Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 18, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000769
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 14251211 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of 4 new semi-detached dwellings.
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00043
Property Address: 1486 Baseline Road
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000769
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000769
OLT Case Name: 14251211 Canada Inc. v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 14251211 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of 4 new semi-detached dwellings.
Reference Number: D08-02-4/A-00046
Property Address: 1486 Baseline Road
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000722
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000769
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 14251211 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of 4 new semi-detached dwellings.
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00045
Property Address: 1486 Baseline Road
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000771
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000769
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 14251211 Canada Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of 4 new semi-detached dwellings.
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00044
Property Address: 1486 Baseline Road
Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000770
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000769
Heard: November 7, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| 14251211 Canada Inc. (Owner) (“Applicant/Appellant”) | Self-represented (Mohamed Issa) |
DECISION DELIVERED BY N. ALLAM AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
Nature of Application and Appeal
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal of the Decision by the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to refuse an application for Minor Variances under section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
214251211 Canada Inc. (Mohamed Issa) is the Owner of the property located at 1486 Baseline Road, in the City (“Subject Property”). He is proposing to replace the existing house on the Subject Property with four semi-detached residential units on four existing severed lots.
3The Subject Property is zoned Residential Second Density Zone Subzone F (R2F) and is designated Mainstreet Corridor under the City Official Plan. The Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay applies. A severance application is not required to create separate lots because the lots already exist through the underlying Plan of Subdivision.
4Changhong Sun, who is an architect, appeared as a witness for the Owner. He prepared a planning justification report and drawings to support the development proposal and variances.
5Samantha Gatchene, also present at the hearing, is employed as a Planner 1 in the City’s Planning Department. Ms. Gatchene prepared the June 13, 2024 Planning Report that was before the COA at the meeting held on June 18, 2024. Ms. Gatchene is familiar with the area, as well as the relevant regulations related to a Minor Variance application.
Background to the Application
6The Appellant’s witness, Mr. Sun, walked the Tribunal through his planning justification report and the due diligence exercise undertaken in order to accommodate and comply with all requirements, which included at times, receiving input and clarifications from Ms. Gatchene, on behalf of the City’s Planning Department.
Minor Variances
7The minor variances are:
Lot 2624: a) reduced lot width (7.615 metres (“m”) vs. 9 m required) b) reduced lot area (250.2 square metres (“m²”) vs. 270 m² required) c) reduced rear yard setback (6.78 m vs. 9.85 m required) d) reduced rear yard area (51.63 m² vs. 62.55 m² required)
Lot 2625: a) reduced lot width (7.615 m vs. 9 m required) b) reduced lot area (250.8 m² vs. 270 m² required) c) reduced rear yard setback (6.81 m vs. 9.94 m required) d) reduced rear yard area (51.86 m² vs. 62.70 m² required)
Lot 2626: a) reduced lot width (7.615 m vs. 9 m required) b) reduced lot area (251.4 m² vs. 270 m² required) c) reduced rear yard setback (6.94 m vs. 9.90 m required) d) reduced rear yard area (52.85 m² vs. 62.85 m² required)
Lot 2627: a) reduced lot width (7.615 m vs. 9 m required) b) reduced lot area (252 m² vs. 270 m² required) c) reduced rear yard setback (6.97 m vs. 9.92 m required) d) reduced rear yard area (53.07 m² vs. 63 m² required)
Decision of the COA
8The City Planning staff report, prepared by Samantha Gatchene, supported the application, stating it met the necessary criteria for a minor variance and did not require a severance application. Transportation staff suggested shared driveways for the developments to reduce conflicts with traffic and pedestrians.
9On June 18, 2024, the COA refused the application, citing concerns over compatibility with nearby properties, parking functionality, and rear yard access for waste containers. The COA found that the variances did not meet the planning standards and did not align with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
THE APPELLANT’S PRESENTATION
10The Appellant’s witness, Mr. Sun, walked the Tribunal through his planning justification report and the due diligence exercise undertaken in order to accommodate and comply with all requirements, which included at times, receiving input and clarifications from Ms. Gatchene, on behalf of the City’s Planning Department.
11He also noted that other properties in the neighbourhood have been approved for similar semi-detached subdivisions.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Are the Requested Variances in Compliance with the Statutory Four Tests?
