Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
November 29, 2024
Panel:
3 - Rural
D08-01-24/B-00207 & D08-01-24/B-00208 and D08-02- 24/A-00260 & D08-02-24/A-00262
Applications:
Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act
Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant:
Jocelyn McLaughlin
Property Address:
6437 Prince of Wales Drive
Ward:
21 - Rideau-Jock
Legal Description
Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Geographic Township of Rideau
Zoning
V1C [309r]
Zoning By-law:
2008-250
Heard:
November 19, 2024, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS
1The Applicant wants to subdivide their property into three separate parcels of land to create two new lots for future residential development.
CONSENT REQUIRED
2The Applicant seeks the Committee’s consent to sever the land. The property is shown as Lots 1 & 2 on a sketch filed with the applications and the separate parcels will be as follows:
Table 1 Proposed Parcels
File No.
Frontage
Depth
Area
Part No.
Municipal Address
B-00207
55 metres
irregular
0.4 hectares
Lot 1
6433 Prince of Wales Drive
B-00208
56 metres
irregular
0.4 hectares
Lot 2
6441 Prince of Wales Drive
3The retained land shown on said sketch, will have a frontage of 26 metres, an irregular depth, and a lot area of 1.3 hectares. It will be known municipally as 6437 Prince of Wales Drive.
4Approval of these applications will have the effect of creating separate parcels of land that will not be in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and therefore, minor variance applications (File Nos. D08-02-24/A-00260, D08-02- 24/A-00262 & D08- 02-24/A-00262) have been filed and will be heard concurrently with these applications.
REQUESTED VARIANCES:
5The Applicant seeks the Committee’s authorization for the following minor variances from the Zoning By-law:
A-00260: 6433 Prince of Wales Drive (Lot 1):
6To permit a reduced lot width of 25 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 45 metres, for a lot entirely on private services.
A-00261: 6441 Prince of Wales Drive (Lot 2):
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 26 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 45 metres, for a lot entirely on private services.
A-00262: 6437 Prince of Wales Drive (retained land):
c) To permit a reduced lot width of 15 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 45 metres, for a lot entirely on private services.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
7Ryan Poulton, Agent for the Applicant provided an overview of the applications and advised that the way the lot width is measured in relation to the property lines necessitated the requested variances.
8City Planner Nivethini Jekku Einkaran confirmed that she had no concerns with the applications.
9The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individual:
- K. Cavanagh, resident, highlighted his concern with the location of the lot line in relation to his property.
Evidence
10Evidence 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:
Applications and supporting documents, including cover letter, plans, parcel abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning revised Report received November 18, 2024, with no concerns; received November 14, 2024, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated November 15, 2024, with no comments.
Hydro Ottawa email received November 15, 2024, with no comments.
Hydro One, email received November 13, 2024, with no comments.
DECISION AND REASONS:
CONSENT APPLICATIONS GRANTED
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Consent Applications Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
11Under the Planning Act, the Committee of Adjustment 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).
Minor variance Applications Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
12The Committee of Adjustment has the power to authorize a minor variance from the provisions of the Zoning By-law if, in its opinion, the application meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. It requires consideration of whether the variance is minor, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, and whether the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law are maintained.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
13The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.
14The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the applications, subject to the requested conditions agreed to by the Applicant’s agent.
15Based 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.
16The 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.
17Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.
18Moreover, 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.
19Based on the evidence, the Committee is also satisfied that the requested variances meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
20The Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the requested variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
21Considering the circumstances, the Committee finds that, because the proposal fits well in the area, the requested variances are, from a planning and public interest point of view, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure on the property, and relative to the neighbouring lands.
22The Committee also finds that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan because the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood.
23In addition, the Committee finds that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law because the proposal represents orderly development that is compatible with the surrounding area.
24Moreover, the Committee finds that the requested variances, both individually and cumulatively, are minor because they will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood in general.
25THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore grants the provisional consent, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix “A” to this decision.
26THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT also authorizes the requested variances.
"Terence Otto" TERENCE OTTO VICE-CHAIR
"Gary Duncan" GARY DUNCAN MEMBER
"Beth Henderson" BETH HENDERSON MEMBER
"Martin Vervoort" MARTIN VERVOORT MEMBER
Absent
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 29, 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 and the filing fee must be submitted via one of the below options and must be received no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 19, 2024.
OLT E-FILE SERVICE – An appeal can be filed online through the E-File Portal . First-time users will need to register for a My Ontario Account. Select [Ottawa (City): Committee of Adjustment] as the Approval Authority. To complete the appeal, fill in all the required fields and provide the filing fee by credit card.
BY EMAIL - Appeal packages can be submitted by email to cofa@ottawa.ca. The appeal form is available on the OLT website at Forms | Ontario Land Tribunal. Please indicate on the appeal form that payment will be made by credit card.
IN PERSON – Appeal packages can be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, 101 Centrepointe Drive, 4th floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K2G 5K7. The appeal form is available on the OLT website at Forms | Ontario Land Tribunal. In person 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.
Please note only one of the above options needs to be completed. If your preferred method of appeal is not available at the time of filing, the appeal must be filed with one of the other two options.
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.
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 you have any questions about the appeal process, please visit File an Appeal | Ontario Land Tribunal
NOTICE TO APPLICANT(S)
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
613-580-2436
Comité de dérogation
Ville d’Ottawa
Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation
613-580-2436
APPENDIX “A”
The Owner (s) provide evidence that the accompanying minor variance applications D08-02-24/A-00260 & D08-02-24/A-00262 been approved, with all appeal exhausted.
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 the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, which provides the following covenants/notices that runs with the land and binds future Owner(s) on subsequent transfers:
a) “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.”
b) “The property is located next to lands that have an existing source of environmental noise (Prince of Wales Drive is an Arterial Road) and may therefore be subject to noise and other activities associated with that use.”
c) “The City of Ottawa has identified that there are potential sensitive marine clay soils within the area that may require site specific detailed geotechnical engineering solutions to allow for development, the City of Ottawa bears no responsibility, financial or otherwise, to provide solutions to the deficiency, such solutions being the sole responsibility of the home owner.”
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 provide a Geotechnical Report prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, that is satisfactory to both Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate and to the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) to be confirmed in writing from the PDBS and the Authority to the Committee, demonstrating the following:
(a) That all parcels to be created by this application are or can be made suitable for residential purposes (slope stability, erosion protection, and building limits adjacent to slopes);
(b) That there are no adverse environmental impacts.
The Geotechnical Report shall, as a minimum, determine the limit of sensitive marine clays present on the severed parcel and provide recommendations for construction methods based on the soil types encountered.
- 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:
a) That the construction of any new well on the severed parcel is in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
b) That the quality of the water meets the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Regulations, Standards, Guidelines and Objectives;
c) That the quantity of water meets all the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requirements.
d) 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 and/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 All Wards Manager Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
The Report shall be prepared as per Procedure D-5-4 “Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment” and Procedure D-5-5 “Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment”.
- 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 grant of conveyance for which the Consent is required.