Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 21, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000822
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 12591553 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use building.
Reference Number: D08-02/A-00141
Property Address: 630 Montreal Road
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000822
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000822
OLT Case Name: 12591553 Canada Inc. v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: January 29, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
12591553 Canada Inc.
Laura Robinson
DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
112591553 Canada Inc. (“Applicant”) applied and was refused by the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for minor variances (“MV”) from Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”) to permit the construction of a mixed-use, mid-rise building consisting of nine storeys that would accommodate 56 residential units, with retail space on the ground floor, on lands known municipally as 630 Montreal Road, in the City (“Subject Property”).
SITE CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING AREA
2The Subject Property is situated in the Forbes neighbourhood of the City, occupying a corner lot at the southeast corner of Montreal Road and Borthwick Avenue. It spans approximately 1,034.47 square metres (“m2”), with approximately 32 metres (“m”) of frontage along Montreal Road and 33 m along Borthwick Avenue. The Subject Property has an irregular shape along its eastern (interior) side. Currently, it is developed with a one-storey building and a detached garage, with vehicle access provided from Borthwick Ave. The Subject Property is fully serviced by municipal water and sewer infrastructure.
3The Subject Property is immediately bound by the following uses:
North: Commercial uses located north of Montreal Road included office space and a restaurant, with a 14-storey residential building located directly across from the Subject Property. To the northeast is the TransCanada Trail and Montfort Hospital, as well as the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Headquarters (“CMHC”);
East: Commercial uses, including office space;
South: Multiple three-storey apartment buildings and two-storey townhouses are located along Borthwick Avenue. Further south are residential uses consisting of single-detached dwellings; and
West: There is a shopping plaza containing commercial uses consisting of restaurants, a grocery store, and a gas station.
4The area south of the Subject Property is predominantly low-density residential, with a mix of low-rise multi-dwelling apartments, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. Several neighbourhood parks, including Forbes Park and Dr. John Hopps Park, are nearby, along with the TransCanada Trail to the northeast.
5The proposed development benefits from its proximity to transit options and active transportation infrastructure, including sidewalks along Montreal Road, Cummings Avenue, and part of Borthwick Avenue. Montreal Road provides access to major routes like Saint-Laurent Boulevard and Aviation Parkway, connecting the property to the broader area of the City. The Subject Property is served by multiple bus routes, including two frequent service lines running every 15 minutes, linking the Subject Property to the City’s Light Rail Network, universities, and the central business district.
6The Subject Property is located within the urban boundary and is designated within the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) as part of the Inner Urban Transect, as per Schedule A. Montreal Road is designated as Corridor-Main Street, which is subject to the Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay in Schedule B2. The zoning for the Subject Property is Arterial Main Street, Subzone 10 Urban Exception [2199] (AM10 [2199]).
THE PROPOSAL
7The proposed development involves a mixed-use, nine-storey building with a height of 30.1 m, comprising 56 residential units, and 206.5 m2 of commercial space on the ground floor. The ground floor will also contain one residential unit, while the remaining units will be distributed across the second to ninth floors. The building is intended as a rental property, featuring a mix of one and two-bedroom units. Additionally, 20% of the units will be designated as affordable housing through a partnership with the CMHC, under the Affordable Housing Construction Finance Initiative program, which offers affordable housing for middle class Canadians with a 50-year renewable framework.
8The total building footprint of the proposed development is 502.5 m2, with a 174 m2 green rooftop terrace providing a communal amenity space for residents, oriented towards Montreal Road. The proposed development's design includes a height transition from nine storeys in (30.1 m) along Montreal Road to six storeys (20 m) at the rear, where the property abuts the parking lots of existing three-storey apartment buildings.
9Parking will be available with a two-level underground garage, accommodating 33 spaces, of which 29 are for residents and four are for visitors, along with 39 bicycle parking spaces. Access to the parking garage will be via a two-way ramp from Borthwick Avenue. The east elevation includes a 1.06 m wall associated with the ramp, which requires a reduced rear yard setback variance.
10The proposed development also accounts for the 37.5 m Right-of-way (“ROW”) protection for Montreal Road with a 1.98 m setback. There is also a 5 m by 5 m site triangle incorporated at the intersection of Montreal Road and Borthwick Avenue. Landscaping, lighting, and pedestrian pathways have been integrated into the design to improve connectivity to the surrounding road network. The commercial spaces will face Montreal Road, while the residential units and entrances will be oriented along Borthwick Avenue.
Parties and evidence
11On September 5, 2024, the Tribunal received correspondence that the City would not be participating in the hearing.
12No one attended the hearing seeking Participant or Party status.
13The Applicant’s Book of Documents was received by the Tribunal, marked as Exhibit 1, and included:
A summary of the proposal;
The MV Application (“MV Application”);
The architectural plan and drawings;
A survey;
The planning justification report prepared by WSP;
The City staff planning report (“Planning Report”);
The tree conservation report;
The decision of the CoA; and
The Notice of Appeal by the Applicant.
14The Applicant provided the expert opinion evidence of Ms. Emilie Coyle, a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, whom has been previously qualified by the Tribunal. Ms. Coyle’s Curriculum Vitae, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty, and Witness Statement were marked as Exhibit 3. The Tribunal deemed Ms. Coyle qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning, pertaining to this matter.
15The Applicant also summoned Ms. Margot Linker, a City planner, who was involved in the MV Application process. Ms. Linker participated in meetings with the Applicant’s consultants and architects. Although she did not write the Planning Report presented to the CoA, Ms. Linker discussed the history of the file with the staff member who authored the Planning Report and provided advice based on her planning expertise. There were no concerns with the MV Application, and Ms. Linker did attend the CoA meeting, in which the Planning Report ultimately recommended support for the MV Application.
VARIANCES REQUESTED and decision of the COA
16The MVs requested of the CoA were as follows:
To permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.32 m and 0.98 m beyond 20 m from the street, whereas the ZBL requires an interior side yard setback of 7.5 m;
To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.697 m, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a rear yard setback of 7.5 m;
To permit an increased building height of 30.1 m, whereas the Zoning By-Law permits a maximum building height of 15 m.
17The Applicant brought forward the three above noted MV to the CoA, however the Applicant’s uncontested expert witness, supported by the subpoenaed City staff member, Ms. Linker, provided evidence that the variance related to an interior side yard setback was not required. The applicable zoning provisions in Table 185 (b)(ii) of the ZBL “stipulated that for lot line abutting all zones other than a residential zone, there is no interior side yard setback required”. Since both abutting lots are zoned AM10, a non-residential zone, no variance is required for the interior side yard. As such, the Tribunal concurs with Ms. Coyle, and finds that the first variance is not required.
18The City's Planning Report raised no concerns with the MV Application. However, the CoA cited a lack of evidence in support of the proposal, particularly concerning the desirability of the increase in building height and its suitability for the appropriate development or use of the land. Additionally, they expressed concerns that insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that the proposal maintained the general intent of the ZBL, especially in terms of ensuring a gradual transition in building height between the arterial main street and the adjacent residential zone. Consequently, the CoA refused the requested variances.
APPLICANT’S POSITION AND SECTION 45(1) OF THE PLANNING ACT
19Ms. Coyle provided evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”). It was her opinion that it supports a variety of housing options, including affordable units, and facilitates residential intensification by utilizing an under used site for both residential and commercial purposes within an established area. The proposed development also promotes efficient land use, optimizes existing infrastructure and public services, and is well positioned near transit, contributing to the creation of a complete community.
20Testimony was provided by Ms. Coyle that the proposed development has regard for matters of provincial interest, as outlined in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), as it represents sound land use planning, supports a 15-minute neighbourhood, promotes active transportation, and includes a mix of housing with 20% affordable rental units. Further, it was her opinion that, as the location is near public transit, it was suitable for intensification.
21When 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 OP;
Maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
Is minor in nature.
All four elements must be satisfied.
Variance #2 – Rear Yard Setback Requirement
Does the Variance Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the OP?
22While the proposed building itself meets the rear yard setback, it is the landscaped wall along the ramp to facilitate the underground parking that requires the variance. As such, it was the opinion of Ms. Coyle that this variance, to reduce the rear yard setback, complies with the general intent and purpose of the OP, primarily in supporting the City’s goals for intensification and the development of 15-minute neighbourhoods. The proposal also aligns with the policy aimed at locating access points along side streets, as outlined in the Corridor-Mainstreet policy 6.2.1 (4) of the OP.
23Additionally, Ms. Coyle testified that the proposed development aligns well with policy 5.6.1(1) of the Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay of the OP, which aims to promote intensification through new building forms, gradual changes in character based on proximity to hubs and corridors, and the development of urban built form patterns.
Does the Variance Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL?
24It was the opinion of Ms. Coyle that the requested reduction in the rear yard setback maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. The reduction is necessary to accommodate a 1.06 m concrete wall for the parking garage ramp, which provides two-way access from Borwick Avenue, in accordance with the OP. The intent of the ZBL is to ensure appropriate separation between the AM zone and residential uses to the rear. As such, Ms. Coyle testified that there would be minimal impact on surrounding properties due to the wall’s limited encroachment, while the building itself is located over 8.08 m from the property line, exceeding their required rear yard setback.