12An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act is a hearing de novo and the Applicant’s witness took on the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act have been met, namely that the requested variances:
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
- are minor in nature; and,
- are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
13The Appellant’s witness, Mr. Sun, focused his presentation on the main issues of concern that were raised by the COA, those being the rear yard setback and the issues of the front parking spaces and the space allowance for handling of the waste that is kept in the rear until garbage pickup dates on the street.
14The Tribunal raised a question with regard to a reference that was made in their report, that each of the four semi-detached units had three residential apartments, where one parking space per unit was provided. Mr. Sun explained that the parking space is designated to the owner of each semi-detached and that the other units are transit users, and it is the owner’s responsibility to keep this matter in order. Ms. Gatchene confirmed that this is common for such semi-detached units.
Is the Requested Variance in General Compliance with the Intent of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024?
15In addition to the four statutory tests, s. 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that a Decision of the Tribunal affecting a planning matter, in this case, the application for minor variances, must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest, as well as regard for the decision of the COA, and the information considered by it in making that decision.
16The Provincial Planning Statement 2024 was addressed in the Appellant’s planning justification report presentation.
17In summary, the Ontario Provincial Planning Statement 2024 recognizes the importance of increased density of housing as part of a broader strategy to provide diverse housing options that meet the needs of Ontario's population. Local planning authorities play a crucial role in implementing these policies and ensuring that new developments and housing options are inclusive and responsive to demographic trends.
Is the Requested Variance in General Compliance with the Intent of the City’s Official Plan?
18The aim of the City’s Official Plan is to achieve densification of Infill development rather than green field, replacing functionally obsolete buildings.
19Under the City’s OP, Section 2 - Strategic Directions (Ottawa.ca):
Big Policy Move 1:
Achieve, by the end of the planning period, more growth by intensification than by greenfield development.
Ottawa is projected to grow by 402,000 people by 2046, requiring 194,800 new private households. The City will accommodate this growth within its existing neighbourhoods and villages, in undeveloped greenfield areas within Ottawa’s urban boundary and by expanding the City’s urban boundary. The City’s approach will have significant impacts on the evolution of Ottawa’s neighbourhoods, on housing options and affordability and on our ability to meet our climate change responsibilities.
The Official Plan will increase the share of future growth to be within Ottawa’s existing built-up area to 60 per cent by 2046, by putting in place zoning and other mechanisms to give the City the option not to further expand the urban boundary beyond 2046. In support of this direction, new policies will increase the variety of affordable, Low-rise housing options for residents within existing neighbourhoods close to Hubs and Corridors, protect the urban tree canopy and promote an evolution to 15-minute neighbourhoods.
The balanced approach continues to promote a mix of housing supply. That mix of housing supply must include a diversity of supply and housing options at different levels of market-based and affordable levels, so there is choice in the market for households to meet their needs.
Is the Requested Variance in Compliance with the Intent of the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law?
20The current Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 R2 - Residential Second Density Zone (Sections 157-158).
21The semi-detached dwelling is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law, see Part 5, Section 138 (By-law No. 2010-307).
22The current Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 adapted from older Zoning By-laws written for a very different City, with different goals, than what exist today. They are rooted in an era before the City of Ottawa, which has light rail transit, before intensification, and before climate change, when the Region was not expected to grow past half a million people.
23The current Zoning By-law does not reflect the growth plan of the City’s Official Plan, and the current needs for intensification and overall needs to meet climate change.
24The Tribunal recognizes the Appellant’s need to create more up to date semi-detached homes that would meet the higher density residence requirements, which is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, the City’s Official Plan and the new draft of the Zoning By-law.
Is the Requested Variance Minor in Nature?
25After consideration of the Planning justification report presented by the Appellant, the Planning Report prepared by the City planner, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development is similar to other neighbouring properties in the general area and the requested variances will have a negligible impact on the surrounding properties.
Is the Requested Variance desirable for the Appropriate Development or use of the land, building or structure?
26The Tribunal concurs with the City’s Planning Report and the Appellant’s Planning justification report as presented, and finds that the proposed project represents good planning, in the interest of the public and meets the fours tests.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the requested Minor Variance as articulated in the Committee of Adjustment’s hearing be approved and accordingly, the variance from the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law is granted.
“N. Allam”
N. ALLAM
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.