Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 10, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000280
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Jean-Michel Sauve
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To legalize built accessory structures on property
Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00273
Property Address: 1618 Botsford Street
Municipality/UT: Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000280
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000280
OLT Case Name: Jean-Michel v Ottawa (City)
Heard: June 30, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Jean-Michel Sauve (“Appellant”)
Counsel
Gregory Meeds
Parties
City of Ottawa (“City”)
Counsel
Timothy Marc
DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON JUNE 30,2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for minor variances (“Application”) to legalize the accessories on the lands municipally known as 1618 Botsford Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The Application includes a total of 11 variances listed in the Appendix “A” to this order, nine of which was approved by COA. The City contested variances J and K at the hearing.
CONTEXT
3The Subject Lands are located in the Elmvale-Canterbury neighbourhood within the City’s Alta Vista Ward. The Subject Lands are an interior lot located on the west side of Botsford Street and bounded by Shelley Avenue to the north, Browning Avenue to the south, Chaucer Avenue to the west, Digby Street to the east. The Subject Lands have a frontage of 15.24 metres (“m”) along Botsford Street, a lot depth of 30.485 m, and a lot area of 464.47 square metres.
4The Subject Lands are designated Neighbourhood within the Outer Urban Transect in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and zoned R10-Residetnail First Density, Subzone O in the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”).
5The Subject Lands are subject to the Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) and are designated Neighborhood within the City’s Secondary Plan, which is intended to ensure compliance with the policies of the City OP and compatibility with low-rise neighbourhood areas.
6There is an existing one-storey detached dwelling on the Subject Lands, surrounded by one-storey detached dwellings. The neighboring residential uses are primarily detached dwellings with building heights ranging from one to two storeys.
7The Subject Lands have total five accessory structures, consisting of a small shed in the northerly interior side yard, two sheds in the rear yard, a hot tub in the rear yard, and a play structure in the rear yard.
8The Appellant sought the approval of all the 11 variances listed in the Appendix “A” on the Subject Lands.
STATUS REQUEST
9The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant status nor individuals at the hearing requests for either status at the hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
10There is no issue with notice of this hearing.
EXHIBIT
11A Joint Book of Document was marked as Exhibit “1” during the hearing.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12The Tribunal qualified Mr. Arjan Soor, a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
13The Tribunal qualified Mr. Murray Chown, a Registered Professional Planner full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence concerning land use planning in the matter before the Tribunal.
14The Tribunal qualified Ms. Elizabeth King, with professional experience in the area of land use planning, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence for the matter before the Tribunal.
15Mr. Soor provided the factual overview and history of the Application to the Tribunal and indicated that the City’s staff had no concerns with variances A through I in the Appendix “A”. Mr. Soor further stated that the COA was satisfied with the variances A through I, which maintained the general intent of the City OP and ZBL and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on the neighboring properties or the neighborhood in general. Mr. Soor also presented to the Tribunal that the City staff only expressed concerns about the variances J and K in the Appendix “A”, which are related to the play structure in the rear yard. The City confirmed that Mr. Soor’s summary was accurate.
16Mr. Soor indicated that the majority of the play structure was well below 3.6 m, which is the maximum permitted height in the City’s ZBL.
17Mr. Chown stated that the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and the City OP did not directly speak to the scale and size of the accessories or structure. Mr. Chown had stated that his opinion evidence would mainly focus on how the application maintained the general intent of the City ZBL, as the City ZBL had detailed regulation provisions for this type of structure.
18The Tribunal finds that, though there are no direct policies in the PPS 2024 and the City OP talking about the accessories or structures, the City ZBL was developed under the PPS 2024 and the City OP and the structure is a permitted use in the City ZBL. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that the structure maintains the general purpose and intent of the City OP.
19Mr. Chown indicated that the highest point of the structure was rounded up to 4.0 m and only two elements of the play structure were beyond 3.6 m as regulated in the City ZBL. Mr. Chown held the opinion that the variance of 0.4 m was minor and maintained the general purpose of the City ZBL.
20The Tribunal finds that the 0.4m difference in the height of the structure was relatively small and the majority of the structure meets the height requirement in the City ZBL. As such, the Tribunal considered this variance to the height to be minor in nature.
21Mr. Chown expressed his opinion that this play structure was desirable as it was a recreational equipment in the neighborhood.
22Mr. Chown stated that the City staff expressed no concerns with variance K related to the height in the staff report to the COA and the variance J related to the setback requirement was resulted by the variance K.
