November 15, 2024

Roxane John and Goshusp Maneck John, 2024 CanLII 146590

Case Summary

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 1.82 square metre portion of their property to the abutting property owner. The conveyance would resolve an existing garage eave encroachment. The Committee of Adjustment found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act. The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

DECISION

CONSENT/SEVERANCE

Date of Decision: November 15, 2024

Panel: 1 - Urban

File No.: D08-01-24/B-00150

Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act

Applicants: Roxane John and Goshusp Maneck John

Property Address: 1 Second Avenue

Ward: 17 - Capital

Legal Description: Part of Lots E and F, Registered Plan 35085

Zoning: R3Q [1474]

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Heard: November 6, 2024, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Applicants want to convey a portion of their property to the abutting property owner to the east, known municipally as 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

2The Applicants require the Committee’s consent for a lot line adjustment.

3The severed property is shown as Part 1 on a draft 4R-plan filed with the application, is landlocked and will contain an area of 1.82 square metres. This vacant land will be merged with the property to the west, known municipally as 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

4The retained property, shown on the draft 4R-plan filed with the application, has a frontage of 10.21 metres, an irregular depth, and will contain a lot area of 397.4 square metres. This parcel is known as 1 Second Avenue.

5The Application indicates the property is subject to existing easements as in N508046 and N382728.

6A reciprocal consent application (D08-01-24/B-00151) has been filed by the abutting property owner at 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway as part of a mutual land exchange and will be heard concurrently with this application.

7The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.

PUBLIC HEARING

8On September 18, 2024, the Committee adjourned the scheduled hearing of the application to allow the Agent time to file a minor variance application to accompany the reciprocal consent application for 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

Oral Submissions Summary

9Arjan Soor and Murray Chown, Agents for the Applicant, provided a slide presentation, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request.

10In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Chown explained the garage at 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway shares a wall with the garage at 1 Second Avenue. Mr. Chown also confirmed the existing eave of the garage at 1 Second Avenue encroaches onto the portion of land being transferred to 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway. Mr. Chown confirmed that through the renovations of both garages this encroachment would be eliminated.

11City Planner Penelope Horn highlighted no concerns with the application.

12The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:

G. Weston, resident, raised concerns regarding the reconstruction of the garage at 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway, as this existing structure shared a common wall with his dwelling 312 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

13Michael Polowin, also acting as Agent for the Applicant, clarified that the common wall is an existing condition and no variances regarding it are being sought. He confirmed that an agreement binding current and future owners could be created.

14Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED

Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests

15Under 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

16Evidence 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 revised cover letter, plans, tree information, parcel register abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received October 31, 2024, with no concerns; received September 12, 2024, requesting adjournment.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated November 1, 2024, with no objections; received September 16, 2024, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email dated November 1, 2024, with comments; received September 16, 2024, with no objections.
Hydro One email dated October 31, 2024, with no concerns; received September 9, 2024, with no comments.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation email dated October 18, 2024, with no comments; September 9, 2024, with no comments.
G. Weston, resident, email received November 5, 2024, with concerns; received September 17, 2024, requesting adjournment.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

17The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

18The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application subject to the requested conditions agreed to by the Applicant’s Agent.

19Based 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.

20THE 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 east, known municipally as 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway 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) satisfy the requirements of Hydro Ottawa with respect to the relocation of the existing overhead services or grant an easement as required, the consent to which is hereby granted.
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 lot line adjustment for which the Consent is required.

"Ann M. Tremblay" ANN M. TREMBLAY CHAIR

"John Blatherwick" JOHN BLATHERWICK ACTING PANEL CHAIR

"Arto Keklikian" ARTO KEKLIKIAN MEMBER

"Simon Coakeley" SIMON COAKELEY MEMBER

ABSENT SHARON LÉCUYER MEMBER

“Heather Maclean” HEATHER MACLEAN MEMBER

I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated November 15, 2024

“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 December 5, 2024, 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 APPLICANTS

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 30 working days prior to lapsing date of the consent and should include all required documentation including that related to transfers, easements, and postponements, and all approved technical studies. If you do not fulfill the conditions of provisional consent within the two-year period, the Planning Act provides that your application “shall be deemed to be refused”.

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

November 15, 2024

Roxane John and Goshusp Maneck John, 2024 CanLII 146590

Case Summary

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 1.82 square metre portion of their property to the abutting property owner. The conveyance would resolve an existing garage eave encroachment. The Committee of Adjustment found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act. The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

DECISION

CONSENT/SEVERANCE

Date of Decision: November 15, 2024

Panel: 1 - Urban

File No.: D08-01-24/B-00150

Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act

Applicants: Roxane John and Goshusp Maneck John

Property Address: 1 Second Avenue

Ward: 17 - Capital

Legal Description: Part of Lots E and F, Registered Plan 35085

Zoning: R3Q [1474]

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Heard: November 6, 2024, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Applicants want to convey a portion of their property to the abutting property owner to the east, known municipally as 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

2The Applicants require the Committee’s consent for a lot line adjustment.

3The severed property is shown as Part 1 on a draft 4R-plan filed with the application, is landlocked and will contain an area of 1.82 square metres. This vacant land will be merged with the property to the west, known municipally as 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

4The retained property, shown on the draft 4R-plan filed with the application, has a frontage of 10.21 metres, an irregular depth, and will contain a lot area of 397.4 square metres. This parcel is known as 1 Second Avenue.

5The Application indicates the property is subject to existing easements as in N508046 and N382728.

6A reciprocal consent application (D08-01-24/B-00151) has been filed by the abutting property owner at 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway as part of a mutual land exchange and will be heard concurrently with this application.

7The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.

PUBLIC HEARING

8On September 18, 2024, the Committee adjourned the scheduled hearing of the application to allow the Agent time to file a minor variance application to accompany the reciprocal consent application for 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

Oral Submissions Summary

9Arjan Soor and Murray Chown, Agents for the Applicant, provided a slide presentation, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request.

10In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Chown explained the garage at 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway shares a wall with the garage at 1 Second Avenue. Mr. Chown also confirmed the existing eave of the garage at 1 Second Avenue encroaches onto the portion of land being transferred to 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway. Mr. Chown confirmed that through the renovations of both garages this encroachment would be eliminated.

11City Planner Penelope Horn highlighted no concerns with the application.

12The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:

G. Weston, resident, raised concerns regarding the reconstruction of the garage at 314 Queen Elizabeth Driveway, as this existing structure shared a common wall with his dwelling 312 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.

13Michael Polowin, also acting as Agent for the Applicant, clarified that the common wall is an existing condition and no variances regarding it are being sought. He confirmed that an agreement binding current and future owners could be created.

14Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED

Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests

15Under 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

16Evidence 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 revised cover letter, plans, tree information, parcel register abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received October 31, 2024, with no concerns; received September 12, 2024, requesting adjournment.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated November 1, 2024, with no objections; received September 16, 2024, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email dated November 1, 2024, with comments; received September 16, 2024, with no objections.
Hydro One email dated October 31, 2024, with no concerns; received September 9, 2024, with no comments.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation email dated October 18, 2024, with no comments; September 9, 2024, with no comments.
G. Weston, resident, email received November 5, 2024, with concerns; received September 17, 2024, requesting adjournment.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

17The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

18The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application subject to the requested conditions agreed to by the Applicant’s Agent.

19Based 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.

20THE 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: