Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 20, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000840
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Consent
Description: To permit the severance of 2 lots
Reference Number: D08-01-24/B-00100
Property Address: 370 Princeton Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000840
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000840
OLT Case Name: Falsetto Homes Inc. v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Consent
Description: To permit the severance of 2 lots
Reference Number: D08-01-24/B-00101
Property Address: 370 Princeton Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000841
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000840
OLT Case Name: Falsetto Homes 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: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the severance of 2 lots
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00145
Property Address: 370 Princeton Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000842
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000840
OLT Case Name: Falsetto Homes 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: Falsetto Homes Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the severance of 2 lots
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00146
Property Address: 370 Princeton Avenue
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000843
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000840
OLT Case Name: Falsetto Homes Inc. v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: November 13, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Falsetto Homes Inc. (“Appellant”) | Jacob Polowin, Crystal McConkey |
| City of Ottawa (“City”) | Did Not Appear |
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Hearing stems from an Appeal from the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) refusing to grant consents and related minor variances. The Applications for consent are intended to sever the property, municipally known as 370 Princeton Avenue (“Subject Property/Property”), into two parcels to allow for the development of an 8-unit residential building on each lot.
2Located in the Westboro neighbourhood of the City, the Subject Property is a 615.9 square metre(“m2”) sized corner lot located at the southeast corner of Princeton Avenue and Melbourne Avenue with 30.61 metres(“m”) of frontage along Princeton Avenue and 20.12m of frontage along Melbourne Avenue. Both Princeton Avenue and Melbourne Avenue are designated as local roads in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”).
3The Property currently contains a small, single storey detached residential dwelling with a detached garage in the rear yard. The Appellant intends to demolish the dwelling and the garage.
4The Subject Property, along with the properties to the rear and across Princeton Avenue, is zoned Residential Fourth Density, Subzone UA, urban exception 2686, with a maximum height of 8.5m (R4UA[2686] H(8.5)) in the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2005-250 (“ZBL”) and is subject to the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay and the Westboro Development Overlay. The purpose of the R4UA zone is to allow a wide mix of residential building forms, including low rise apartment buildings. The Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay implements performance standards to guide development in mature neighbourhoods and the Westboro Development Overlay implements performance standards relating to front facades, rear yards, building heights and parking in the Westboro area.
5The property directly to the north of Princeton Avenue is zoned I1A, being Minor Institutional Zone subzone A, which permits a variety of high-density residential uses, and also a variety of non-residential uses such as urban agriculture, recreation and athletic facility. The lands to the south of the Property are zoned R3R[2687] H(8.5), being Residential Third Density, Subzone R, which permits a variety of low-density residential uses such as three-unit, duplex, long-semi and semi-detached dwellings.
6The Subject Property is a designated Neighbourhood within the Inner Urban Transect in the OP. The OP defines Neighborhoods as contiguous urban areas that constitute the heart of communities and are intended to permit a mix of building forms and densities.
7The Subject Property is within walking distance of Churchill Avenue, designated Minor Corridor and Major Collector in the OP, and Richmond Road, designated Mainstreet Corridor and Arterial Road in the OP. The nearest bus stop is 180m from the Property, which also stops at the Tunney’s Pasture Light Rail Transit station.
THE APPLICATIONS
8Consent Application 1 proposes to create the new corner lot with 10.96m of frontage along Melbourne Avenue and 30.61m of frontage along Princeton Avenue with a lot area of 335.5m2 (“Corner Lot”). Proposed to be Parts 1, 2 & 3 on the draft reference plan, with part 2 being an easement for the purpose of pedestrian access in favour of the Interior Lot.
9Consent Application 2 proposes to create the new interior lot with 9.16m of frontage along Melbourne Avenue and with a lot area of 280.4m2(“Interior Lot”). Proposed to be Parts 4, 5 & 6 on the draft reference plan, with part 4 being an easement for the purpose of pedestrian access in favour of the Corner Lot.
10The consent applications also propose reciprocal easements for the purposes of walkway access.