23Ms. King expressed herself that there were adverse impacts and the impact to the southern neighbor should be considered for future owners of this Property in addition to the current one.
24Ms. King specified that the adverse impacts of the proposal included the loss of privacy and safety concerns. Counsel for the City added the nuisance of the business would result in adverse impacts of the proposal.
25Mr. Chown and Counsel for the Appellant both argued that the City had power to address the nuisance of the business separately if this business violated the City’s bylaws and non-conforming business issue was not the matter before the Tribunal.
26Counsel for the City disagreed with Mr. Chown and the Appellant’s Counsel that the nuisance of the business should be discussed at this hearing, as it caused the adverse impacts to the neighborhood.
27The Tribunal directed the Parties that the non-conforming business was not the matter before the Tribunal and the City should focus on the impacts as result of the business instead of whether or not the business was permitted by the City’s ZBL.
28Mr. Chown responded to the City’s concerns that this play structure was unlike typical children’s paly structure, which would provide platforms for kids to climb, sit and overlook into neighbors’ rear yards. Mr. Chown concluded that this play structure would actually result in less privacy loss than the children’s play structure.
29Mr. Chown indicated that the entire structure was secured into the concrete slab and unlikely would fall over and, if the higher elements collapsed, they would fall onto the Monkey bars before going to the southern neighbor’s property.
30Mr. Chown responded to the concerns related to the visual impacts of the proposal from the neighboring properties and the streets in proximity and held the opinion that the play structure had no impact though it could be seen from these locations.
31The Tribunal recognizes that, if the structure met the permitted height (3.6m) in the City ZBL, the structure would still be above the fences on the boundaries and would be visible from the neighboring properties and streets in the proximity. The Tribunal finds that the scale and the height of the play structure are acceptable, and the visibility of the play structure does not mean there will be adverse impacts to the neighborhood.
32The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Chown’s opinion regarding the potential collapse of the structure that the structure will unlikely fall over into the neighbours’ rear yards. The Tribunal also believes that the City should have a mechanism to regulate the performance of the structure and further to ensure the structure is safe to the neighborhood.
33The Tribunal is more convinced with Mr. Chown’s analysis and response. The Tribunal agreed with Mr. Chown that the variances were minor and desirable as a recreation structure.
34The Tribunal accepts the contested opinion evidence of the expert witnesses of the Appellant and finds that the Application meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:
Does this minor variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP?
Does this minor variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL?
Is this minor variance considered desirable for the use of the lands?
Is this minor variance considered minor in nature?
ORDER
35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.
“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.
APPENDIX “A”
List of Variances
A. To permit a total of five accessory buildings/structures on the lot, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of two accessory buildings on a lot.
B. To permit Wooden Shed 1 to be located 0 metres from the northerly interior lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback from the interior side lot line for an accessory building or structure located in the interior side lot line for an accessory building or structure located in the interior side yard to be the same as the interior side yard setback requirement for the principal building, which is a total of 3 metres, with one yard no less than 1.2 metres.
C. To permit Wooden Shed 1 to be located 0.3 metres from Wooden Shed 2, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum distance from any other building located on the same lot to be 1.2 metres.
D. To permit Wooden Shed 2 to be located 0 metres from the northerly interior lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback from the interior side lot line for an accessory building in the rear yard to be 0.6 metres.
E. To permit Wooden Shed 2 to be located 0.3 metres from Wooden Shed 1, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum distance from any other building located on the same lot to be 1.2 metres.
F. To permit a Hot Tub to be located 0.5 metres from the northerly interior lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback from the interior side lot line to be 0.6 metres from a hot tub not equipped with walkable decking and not within a building.
G. To permit Wooden Shed 3 to be located 0.36 metres from the northerly interior lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback from the interior side lot line for an accessory building in the rear yard to be 0.6 metres.
H. To permit Wooden Shed 3 to be located 0.59 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback from the rear lot line for an accessory building in the rear yard to be 0.6 metres.
I. To permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.39 metres from the southerly interior lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback that is a total of 3.0 metres, with one yard no less than 1.2 metres. The variance is requested in the abundance of caution.
J. To permit a reduced setback from the interior (south) side lot line of 1.9 metres for a play structure, whereas the By-law requires a minimum setback from the interior side lot line equal to the height of the play structure, in this case 4 metres.
K. To permit the height of the play structure to be 4.0 metres, whereas the maximum permitted is 3.6 metres.