Falsetto Homes Inc. v. Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 103388

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 10, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000316

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the development of a new three-storey, eight-unit, low-rise apartment

Reference Number: D08-02-25/A-00041

Property Address: 100 Hamilton Avenue North

Municipality: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000316

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000316

OLT Case Name: Falsetto Homes Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

Heard: June 27, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Falsetto Homes Inc. (“Appellant”)

Counsel Crystal McConkey

DECISION DELIVERED BY a. sauve AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1On April 25, 2025, the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the City of Ottawa (“City”) refused a Minor Variance application by the Appellant. A planning report had been created by City staff that had no concerns with the application. The Appellant now appeal that decision to this Tribunal. This Hearing was uncontested as the City did not appear.

2The Appellant is seeking the following variances from Zoning by-law 2008-250 (“ZBL”):

a. To permit a reduced lot width of 7.62 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 10 metres.

b. To permit a reduced lot area of 241 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 300 square metres.

c. To permit a reduced south interior side yard setback of 0.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres.

d. To permit a reduced north interior side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres.

3The Appellant is seeking the Minor Variances to facilitate the development of an eight-unit, low rise apartment building (“proposed development”) on 100 Hamilton Avenue North (“subject land”). The proposed low-rise apartment dwelling will have frontage on Hamilton Avenue North.

4The proposed development is projected to have all areas of the front and rear yards, excluding porches, walkways, bicycle and waste storage to be developed with soft landscaping. A 1.2-metre-wide unobstructed path of travel will provide access to bicycle parking and waste storage located in the rear yard off Hamilton Avenue North. No motor vehicle parking is to be provided.

5The subject land is located in Ward 15 – Kitchissippi within the City. Specifically, the subject land is located in the Hintonburg-Mechanicsville neighbourhood, to the north of Tyndall Street, to the south of Wellington Street West, to the east of Holland Avenue, and to the west of Parkdale Avenue. The subject land is an interior lot with an area of 241.8 square metres and a frontage of 7.62 metres along Hamilton Avenue North. The existing detached dwelling will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development.

6The subject land is legally described as Part of Lot 52, Registered Plan 15558. The subject land is designated “Neighbourhood” within the “Evolving Overlay” in the Inner Urban Transect on Schedule B2 of the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). The subject land is zoned Residential Fourth Density, Subzone UB (R4UB) under the ZBL.

7Prior to this Hearing the Tribunal received five Participation Status request. The Appellant took no position, and the Tribunal found that all five met the required legislative test. The five participants are:

1. Hiltonburg Community Association
2. Joyce Giles
3. Laura Stuart
4. Matthew Whitehead
5. Victoria Campbell

8The Tribunal heard from two witnesses over the course of the one-day hearing;

a. Jeffrey Kelly – The Tribunal qualified him to be an expert in the field of land use planning.

b. Dylan Geldart – Appeared under summons as he authored the corresponding Planning Report for this matter at the COA. The Tribunal qualified him to be an expert in the field of land use planning.

LEGISLATIVE TEST

9An appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act have been met, namely that the requested variances:

a) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP;

b) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;

c) Are minor in nature; and

d) Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

10In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal's decision to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as for the decision of the Committee and the information considered while making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

EVIDENCE

11Mr. Kelly began his evidence by highlighting, through submitted photographs, that the reduced lot width, lot area and interior side yard setback for the proposed low-rise apartment development are consistent with the existing lot fabric and streetscape characteristics of the neighbourhood. He also testified that if the application, with the exact dimensions and size, was for a single detached dwelling it would be allowed as of right.

12Mr. Kelly then directed the Tribunal to s. 2.2.1 of the PPS, which states:

Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

a) permitting and facilitating:

2. all types of residential intensification, including the development and redevelopment of underutilized commercial and institutional sites (e.g., shopping malls and plazas) for residential use, development and introduction of new housing options within previously developed areas, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units in accordance with policy 2.3.1.3;

b) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation;

13Mr. Kelly opined that the proposed development supports an appropriate range and mix of housing options to meet the projected needs of residents in the neighbourhood. It also further stated that the proposed development promotes cost-effective development patterns by intensifying lands within the urban boundary, minimizing land consumption, and municipal servicing costs.

14Mr. Kelly concluded that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.

15Mr. Kelly then brought the Tribunal through his analysis of the four tests.

16Mr. Kelly highlighted section 3.2, Policy 3 of the OP which states:

The vast majority of Residential intensification shall focus within 15-minute neighbourhoods, which are comprised of Hubs, Corridors and lands within the Neighbourhood designations that are adjacent to them.

17Mr. Kelly also directed the Tribunal to the definition of ’15-minute neighbourhood’ found in the OP:

Compact, well-connected places with a clustering of a diverse mix of land uses where daily and weekly needs can be accessed within a 15-minute walk; this includes a range of housing types, shops, services, local access to food, schools and childcare facilities, employment, greenspaces, parks and pathways. They are complete communities that support active transportation and transit, reduce car dependency, and enable people to live car-light or car-free.