11To facilitate the development of the Property as proposed, the Appellant also made minor variance applications.
a. For the Corner Lot:
i. To permit a reduced corner side yard setback (Princeton Avenue) of 3.0m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum corner side yard setback of 4.5m;
ii. To permit a reduced southerly interior side yard setback of 1.2m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5m;
iii. To permit an increased number of dwelling units to eight, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum of six dwelling units; and
iv. To permit an increased building height of 8.8m, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum building height of 8.5m.
b. For the Interior Lot:
i. To permit a reduced lot width of 9.1m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot width of 10m;
ii. To permit a reduced lot area of 280m2, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 300m2;
iii. To permit reduced northerly and southerly interior side yard setbacks of 1.2m, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5m on each side; and
iv. To permit an increased building height of 8.8m, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum building height of 8.5m
12A Staff Report was created by City planning staff that recommended approval of the Applications; however, the COA refused the Applications on July 26, 2024.
WITNESSES
13The Tribunal heard from three witnesses in this uncontested Hearing as the City did not attend.
14First, the Tribunal heard from Arjen Soor, a candidate member of the Canadian Institute of Planning and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. This was Mr. Soor’s first time appearing in front of the Tribunal. Mr. Soor was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning.
15Second, the Tribunal heard from Murray Chown, a professional Land Use Planner. The Tribunal found that Mr. Chown was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning. The bulk of the evidence was provided by Mr. Chown.
16Lastly, the Tribunal heard from Margot Linker, who is employed by the City as a Planner and who authored the staff report that recommended approval of the Applications. Ms. Linker appeared under summons. Ms. Linker confirmed that she authored the report and that she still does not have any concerns regarding the applications.
PARTY STATUS AND PARTICPANT STATUS REQUESTS
17Prior to this Hearing the Tribunal received one Party Status request by the Westboro Community Association (“WCA”), an incorporated entity. Andrew Cooper attended the Hearing on behalf of the WCA. The Appellant contested the Party Status request as the WCA was only prepared to present Power Point evidence and would not be calling any expert witnesses nor would be providing any additional evidence. The Tribunal found that the interests of WCA would be better served as a Participant as the Power Point presentation would be included in their statement and would be reviewed by the Tribunal.
18Stewart and Susan Dewar were granted Participant status with no objection. They had previously filed their request with the Tribunal. The Dewars are neighbours and met the statutory test.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
19With respect to the Appeal under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”), in order to determine whether provisional consent should be granted (with such conditions that may be required), the Tribunal must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. If not, then regard must then be given to the applicable criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, including: that the proposed consent has regard to matters of Provincial interest; whether it is premature or in the public interest; whether there is conformity to the applicable Official Plans; the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services.
20With respect to minor variances, s. 45 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the requested variances meet the four tests:
a. maintain the general intent and purpose of the regional Official Plan (“OP”) and the Town OP;
b. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZB”);
c. are minor in nature; and
d. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
21Further, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the variance is also consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), and have regard to matters of provincial interest, as well as for the decision of the approval authority and the information that was before it.
EVIDENCE
22It was Mr. Chown’s opinion that the applications have regard for matters of provincial interest as the proposed development: 1) contributes to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; 2) includes accessible units for persons with disabilities; 3) contributes to a full range of housing, including affordable housing, by introducing a missing middle housing typology into an urban neighbourhood characterized by detached and semi-detached dwelling types; and 4) that both the lot and the neighbourhood are appropriate locations for the proposed growth and development.
23Mr. Chown also opined that the applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), as the introduction of missing middle housing, which includes accessible units, supports the achievement of complete communities by allowing for a range of housing options and improves accessibility. It was also Mr. Chown’s opinion that the proposed density increase of the Subject Property contributes to a more efficient use of land, infrastructure and active transit as the Subject Property is within walking distance to a wide variety of amenities and introduces a more economical living option in a neighbourhood where detached and semi-detached dwelling types currently dominate.
24With respect to the proposed consents and reciprocal easements, Mr. Chown opined that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality as the proposed development had access to municipal servicing and frontage along public roads. It was also Mr. Chown’s opinion that the proposed consents and reciprocal easements meets the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act as the location, proposed density and inclusion of accessible units have regard for persons with disabilities, has adequate access to utilities and municipal services and is well serviced by nearby schools.
