Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
MINOR VARIANCE / PERMISSION
Panel: 3 - Rural
Application: Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicants: Loraine Hogg and Allen Wharry
Property Address: 8597 Franktown Road
Ward: 21 – Rideau-Jock
Legal Description: Part of Lot 1, Plan 4M-360, Geographic Township of Goulbourn
Zoning: RR2 [197r]
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Heard: August 6, 2024, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
1The Applicants want to subdivide their property into three separate parcels of land to create two new lots for residential development.
REQUESTED VARIANCE
2The Applicants require the Committee’s authorization for a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced minimum distance separation of 134 metres from an existing livestock facility to the proposed lot line (27 Skeel Court), whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum distance separation of 185 metres.
3The subject property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
4At the outset of the hearing, the Committee called the Applicant’s Agent forward to determine if an adjournment of the applications would be necessary to confirm that the septic system does not cross the proposed property lines. Jordan Jackson, Agent for the Applicants, and City Planner, Luke Teeft, both confirmed that the conditions requested in the City’s report would address the septic system and confirm that it does not cross the property line.
5The Committee agreed to hear the applications without delay.
Oral Submissions Summary
6Ms. Jackson provided a slide presentation, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request. She highlighted concerns with the imposition of a Mineral Resource Impact Assessment report as a condition of approval, as she indicated that the assessment was already filed with the applications. She further requested that an Environmental Impact Study as a condition of approval be removed as the development envelopes had been provided within a 30 metres setback from any watercourse.
7Mr. Teeft confirmed that a condition requiring a Mineral Resource Impact Assessment would be required due to the sand and gravel overlay in close proximity to the proposed parcels. He further confirmed that he would be agreeable to the condition for an Environmental Impact Study not being imposed.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED
Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
8The 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.
Evidence
9Evidence considered by the Committee included any 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 abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received August 1, 2024, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received August 2, 2024, with comments.
Hydro Ottawa email received August 2, 2024, with no concerns.
Hydro One email received July 24, 2024, with no comments.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
10The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.
11Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the requested variance meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
12The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application highlighting that “the requested variance to the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback has been deemed acceptable”.
13The Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the variance would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
14Considering the circumstances, the Committee finds that because the proposal fits well in the area the requested variance is, 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.
15The Committee also finds that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan because the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood.
16In addition, the Committee finds that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law because the proposal represents orderly development that is compatible with the surrounding area.
17Moreover, the Committee finds that the requested variance, is minor because it will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood in general.
18THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore authorizes the requested variance.
Terence Otto TERENCE OTTO VICE-CHAIR
Gary Duncan GARY DUNCAN 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 August 16, 2024.
“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 September 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.
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