Samantha Parker and Scott McGuire, 2023 CanLII 152484

DECISION

CONSENT/SEVERANCE

Date of Decision: October 13, 2023

Panel: 3 - Rural

File No(s).: D08-01-23/B-00216

Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act

Owner(s)/Applicant(s): Samantha Parker and Scott McGuire

Property Address: 2886 Mackey Road

Ward: 21 – Rideau-Jock

Legal Description: Part of Lot 4, Concession 3, former Geographic Township of Marlborough (Rideau)

Zoning: RU

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Hearing Date: October 3, 2023, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Owners wants to subdivide their property into two separate parcels of land to create one new lot for future residential development.

2The Owners require the Committee’s consent to sever.

3The severed property is shown on a Sketch filed with the application, will have a frontage of 75 metres, a depth of 255.7 metres, and a lot area of 19,178 square metres. This parcel will be municipally known as 2868 Mackey Road.

4The retained property is shown on said Sketch, has a frontage of 205.5 metres on Mackey Road and 202.5 metres on Cowell Road, an irregular depth and a lot area of 430,112 metres squared and is known municipally as 2886 Mackey Road. This parcel will contain the existing dwelling with outbuildings.

PUBLIC HEARING

5Prior to the hearing, the Committee received an adjournment request from City Planning staff due to errors in the Official Plan Policies. At the hearing, the Committee heard from Luke Teeft, City Planner, who reiterated the request for adjournment.

6The Committee also heard from Tracy Zander, Agent for the Applicant, who requested that the Committee hear the applications.

7The Committee agreed to hear the applications without further delay.

Oral Submissions Summary

8Ms. Zander requested confirmation that the sketch provided with the application would be sufficient for the condition regarding a development agreement in the report from the City planning. She further requested that the road widening being requested in the report as a condition of provision consent on Cowell Road not be imposed.

9Mr. Teeft confirmed that the sketch filed with the application would be used to delineate the boundaries in the development agreement and further confirmed that the road widening on Cowell Road is required.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED

Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests

10Under 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

11Evidence 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 a cover letter, plans, a minimum distance separation report, a letter from a solicitor, a property transfer, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received September 29, 2023, requesting adjournment.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated September 29, 2023, with no objections.
Hydro One email dated September 5, 2023, with no comments.
Ministry of Transportation email dated September 21, 2023, with no comments.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

12The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

13The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report “requests an adjournment” of the application, highlighting the proposal does not meet the intent of the Official Plan.

14Based 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.

15THE 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(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.
That That the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, which provides the following covenant/notice that runs with the land and binds future Owner(s) on subsequent transfers:

“The City of Ottawa does not guarantee the quality or quantity of the groundwater. If, at some future date, the quality or the quantity of the groundwater becomes deficient, the City of Ottawa bears no responsibility, financial or otherwise, to provide solutions to the deficiency, such solutions being the sole responsibility of the homeowner.”

The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.

That the Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey to the City, at no cost to the City, an unencumbered road widening across the complete frontage of the lands, measuring 13 meters from the existing centerline of pavement/the abutting right- of-way along Cowell Road and 13 meters from the existing centerline of pavement/the abutting right-of-way along Mackey Road, pursuant to Section 50.1(25)(c) of the Planning Act and Schedule C16 of the City’s new Official Plan. 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. The Committee requires written confirmation from City Legal Services that the transfer of the widening to the City has been registered. All costs shall be borne by the Owner.
That the Owners provide a report, to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa, demonstrating the adequacy of the aquifer with respect to quality and quantity to support the proposed development, failing which the Owners construct a new well on the severed lot and provide a report, to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa, to demonstrate the adequacy of the aquifer with respect to quality and quantity to support the proposed development. The report must include a septic impact assessment to evaluate the water quality impact of the on-site septic system on the receiving aquifer.

The Owners’ report must demonstrate the following to the City of Ottawa:

That the construction of any new well on the severed parcel is in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
That the quality of the water meets the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Regulations, Standards, Guidelines and Objectives;
That the quantity of water meets all the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requirements.
That the septic impact assessment meets the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requirements.

A qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist must prepare the report. It is the Owner’s responsibility to coordinate the person drilling a new well, if required, and the professional noted herein in order to properly satisfy this condition.

If the accepted report recommends specific mitigation measures or design requirements, the Owners shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owners, which is to be registered on the title of the property, which includes those recommendations. In instances where the subject site has sensitive soils, the drilling of a well or the conveyance of a

30-centimetre reserve may be required. Both the report and any required Development Agreement shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Development Review Manager of the Rural Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate.

That the Owner(s) enter into an Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be placed on title that includes the development envelope and buffer areas identified in the “Chiasson and Villeneuve Severance Sketch” provided by Zanderplan and dated July 11, 2023.
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 a Conveyance for which the Consent is required.

“William Hunter” WILLIAM HUNTER VICE-CHAIR

“Terence Otto” TERENCE OTTO MEMBER

“Beth Henderson” 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 October 13, 2023

“Matthew Garnett” Matthew Garnett Acting 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 2, 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