1000907325 Ontario Inc. v. Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 46494

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

May 13, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-001059

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

1000843856 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description:

To sever, adjust and create a total of four lots for residential uses.

Reference Number:

D08-01-24/B-00157

Property Address:

265 Churchill Avenue N

Municipality/UT:

Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001059

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-001059

OLT Case Name:

1000907325 Ontario Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Subject:

Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description:

To sever, adjust and create a total of four lots for residential uses.

Reference Number:

D08-01-24/B-00158

Property Address:

265 Churchill Avenue N

Municipality/UT:

Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001060

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-001059

OLT Case Name:

1000907325 Ontario Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

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

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To sever, adjust and create a total of four lots for residential uses.

Reference Number:

D08-02-24/A-00223

Property Address:

265 Churchill Avenue N

Municipality/UT:

Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001061

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-001059

OLT Case Name:

1000907325 Ontario Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

Heard:

January 16, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1000843856 Ontario Inc.

(“Appellant”)

Gregory Meeds

City of Ottawa

(“City”)

Timothy Marc (in absentia)

MEMOrandum of oral DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON JANUARY 16, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The appeals arise under ss. 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), by the Appellant, regarding the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the applications for Consent and Minor Variance (“Applications”) to sever, adjust, and create a total of four lots for residential uses at the lands municipally known as 265 Churchill Avenue North and 325 Bloomfield Avenue (“Subject Lands”).

2The Tribunal was advised by the City in writing that the City would not appear at the hearing.

CONTEXT

3The Subject Lands, comprised of two lots, are located within the Westboro neighbourhood. 265 Churchill Avenue North is a corner lot with an area of 599.9 square meters (“m²”) and a frontage of 30.18 metres (“m”) along Churchill Avenue North and a frontage of 19.91 m along Bloomfield Avenue. 325 Bloomfield Avenue is an interior lot with an area of 607.3 m² and a frontage of 20.13 m along Bloomfield Avenue. The Subject Lands are currently vacant.

4The Subject Lands are located within a 15-minute walk of commercial uses along Richmond Road, two rapid transit stations on Line 1 of the O-Train network, frequent bus routes 11 and 51, and Westboro Beach.

5The Subject Lands are designated Neighbourhood within the Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay in the City’s Official Plan (“City OP”). The City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“City ZB”) zones the Subject Lands as Residential Third Density, Subzone EE(R3EE), which permits long semi-detached dwellings.

6The proposed severance applications are detailed as follows:

• Severance application 1: To sever Part 5 on the draft reference plan (Plan) from 325 Bloomfield Avenue and add this part to 265 Churchill Avenue North. This application will add 0.98 meters of frontage along Bloomfield Avenue and 30.7 square metres of land to the property at 265 Churchill Avenue North.

• Severance application 2: To create the lot labelled as Part 1 and Part 2 on the Plan. This lot will be occupied by one long semi-detached dwelling. An easement in favour of Part 1 and Part 2 is required over Part 3 on the Plan to provide access to rear yard parking.

• Severance application 3: To create the lot labelled as Part 3, 4, and Part 5 on the Plan. This lot will be occupied by one long semi-detached dwelling. An easement in favour of Part 1 and Part 2 is required over Part 3 on the Plan to provide access to rear yard parking.

• Severance application 4: To create the lot labelled as Part 6 and 7 on the Plan. This lot will be occupied by one long semi-detached dwelling. An easement in favour of Part 8 and Part 9 is required over Part 7 on the Plan to provide access to rear yard parking.

• Severance application 5: To create the lot labelled as Part 8 and 9 on the Plan. This lot will be occupied by one long semi-detached dwelling. An easement in favour of Part 8 and Part 9 is required over Part 7 on the Plan to provide access to rear yard parking.