25It was Mr. Chown’s evidence that the proposed conditions of consent, attached as Schedule A, were appropriate in the circumstances.
26Mr. Chown also provided opinion evidence to the Tribunal that the minor variances meet the four tests.
27Mr. Chown opined that the proposed low-rise development meets the policy for sensitive integration in the OP as it is designed to respond to the residential context within which it is proposed and includes soft landscaping, at-grade entrances and balconies. The urban built form general characteristics policies are also satisfied as the proposal exceeds the minimum two functional storeys by providing three functional storeys, landscaping, principal entrances at grade with a direct relationship to the public realm and shallow front yard setbacks.
28Mr. Chown provided expert evidence that the proposed variances maintain the purpose and intent of the ZBL. It was Mr. Chown’s opinion that the proposed reduction in setbacks, lot width and lot area ensure adequate space for passage, tree protection and developability. Mr. Chown also opined that the proposed increase in dwelling units can be done without a corresponding increase in building size and the slight increase in height will not be perceptively different to passer-by.
29The proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, Mr. Chown opined, because the variances would permit an increase in density in an appropriate location, while maintaining significant landscaping to connect the buildings to the public realm.
30Mr. Chown opined that the proposed variances are minor in nature because the setbacks, while a reduction, are still consistent with what currently exists along the streetscape. The increase in height, reduction in lot area and width will be imperceptible to passerby, and the increase in dwelling units does increase the building envelope.
PARTICPANTS
31The Tribunal finds that the expert witnesses addressed the concerns that have been raised by the Participants.
32The parking concerns were addressed by Mr. Soor who testified that there are no parking spaces being proposed in the development as parking is not required and that parking was in fact prohibited in the circumstances.
33Participants were also concerned that the proposed setbacks were inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, however, Mr. Chown provided evidence that the proposed setbacks are consistent with the streetscape and that a garage on an adjacent property has a more reduced setback than is proposed in these applications.
34To address concerns regarding tree preservation, Mr. Chown and Mr. Soor provided evidence that all City trees would be retained, except one that would be removed as it is diseased, and that the proposal contains adequate landscaping.
35Mr. Chown also opined regarding the participants’ concerns that the development did not have regard for the Westboro Infill Study (“WIS”). It was Mr. Chown’s opinion that the WIS prioritized greater density and focused height and density uplift to major collector roads, major corridor roads and on corner lots, like the Subject Property at issue. It was Mr. Chown’s opinion that the proposal is consistent with the WIS in that it prioritizes landscaping and green space and proposes no vehicular parking.
DECISION
36The Tribunal finds that the applications will allow for the appropriate intensification of the Subject Property in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding context, that achieves the objectives of the OP, maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, is appropriate, in the public interest and that represents good land use planning in the circumstances, consistent with the PPS and have regard for matters or Provincial interest as listed in s. 2 of the Planning Act.
37Regarding the consent applications, based on the uncontradicted and credible evidence of the three witnesses presented by the Appellant, the Tribunal grants the appeals and finds that the Subject Property will remain underdeveloped if it cannot be severed. The proposed lot size and configuration are consistent with the lot fabric of the surrounding area and are necessary given the size and configuration of the existing parcel. The Tribunal also finds that the proposed development does not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, that the applications meet the criteria set out in section 51(24) of the Act, that consent applications represent good planning and that the conditions are appropriate.
38Regarding the Minor Variance applications, based on the uncontradicted and credible evidence of the three witnesses presented by the Appellant, the Tribunal grants the appeals. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will contribute to a full range of rental housing choices and type, promote desirable intensification through compatible, low-rise built form, maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP, allow for the construction of a permitted use, a low rise apartment building, in a manner that complies with the predominant character of the streetscape, generally complies with the performance standards of the ZBL and is consistent with heights and lot fabric in the surrounding area, maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, have no adverse impact on the community, are minor in nature, are desirable for the appropriate development of the Property, constitutes good land use planning and is in the public interest.
ORDER
39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this Order.
40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed and the variances to By-law 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.
SCHEDULE 1