Gary Babstock and Kathy Goodsell, 2023 CanLII 152466

DECISION

CONSENT/SEVERANCE

Date of Decision: November 10, 2023

Panel: 3 - Rural

File No(s).: D08-01-23/B-00257

Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act

Owner(s)/Applicant(s): Gary Babstock and Kathy Goodsell

Property Address: 6574 B Michelangelo Court

Ward: 21 – Rideau-Jock

Legal Description: Part of Block 3 Registered Plan 4M-754 and Part of Lot 20 Concession 3, Geographic Township of North Gower

Zoning: V1C[309r] O1[309r]

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Hearing Date: October 31, 2023, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Owners want to convey a portion of their property to the abutting property owner to the west, known municipally as 6574 Michelangelo Court.

2The Owners/Applicants require the consent of the Committee for a lot line adjustment and a grant of easement/right of way. The severed land, shown as Parts 1 to 4 on a Draft 4R-Plan filed with the application, is landlocked and will contain an area of 0.183 hectares. This land contains two existing accessory buildings and will merge with the property to the west, known municipally as 6574 Michelangelo Court.

3The retained land, shown on said sketch, will have a frontage of 6.1 metres on Michelangelo Court, to an irregular depth and will contain a lot area of approximately 8 hectares. This parcel is vacant and is known as 6574 B Michelangelo Court.

4It is also proposed to establish an easement/right of way over Parts 2 & 3 on the severed land, in favour of the retained land, for access.

5The application also indicates that the property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.

PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Submissions Summary

6Applicant Gary Babstock and City Planner Luke Teeft responded to questions from the Committee.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED

Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests

7Under the Planning Act, the Committee has the power to grant a consent if it is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Also, the Committee must be satisfied that an application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and has regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Act, as well as the following criteria set out in subsection 51(24):

Criteria

(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

j) the adequacy of school sites;

k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

Evidence

8Evidence considered by the Committee included all oral submissions made at the hearing, as highlighted above, and the following written submissions held on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request:

Application and supporting documents, including cover letter, plans, parcel registries, sketch, a photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received October 26, 2023, with no concerns.
Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority email dated October 23, 2023, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email dated October 19, 2023, with no comments.
Ministry of Transportation email dated October 30, 2023, with no comments.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

9The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

10The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the applications. The report highlights that as “this is a lot line adjustment and no new lot or development is proposed within the floodplain, staff have no concerns with the application as submitted.”

11Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement that promotes efficient land use and development as well as intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local conditions. The Committee is also satisfied that the proposal has adequate regard to matters of provincial interest, including the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; the appropriate location of growth and development; and the protection of public health and safety. Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Moreover, the Committee is satisfied that the proposal has adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and is in the public interest.

12THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore grants the provisional consent, subject to the following conditions, which must be fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of this Decision:

That the Owner file with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment the following: a. A copy of the Reference Plan and/or legal description of the severed land and the deed or instrument conveying the severed land to the owner of the abutting property to the west known municipally as 6574 B Michelangelo Court so that no new lot is being created, in accordance with paragraph (b) below; b. A Certificate of Official attached to the deed/transfer required by paragraph (a) above containing the following endorsement: “The lands to be severed are for the purpose of a lot addition only to the abutting lands owned by (insert name) described as PIN (insert property identification number) being Part(s) (insert numbers) on Plan (insert plan number), not for the creation of a new lot, and any subsequent transfer, charge or other transaction involving the lands to be severed shall be subject to compliance with Section 50(3) or Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, as applicable. Neither the lands to be severed nor the abutting lands are to be transferred, charged or otherwise re-conveyed in the future without the other parcel unless a further consent is obtained. The Owner shall cause the lands to be severed to be consolidated on title with the abutting lands and for this condition to be entered on the parcel register for the consolidated parcel as a restriction”; c. An Undertaking from a solicitor authorized to practice law in the Province of Ontario, and in good standing with the Law Society of Upper Canada, as follows: “In consideration of, and notwithstanding the issuance of the Certificate under Section 50(12) of the Planning Act in respect to the subject Application for Consent, I undertake on behalf of the Owner, within 30 days of the registration on title of the transfer document containing the endorsement set out in the Certificate of Official issued by the Committee of Adjustment, to file an Application to Consolidate Parcels including the severed land (Part of PIN (insert number) and the abutting land (PIN insert number). This PIN consolidation is intended to reinforce the Planning Act stipulation in the condition outlined above that both parcels have merged on Title and cannot be conveyed separately in the future. I further undertake to forward a copy of the registered Application to Consolidate Parcels and a copy of the Consolidated Parcel abstract page(s) to the Committee office within 21 days of the registration of the Application to Consolidate Parcels”. d. Where the parcel consolidation stipulated in paragraph (b) and the solicitor’s Undertaking in paragraph (c) above cannot be reasonably completed because the parcels of land to be merged have different estate qualifiers, an Application to Annex Restrictive Covenant under Section 118 of the Land Titles Act must be registered on the Title of both the severed lands and on the abutting parcel that is to be merged. The Covenant, which is to be to the satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee, shall advise all future purchasers that the parcels must be dealt with together and not separately, and contain wording set out below or similar wording acceptable to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee: “These lands have been merged and may not be dealt with separately, without applying for a Consent of the Committee of Adjustment”. In lieu of the Undertaking provided in paragraph (c), a replacement Undertaking by the solicitor must be filed undertaking on behalf of the Owner to register the Restrictive Covenant on both property Titles within 30 days of the registration of the transfer document containing the endorsement of the Certificate of Official issued by the Committee of Adjustment for this application and to file a copy of the registered Restrictive Covenant with the Committee within 21 days of the registration of the document.
That the Owner(s) file with the Committee a copy of the registered Reference Plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor registered in the Province of Ontario, and signed by the Registrar, confirming the frontage and area of the severed land. If the Registered Plan does not indicate the lot area, a letter from the Surveyor confirming the area is required. The Registered Reference Plan must conform substantially to the Draft Reference Plan filed with the Application for Consent.
That upon completion of the above conditions, and within the two-year period outlined above, the Owner(s) file with the Committee, the “electronic registration in preparation documents” for the conveyance and grant of easement/right of way for which the Consent is required.

“William Hunter” WILLIAM HUNTER VICE-CHAIR

“Terence Otto” TERENCE OTTO MEMBER

Absent BETH HENDERSON MEMBER

“Martin Vervoort” MARTIN VERVOORT MEMBER

“Jocelyn Chandler” JOCELYN CHANDLER MEMBER

I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated November 10, 2023.

“Michel Bellemare” MICHEL BELLEMARE SECRETARY-TREASURER

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

To appeal this decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), a completed appeal form along with payment must be received by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment by November 30, 2023, delivered by email at cofa@ottawa.ca and/or by mail or courier to the following address:

Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, 101 Centrepointe Drive, 4th floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K2G 5K7

The Appeal Form is available on the OLT website at https://olt.gov.on.ca/. The Ontario Land Tribunal has established a filing fee of $400.00 per type of application with an additional filing fee of $25.00 for each secondary application. Payment can be made by certified cheque or money order made payable to the Ontario Minister of Finance, or by credit card. Please indicate on the Appeal Form if you wish to pay by credit card. If you have any questions about the appeal process, please contact the Committee of Adjustment office by calling 613-580-2436 or by email at cofa@ottawa.ca.

Only the applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body that has an interest in the matter may appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. A “specified person” does not include an individual or a community association.

There are no provisions for the Committee of Adjustment or the Ontario Land Tribunal to extend the statutory deadline to file an appeal. If the deadline is not met, the OLT does not have the authority to hold a hearing to consider your appeal.

If a major change to condition(s) is requested, you will be entitled to receive Notice of the changes only if you have made a written request to be notified.

NOTICE TO APPLICANT(S)

All technical studies must be submitted to Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department a minimum of 40 working days prior to lapsing date of the consent. Should a Development Agreement be required, such request should be initiated 15 working days prior to lapsing date of the consent and should include all required documentation including the approved technical studies.

Ce document est également offert en français.

Committee of Adjustment City of Ottawa Ottawa.ca/CommitteeofAdjustment cofa@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436

Comité de dérogation Ville d’Ottawa Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation cded@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436