Is the Variance Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land?
25Evidence was provided by Ms. Coyle that the requested variance is well suited to the Subject Property as it allows for the wall forming part of the parking ramp to make efficient use of the vacant lot and supports the proposed mixed-use development with underground parking. The parking ramp provides an additional buffer between the ramp and the existing apartment. Furthermore, the building’s wall is set over 8 m from the rear property line, which Ms. Coyle deemed appropriate for the site. Further, Ms. Coyle opined that the variance would not negatively impact the adjacent R4 zone as the proposed development has incorporated landscape boxers, effectively shielding the garage wall and privacy for neighbouring properties.
Is the Variance Minor in Nature?
26The requested variance is necessary to accommodate the concrete wall of the parking ramp. Ms. Coyle opined that this reduction in the rear yard setback is not expected to negatively impact neighboring properties, given the wall’s height and design. She further noted that the building wall exceeds the required rear yard setbacks, and that landscaping has been incorporated to provide a green buffer, effectively shielding the parking garage wall and enhancing the overall aesthetics of the area. As such, in Ms. Coyle’s opinion, the variance is minor in nature.
Variance #3 – To Permit an Increase in Building Height
Does the Variance Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the OP?
27Evidence was provided by Ms. Coyle that the proposed nine-storey mixed-use building conforms to the intent of the OP by not exceeding the maximum permitted height of 40 storeys within the Corridor-Mainstreet designations of the OP. It is strategically located along a designated Corridor identified for intensification, and taller buildings, supporting the City’s growth goals. The building’s massing is designed to comply with policy 6.2.1(2) of the OP, placing the tallest portion near Montreal Road and transitioning to the lower intensive residential area behind it.
28Montreal Road is classified as an Arterial Road within the OP, with the ROW protection requirement of 37.5 m. The proposed building height is 30.1 m, which Ms. Coyle stated conforms with the OP’s urban design policies requiring mid-rise buildings to be constructed in proportion to the width of the ROW. Ms. Coyle also testified that the proposed development supports the creation of a 15-minute neighbourhood by providing convenient access to transit, shops, and services. Additionally, the height increase is essential for intensifying the site and enabling the provisions of affordable housing, thereby contributing to the OP’s density and affordable housing targets.
Does the Variance Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL?
29Ms. Coyle provided evidence regarding the requested height increase, its compliance with the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, and the applicable AM zone. She explained that the height provision aims to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and to support intensification along Arterial Main Streets. It facilitates a transition from higher density, commercial areas to surrounding low-rise, established neighbourhoods, while being mindful of sensitive land uses.
30In her assessment, Ms. Coyle stated that the requested variance, with a proposed building height of 30.1 m (nine storeys), is consistent with the intent of the ZBL. She noted that this height allows for a reasonable transition from the commercial nature of Montreal Road, which has a higher density intensity, to the residential context of Borthwick Avenue, which has lower rise buildings at 20 m (six storeys). The gradual height transition, she argued, would improve compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood and meet the ZBL’s objective of ensuring compatibility through appropriate massing.
31Ms. Coyle further highlighted the factors she considered when assessing compatibility, such as setbacks and the transition of massing. She also emphasized the importance of evaluating the proposed development’s alignment with the existing and planned functions of the area. In this case, Ms. Coyle considered not only the building design but also its alignment with the intensification policies of the OP and the intent of the AM zone. Ms. Coyle clarified that her approach to assessing compatibility reflects an urban perspective, recognizing that compatibility considerations may differ in urban and suburban context.
32Finally, Ms. Coyle pointed out that the ZBL currently reflects performance standards from the previous OP, but that the City is in the process of preparing a new comprehensive zoning by-law that will align with the current OP. She noted that the growth targets for Main Street Corridors have evolved, with the new OP prioritizing intensification and compatible development along Arterial Main Streets. This ongoing evolution of the City’s planned framework supports the requested height increase and its alignment with the broader goals of intensification in urban areas.
Is the Variance Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land?
33Ms. Coyle stated that the requested variance to increase the building height is appropriate for this site, facilitating a high-density mixed-use development in a key intensification area. Located along Montreal Road, a main street with access to public transportation, the project aligns with the transportation policies of the OP and the PPS 2024.