7The City ZB’s requirements for the proposed lots are listed as detailed below and the proposed variances are bolded:

Zoning: R3EE-Residential Third Density

Dwelling type: Long semi-detached Dwellings

Required

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

Lot 4

Minimum Lot Width(m)

10

11.65

9.24

9.24

9.89

Minimum Lot Area (square metres)

300

351.7

278.9

278.9

297.7

Minium Front Yard Setback (m)

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Minimum Corner Side yard Setback (m)

3.0

3.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

Minium Interior Side Yard Setback (m)

1.2

1.5

0.6

0.6

1.2

Minium Rear Yard Setback (m)

[30% of lot depth]

9.05

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

Minimum Building Height (m)

11

8.2

11.6

11.7

11.8

STATUS REQUEST

8The Tribunal granted Participant status to the Westboro Beach Community Association (“WBCA”), with consent from the Appellant.

NOTICE OF HEARING

9There is no issue with notice of this hearing.

EXHIBITS

10The following Exhibits were marked during the hearing:

• Exhibit 1 – Document Book;

• Exhibit 2 – Participant statement of the WBCA; and

• Exhibit 3 – Revised conditions of approval of consents.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

11The Tribunal qualified Jeffrey Kelly, a registered professional planner, retained by the Appellant, to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning on behalf of the Appellant.

12Mr. Kelly held the opinion that the policies of the Neighbourhood designation and Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay in the City OP support residential intensification in proximity to Corridors, which contributes to the growth of “15-minute neighbourhoods” where local services, commercial uses, and facilities can be accessible within walking distance from home.

13Mr. Kelly presented a summary of the existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. He said that many of the existing buildings in the area have a similar built form to that of the proposed development in terms of number of units and storeys. Additionally, Mr. Kelly stated that many surrounding lots in the neighbourhood are of a similar size and have similar setbacks. Further, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the proposed development would have no impact on the neighbourhood character.

14WBCA expressed the below concerns about the Applications in their Participant Statement:

• The proposed variances do not satisfy the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act;

• The need to prioritize sustainability and a healthy community (minimize environment and maximize benefits);

• The threat of environmental impacts due to flooding; and

• The need to protect natural habitats, including wildlife and trees.

15Mr. Kelly responded to the concerns of WBCA and confirmed that appropriate studies and plans had been or would be conducted and that mitigation measures would be implemented to the City standards and as set out in the Conditions of the Approval of the Applications (“Conditions”). Mr. Kelly’s response is summarized as follows:

• The proposal on the Subject Lands would support the creation of “15-minute neighborhoods” and would contribute to residential intensification and growth in a Neighbourhood designation to meet the growth targets of the Growth Management Framework with respect to Policy 1 of s. 5.2.4 of the City OP;

• The proposal is to facilitate the development four, long semi-detached dwellings, which are a permitted use in the R3 Zone. The proposal meets the performance standards for front yard setback, front yard soft landscaping, corner side yard setback, interior side yard setbacks on Lot 1 and Lot 4, rear yard setback and rear yard soft landscaping. The widths of Lots 2, 3, and 4 are marginally less than the requirement of City ZB for Subzone EE zone;

• The development proposes a shared driveway providing access to each proposed lot, which is consistent with the dominant character of the surrounding context as indicated in the Streetscape Character Analysis. This analysis indicates the proposal is compatible with the existing residential character of the neighbourhood and will have no impact on the streetscape or on the functionality of the site;

• This infill development supports intensification while having regard for existing uses, built form, scale, lot fabric and streetscape characteristics of the neighbourhood. The Subject Lands are within walking distance to nearby established amenities and transit services. The variances are desirable for the use of the Subject Lands;

• The Tree Information Report and Tree Planting Plan submitted to the City provided extra tree planting and soft landscaping to address concerns related to tree loss and to further support the healthy, liveable, and safe communities;

• The Applicant agrees to obtain any applicable approval from agencies and the City, such as Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks; and

• The Applicant agrees to provide the City with a Stormwater Management Brief by a professional engineer and evidence to the City to assure the connection of utilities, servicing, and a grading plan meet City standards. The Applicant also agrees to ensure that other requirements in the Conditions shall be met to the satisfaction of the City. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, cash-in-lieu for park or other public recreation purposes, easements, road resurfacing, road widening, and land conveyance for a light triangle, etc.

Mr. Kelly concluded that the proposed variances meet the four tests in the Act and that mitigation measures would be sufficient to address the concerns of WBCA.

16The Tribunal finds that Mr. Kelly’s response is appropriate and reasonable.

