling units on the Subject Lands.
21The Tribunal is satisfied with the Appellant’s evidence on the variances through B to F, which were also supported by the COA. The Tribunal agrees with the entirety of the evaluation of applicable regulations and policies, including the conclusion by the Appellant’s consultant and the City’s staff.
22Finally, the Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of the Appellant and finds that the Application has regards to s. 2 of the Act, represents the public interest, makes good use of the lands and meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:
The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP.
The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
The minor variances are considered desirable for the use of the lands.
The minor variances are considered minor in nature.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“L.P. You”
L.P. YOU
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.
APPENDIX “A”
List of Variances
A. To permit an increased number of dwelling units to 10, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum of 8 dwelling units.
B. To permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 4.31m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum corner side yard setback of 4.5m.
C. To permit a reduced easterly interior side yard setback of 0m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5m.
D. To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.6m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard setback of 4m.
E. To permit a reduced front yard setback for an accessory structure of 2.1m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum front yard setback of 4.5m for accessory structures.
F. To permit a reduced rear yard soft landscaped area of 39 square meters, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard soft landscaped area of 50 square meters.