34The proposed development will provide 56 residential units, 20% of which will be affordable housing through partnership with CMHC, along with commercial space, supporting the OP’s goal of complete communities. Ms. Coyle emphasized that, while mid-rise buildings are less common, they should be encouraged as a thoughtful form of intensification in urban areas like this one.
Is the Variance Minor in Nature?
35Evidence was provided by Ms. Coyle that the requested variance to increase the building height to 30.1 m is necessary for the proposed development and will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood due to its design in massing. The building height aligns with the OP requirement for mid-rise buildings to correspond to the protected ROW width.
36Ms. Coyle explained that the site, located along Montreal Rd. is a key location for intensification. The proposed mixed-use development will contribute to the neighbourhood’s growth, similar to the nearby developments, such as the 14-storey building across the street. The area is transitioning from low-density to urban development, and the proposed building will not adversely affect neighbouring commercial properties to the east and west, which are subject to the same intensification policies.
37The proposed building’s design includes a height transition from the main street to the residential properties at the rear, with a parking lot providing additional buffering. Ms. Coyle testified that the shadow study indicates no impacts on the residential neighbourhood to the south, with temporary and minor shadowing on the commercial properties to the east and west, which is typical for urban settings.
38Ms. Coyle concluded that the development makes efficient use of an underutilized site and supports the intensification goals of the OP through a transit-supported, compact manner that limits impacts on surrounding properties. As such, in her view, the variance is minor.
39In conclusion, Ms. Cole was of the opinion that the proposed nine-storey mixed-use development, consisting of 56 units, with 20% affordable housing, is consistent with the PPS 2024, and has regard for matters of provincial interest, as outlined in s. 2 of the Act. In her opinion, the proposed development meets the four tests for a MV under s. 45(1) of the Act, and further, that it is consistent with the applicable land use designations, the policies of the OP, and adheres to the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. Lastly, it was the opinion of Ms. Coyle that the development represents good land use planning and is appropriate for the Subject Property.
40Additionally, Ms. Linker, the subpoenaed witness from the City, concurred with both the evidence provided by Ms. Coyle and her professional recommendation.
FINDINGS
41The Tribunal concurs with the uncontested testimony of the expert witnesses, which establishes that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS 2024. The proposed development supports a range of housing options, includes affordable units, and facilitates residential intensification by utilizing an underutilized site for both residential and commercial purposes within an established area with access to existing infrastructure. It optimizes public services and infrastructure, is well positioned near transit, and contributes to the creation of a complete community.
42Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act by using sound land use planning supporting the creation of a 15-minute neighborhood, through encouraging active transportation, and including a mix of housing with affordable rental units.
43As stated earlier, the Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of the Applicant’s expert witness, supported by City staff, that no variance is required for the interior side yard setback as both abutting lots are non-residential. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development does not require an interior side yard setback variance.
44In considering the Application, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant provided uncontested expert opinion evidence from two registered planning professionals, who presented comprehensive and detailed testimony addressing the concerns raised by the CoA. These concerns included the desirability of the proposed increase in building height, the suitability of the proposal for the land, and the compatibility of the proposed development’s transition to the south.
45The Tribunal concurs with the expert witness testimony that the Subject Property is currently underutilized, and that the proposed high-density mixed-use development supports intensification in an area identified for such growth. The proposed development aligns with the OP’s goals of promoting public transit, affordable housing, and complete communities. The proposed building height of 30.1 m is appropriate for the land and supports the transition from the higher density commercial character of Montreal Road to the residential context of Borthwick Avenue. This transition improves compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood, with no shadow impacts on the residential neighbours. The Tribunal therefore finds that the evidence provided, more than sufficiently, demonstrates that the requested variance for an increase in height meets the general intent and purpose of the OP and the ZBL, that it is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land, and is minor in nature.
46Evidence was provided that the reduced rear yard setback variance is necessary to accommodate a 1.06 m concrete wall forming part of the parking garage ramp, which provides access from Borthwick Avenue, as required by policy 6.2.1(4) of the OP. The variance as such would minimally impact surrounding properties, as the actual proposed building face is located 8.08 m from the property line, exceeding the required rear yard setback. Additionally, a landscaped buffer will shield the parking garage wall from the neighbours, providing visual screening and enhanced privacy.
47As such, the Tribunal accepts the evidence and finds that the requested variance for a reduced rear yard setback meets the general intent and purpose of the OP and the ZBL, that it is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land, and is minor in nature.
48In conclusions, the Tribunal accordingly comes to the same determination as the uncontested expert witnesses in finding that the MV Application has regard for the matters of provincial interest expressed in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2024, and satisfy all four elements of s. 45(1) of the Act.
ORDER
49THE 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.