18Mr. Kelly testified that the proposed development is within 15-minutes neighbourhood concept of parks, public transportation, a hospital and shops. He opined that the proposed development is an example of infill and intensification, within the Inner Urban Transect and Neighbourhood designation, and that the proposed development supports the creation of 15-minute neighbourhoods and will contribute to residential intensification in the Neighbourhood designation in proximity to lands designated as Corridor in the OP.

19Mr. Kelly opined that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.

20Mr. Kelly then brought the Tribunal to the definition of the R4 Zone, which the subject land is located in in the ZBL. The purpose of the R4 Zone is:

(1) allow a wide mix of residential building forms ranging from detached to low rise apartment dwellings, in some cases limited to four units, and in no case more than four storeys, in areas designated as General Urban Area in the Official Plan;

(2) allow a number of other residential uses to provide additional housing choices within the fourth density residential areas;

(3) permit ancillary uses to the principal residential use to allow residents to work at home;

(4) regulate development in a manner that is compatible with existing land use patterns so that the mixed building form, residential character of a neighbourhood is maintained or enhanced: and

(5) permit different development standards, identified in the Z subzone, primarily for areas designated as Developing Communities, which promote efficient land use and compact form while showcasing newer design approaches.

21Mr. Kelly opined that the proposed development would contribute to the mix of residential uses in the area, provides additional housing choices and promotes an efficient use of the land among other things.

22Mr. Kelly testified that the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with the existing function of side yards on abutting lots to the north and south. He further stated that to minimize potential impacts on the abutting building, no windows are provided on the south side of the proposed building and where a greater side yard setback is provided between the proposed building and existing dwelling on the abutting lot to the north, one small window is provided for each unit.

23Mr. Kelly opined that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

24Next, Mr. Kelly discussed if the requested Minor Variances are considered desirable for the use of the land.

25Mr. Kelly testified that the requested variance for reduced lot width is compatible with the lot fabric of the neighbourhood. Specifically, he added, several lots immediately to the north and south of the subject land along Hamilton Avenue North have a lot width of 7.62 metres or less. Mr. Kelly testified that the reduced lot width variance is consistent with the lot fabric along Hamilton Avenue North and maintains the functionality of the site. He concluded this argument by stating that the requested lot width can accommodate the proposed low-rise apartment dwelling in a form and scale that is appropriate in this location.

26Mr. Kelly testified that the requested variance for reduced lot area is also compatible with the lot fabric of the neighbourhood, specifically, several lots immediately to the north and south of the subject land along Hamilton Avenue North have a lot area of 300 square metres or less. He opined that the requested variance for reduced lot area is consistent with the lot fabric along Hamilton Avenue North and maintains the functionality of the site. Mr. Kelly informed the Tribunal that the requested lot area can accommodate the proposed low-rise apartment dwelling in a form and scale that is appropriate in this location.

27Mr. Kelly testified that the requested variances for reduced interior side yard setbacks on the subject land are compatible with the existing neighbourhood context, as several lots immediately to the north and south of the subject land along Hamilton Avenue North have interior side yard setbacks that are less than required by the ZBL. He testified that a 1.2 metres wide unobstructed path of travel is provided at grade for movement of waste bins between the public street and rear yard on the north side of the subject land, and that the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with abutting lots to the north and south.

28Mr. Kelly opined that the variances are consistent with the streetscape along Hamilton Avenue North and maintain the functionality of the site and that the requested interior side yard setbacks can accommodate the proposed low-rise apartment dwelling in a form and scale that is appropriate in this location.

29Mr. Kelly opined that the requested variances are minor in nature because:

1. The proposed reductions to required interior side yard setbacks provided at grade are consistent with the minimum interior side yard requirements under the R4UB zoning for a detached dwelling.

2. The proposed low-rise apartment dwelling has been designed with a size and scale that is similar to a detached dwelling.

3. The request for reduced lot width, lot area and interior side yard setbacks on the subject land are consistent with the character of the surrounding context and will have no impact on the streetscape, or on the functionality of the site.

30Therefore, Mr. Kelly opined that the requested variances are considered minor in nature.

31The Tribunal then heard from Mr. Geldart who adopted his planning report that had been presented to the COA, confirmed that he believes the application meets the legislative requirements for a Minor Variance and has reviewed the Participant Statements for this Hearing and that his opinion has not changed.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS

32The Participant Statements that have been provided all oppose this application. Some of the concerns raised deal with the lack of family units to be provided, that there is no housing shortage in this community, too large of a footprint and waste collection, traffic and parking issues. However, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has taken these concerns into consideration and these issues have been addressed.

DECISION

33The Tribunal accepts the uncontested expert opinion evidence of the witnesses and finds that the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, while increasing the housing stock and helping to address the ‘missing middle’ housing type and finds that the tests pursuant to s. 45 (1) of the Act are met. The appeal meets the objectives of s. 2 of the Act, and conforms with the PPS and the OP.

ORDER

34THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.

“A. Sauve”

A. SAUVE 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.