Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
December 20, 2024
Panel:
2 - Suburban
D08-01-24/B-00228
D08-02-24/A-00280 & D08-02-24/A-00278
Applications:
Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act
Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicants:
Michele Sacca and Giovanni Bucciarelli
Property Address:
143 Oakridge Boulevard
Ward:
8 - College
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 32, Concession 1 (Rideau Front), Geographic Township of Nepean
Zoning:
R1FF
Zoning By-law:
2008-250
Heard:
December 10, 2024, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS
1The Applicants want to subdivide their property into two separate parcels of land for the construction of two detached dwellings, as shown on plans filed with the Committee. The existing dwelling is to be demolished.
CONSENT REQUIRED:
2The Applicants require the Committee’s consent to sever land.
3The severed land is shown as Part 2 on a draft 4R-Plan filed with the applications, will have a frontage of 15.54 metres, a depth of 41.45 metres and a lot area of
644.2 square metres. This parcel will contain a proposed detached dwelling and will be known municipally as 141 Oakridge Boulevard.
4The property to be retained is shown as Part 1 on said plan, will have a frontage of
15.55 metres, a depth of 41.46 metres and a lot area of 644.7 square metres. This parcel will contain a proposed detached dwelling and will be known municipally as 143 Oakridge Boulevard.
5Approval of these applications will have the effect of creating two 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-00278 & D08- 02-24/A-00280) have been filed and will be heard concurrently with these applications.
REQUESTED VARIANCES:
6The Applicants seek the Committee of Adjustment’s authorization for minor variances from the Zoning By-law as follows:
A-00280: 143 Oakridge Boulevard, Part 1 on draft 4R-Plan, proposed detached dwelling:
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 15.55 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 19.5 metres.
A-00278: 141 Oakridge Boulevard, Part 2 on draft 4R-Plan, proposed detached dwelling:
b) To permit a reduced lot width of 15.54 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 19.5 metres.
7The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
8Peter Hume, agent for the Applicants, highlighted concerns with the imposition of a stormwater management brief as a condition of approval as outlined in the City’s Planning Report. He requested that the condition be removed as it would require redesigning the proposed dwellings.
9When questioned by the Committee, City Planner Elizabeth King explained that the stormwater management brief, along with the grading and drainage plan conditions were imposed to address drainage issues within the City View Community.
10The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individual:
- Nancy Wilson, City View Community Association, highlighted that the imposition of a stormwater management brief condition would help to address flooding issues and protect other properties in the neighbourhood.
11Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
Evidence
12Evidence 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 Report received December 5, 2024, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated December 9, 2024, with no comments.
Hydro Ottawa email dated December 6, 2024, with comments.
Hydro One email received December 3, 2024, with no comments.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation email received November 22, 2024, with no comments.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:
CONSENT APPLICATION GRANTED
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Consent Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
13Under 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).
Minor Variance Applications Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
14The Committee 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
15The Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.
16The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the consent applications, subject to the requested conditions.
17The majority of the Committee (Member H. MacLean dissenting) also finds that, in this instance, the requirement for stormwater management brief is a reasonable and necessary condition of provisional consent.
18Based 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.
19The 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.
20Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.
21Moreover, 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.
22Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
23The Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the requested variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
24Considering 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.
25The 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.
26In 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.
27Moreover, the Committee finds that the requested variances, are minor because they will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood in general.
28THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore grants the provisional consent, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix “A” to this decision.
29THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT also authorizes the requested variances.
"Fabian Poulin" FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR
"Jay Baltz" JAY BALTZ MEMBER
"George Barrett" GEORGE BARRETT MEMBER
"Heather MacLean" HEATHER MACLEAN MEMBER
"Julianne Wright" JULIANNE WRIGHT MEMBER
I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated December 20, 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 January 9, 2025.
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 cofa@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436
Comité de dérogation Ville d’Ottawa Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation cded@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436
APPENDIX “A”
The Owner(s) provide evidence that the accompanying minor variance application (D08-02-24/A-00280 & D08-02-24/A-00278) has been approved, with all levels of 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(s) provide proof to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, that the existing dwelling/building and accessory structures have been removed or relocated in compliance with the Zoning By-law.
That the Owner(s) provide evidence to the satisfaction of both the Chief Building Official and Development Review Manager, Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or designates, that both severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and storm connection as appropriate, and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line and are connected directly to City infrastructure. Further, the Owner(s) shall comply with 7.1.5.4(1) of the Ontario Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12 as amended. If necessary, a plumbing permit shall be obtained from Building Code Services for any required alterations.
That the Owner(s) submit a Stormwater Management Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, demonstrating a design for controlling post-development stormwater peak flows to pre-development peak flows for all stormwater events up to the 100 year storm event, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee,
If the Stormwater Management Brief includes infiltration techniques, the Owner(s) must submit a supporting Geotechnical Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, for approval by the Development Review Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
- That the Owner(s) enter into a Development Agreement with the City to construct the required stormwater system, including posting required securities. A copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title, shall be forwarded to the Committee of Adjustment.
If applicable, the Owner(s) shall obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Should the stormwater management system cross property lines or access to the system be over multiple properties, that the Owner will seek approval of the Committee to grant easement(s) for access and maintenance of the stormwater system or register a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement on title of the properties, all at the owner(s) costs.
- That the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner, which is to be registered on Title to deal with the covenants/notices that shall run with the land and bind future owners on subsequent transfers;
“The property is located next to lands that have an existing source of environmental noise (Collector road, highway, airport, etc) and may therefore be subject to noise and other activities associated with that use”
The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. 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(s) shall provide evidence that a grading and drainage plan, prepared by a qualified Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, an Ontario Land Surveyor or a Certified Engineering Technologist, has been submitted to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee. The grading and drainage plan shall delineate existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained properties, to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
That the Owner(s) enter into a resurfacing agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the Program Manager, Right of Way Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, and provide financial security in accordance with the Road Activity By-law, as amended, to install an asphalt overlay over the roadway surface of Oakridge Boulevard, fronting the subject lands, to the limits shown on the approved Site Servicing Plan. Where the approved Site Servicing Plan demonstrates that resurfacing is not required based on the City’s Road Cut Resurfacing Policy, the Development Review Manager of the All-Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, shall deem this condition satisfied.
That the Owner/Applicant(s) provide a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within the Planning, Building and Development Department, or their designate(s), showing the location(s) and species or ultimate size of all compensation trees required under the Tree Protection By-law and/or one new tree (50 mm caliper) per lot.
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.