17The Tribunal qualified Murray Chown, a registered professional planner retained by the Appellant, to provide opinion evidence concerning land use planning for the matter before the Tribunal.

18Mr. Chown demonstrated that the Applications have regard to the matters of provincial interest as referred to s. 2 (f), (h), (j), and (p) of the Act.

19Mr. Chown indicated that the proposed development would contribute to a safe and healthy community with respect to policies of Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), specifically Policies 2.1.6, 2.2.1 b) and c), 2.3.2, 2.9.1 and would further improve the affordability of Westboro housing by introducing a mixed range of housing options in the City.

20Mr. Chown stated that the Subject Lands were a perfect location for intensification, growth, and development. Further, Mr. Chown indicated that the Applications were consistent with the PPS 2024 as they provide for an efficient use of the lands, existing facilities, and infrastructure.

21Mr. Chown expressed his opinion that the proposal on the Subject Lands would support intensification in a Neighbourhood designation that is adjacent to lands designated as Corridors pursuant to s. 3.2 of the City OP. Mr. Chown also indicated that the proposed development was compatible and could support the City in achieving the growth target set out in the City OP.

22Mr. Chown concluded that the Consent Applications meet the applicable criteria as set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, specifically subsections (a) through (d), (f), and (i) through (l), and represent good land use planning. Mr. Chown further requested the Tribunal to approve the Applications subject to the Conditions agreed upon by the City and the Applicant.

23The Tribunal qualified Penelope Horn, City Planner, who prepared the Planning Staff Report to COA, to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

24Ms. Horn confirmed that the opinion of the City’s staff remained the same as supporting the approval of the Applications, subject to the Conditions as imposed in the Revised Staff Report. The Conditions address the concerns of internal departments, commenting agencies and the public, which include, but are not limited to, drainage, flooding, tree loss, parkland dedication, land conveyance, and easement requirements. Ms. Horn also agreed with the Appellant that the revised Conditions before the Tribunal reflected the effort of the City staff and the Appellant in this matter and were appropriate. The Tribunal finds the revised Conditions acceptable and reasonable.

25The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of the three expert witnesses, as presented in the submission package and oral testimonies, and similarly finds that:

1. The Applications:

a. Have regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act;

b. Are consistent with the PPS 2024;

c. Reflect the principles of good land use planning; and

d. Represent the public interests;

2. The Minor Variance applications meet the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:

• The applications are minor in nature;

• The Applications are desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Lands;

• The Applications maintain the general intent and purpose of the City Zoning By-law;

• The applications maintain the general intent of the Official Plan.

3. The Consent applications meet the applicable criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act and the proposed Conditions are reasonable under s. 51(25) of the Act.

ORDER

26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeals are allowed;

2. The variances to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, listed in Attachment 1 to this Order are authorized; and

3. The provisional consents are to be given subject to the conditions set out in the Attachment 2 to this Order.

“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.

ATTACHMENT 1

List of Variances

Lot 2

Lot 3

Lot 4

Minimum Lot Width(m)

9.24

9.24

9.89

Minimum Lot Area (square metres)

278.9

278.9

297.7

Minium Interior Side Yard Setback (m)

0.6

0.6

Meet the requirement

Minimum Building Height (m)

11.6

11.7

11.8

ATTACHMENT 2

Conditions of approval of Consents

1. That the Owner(s) provide evidence that payment has been made to the City of Ottawa for cash-in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes, plus applicable appraisal costs. The value of land otherwise required to be conveyed shall be determined by the City of Ottawa in accordance with the provisions of By-Law No. 2022-280, as amended. Information regarding the appraisal process can be obtained by contacting the Planner.

2. That the Owner(s) provide a servicing plan or other evidence, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, that each existing building and/or unit on the severed and retained parcels has its own independent water, sanitary and sewer connection, as appropriate, that are directly connected to City infrastructure and do not cross the proposed severance line

If the services are shared, and there is sufficient justification for the service locations to remain , the Owner(s) must obtain Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Conservation and Parks (Environmental Compliance Approval — ECA), must obtain the approval of the Committee to grant easement(s) as required for access and maintenance of the services, and must register a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement, between the Owners of the services, on the title of the property, all at their own costs.

3. That the Owner(s) submit a Stormwater Management Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, demonstrating a design for controlling post-development stormwater peak flows to predevelopment peak flows for all stormwater events up to the 100 year storm event, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.

That the Owner(s) enter into a Development Agreement with the City to construct the required stormwater system, including posting required securities.

If applicable, the Owner(s) shall obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Should the stormwater management system cross property lines or access to the system be over multiple properties, that the owner will seek approval of the Committee to grant easement(s) for access and maintenance of the stormwater system or register a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement on title of the properties, all at the owner(s) costs.

4. That the Owner(s) provide evidence to the satisfaction of both the Chief Building

Official and Development Review Manager, Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or designates, that both severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and storm connection as appropriate, and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line and are connected directly to City infrastructure. Further, the Owner(s) shall comply to 7.1.5.4(1) of the Ontario Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12 as amended. If necessary, a plumbing permit shall be obtained from Building Code Services for any required alterations.

5. That the Owner(s) enter into either an Easement Agreement or a Joint Use, Maintenance and Operating Agreement, at the expense of the Owner(s), setting forth the obligations between the Owner(s) and the proposed future owners.

The Agreement shall set forth the joint use and maintenance of all common elements including, but not limited to, the, common driveways and common landscaping, shared storm sewer, and stormwater management works.

The Owner shall ensure that the Agreement is binding upon all the unit owners and successors in title and shall be to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, and City Legal Services. The Agreement shall be registered on title.

6. That the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner, which is to be registered on Title to deal with the covenants/notices that shall run with the land and bind future owners on subsequent transfers;

"The property is located next to lands that have an existing source of environmental noise (Churchill and a city works yard) and may therefore be subject to noise and other activities associated with that use."

The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of Select Manager of the Select Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.

7. That the Owner(s) shall provide evidence that a grading and drainage plan, prepared by a qualified Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, an Ontario Land Surveyor or a Certified Engineering Technologist, has been submitted to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate to be confirmed in writing from the Department. The grading and drainage plan shall delineate existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained properties, to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.

8. That the Owner(s) enter into a resurfacing agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the Program Manager, Right of Way Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, and provide financial security in accordance with the Road Activity By-law, as amended, to install an asphalt overlay over the roadway surface of Bloomfield Avenue, fronting the subject lands, to the limits shown on the approved Site Servicing Plan. Where the approved Site Servicing Plan demonstrates that resurfacing is not required based on the City's Road Cut Resurfacing Policy, the Development Review Manager of the All-Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, shall deem this condition satisfied.

9. That the Owner/Applicant(s) provide a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager of the relevant Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or their designate(s), showing the location(s) and species or ultimate size of all compensation trees required under the Tree Protection By-law and/or one new tree (50 mm caliper) per lot, whichever is greater. Where off-site planting is proposed, planting plans must be included for each planting location along with written permission from the property owners; to count as compensation these trees must be medium or large-growing species with a minimum size of 50mm caliper stock.

10. That the Owner agrees to convey to the City, at no cost to the City, an unencumbered road widening across the complete frontage of the lands, measuring 6 meters from the existing centerline of pavement/the abutting right-of-way along Bloomfield Avenue, pursuant to Section 50.1 (25)(c) of the Planning Act and Schedule C 16 of the City's new Official Plan, as required. The exact widening must be determined by legal survey. The Owner shall provide a reference plan for registration, indicating the widening, to the City Surveyor for review and approval prior to its deposit in the Land Registry Office. Such reference plan must be tied to the Horizontal Control Network in accordance with the municipal requirements and guidelines for referencing legal surveys. The Owner(s) must provide to the City Surveyor a copy of the Committee of Adjustment Decision and a draft Reference Plan that sets out the required widening. All costs shall be borne by the Owner.

11. That the Owner convey a 3 m x 9 m corner sight triangle located at the intersection of Bloomfield Ave & Churchill Ave to the City (with the longer dimension along the collector road), with all costs to be borne by the Owner(s), to the satisfaction of the Surveys and Mapping Branch of the City. This area will be free of all structures, plantings, etc. and will allow a proper sighting distance for motorists when performing turning movements within the intersection.