Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
MINOR VARIANCE
Panel: 2 - Suburban
Application: Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant: Ken Parent
Property Address: 383 Longworth Avenue
Ward: 22 - Riverside South-Finlay Creek
Legal Description: Lot 41, Registered Plan 4M-1624
Zoning: R4Z
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Heard: July 2, 2024, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
1The Applicant has constructed a deck on the rear of their property, as shown on plans filed with the Committee. It has since been determined that the deck is not in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law.
REQUESTED VARIANCE
2The Applicant requires the Committee’s authorization for a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit a deck to project 4.6 metres into the rear yard, whereas the By-law permits a deck to project a maximum of 2.0 metres into the rear yard.
3The subject property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
4Tyler Yakichuk, Agent for the Applicant, and City Planner Samantha Gatchene were present.
5There were no objections to granting this unopposed application as part of the Panel’s fast-track consent agenda.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED
Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
6The 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
7Evidence 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, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received June 27, 2024, with no concerns.
South Nation Conservation Authority email received June 25, 2024, with no comments.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received June 28, 2024, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received July 2, 2024, with no comments.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
8The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.
9Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the requested variance meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
10The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application highlighting that, “Staff have no concerns because the deck structure only covers a portion of the rear yard, maintaining landscape space and the rear yard abuts a naturalized area, so impacts are minimal.”
11The Committee also notes that the application seeks to legalize, after the fact, an already-built structure that does not comply with zoning regulations. The Committee does not condone the practice of building first and asking for permission later. An owner who does so runs the risk, like any other applicant, of having their application denied. The additional risk if the Committee refuses to authorize a minor variance for an already-built, non-compliant structure could be the requirement to either bring it into compliance or remove it, regardless of any cost or hardship to the owner. However, whether the proposal has already been built does not factor into the Committee’s decision, either negatively or favourably. The Committee must consider each application on its merits, based on the evidence and according to the four-part statutory test. The Planning Act does not set out a fifth test as to whether an owner has contravened municipal regulations relating to construction. Instead, it is the City’s exclusive role to address construction-related concerns and enforce its own by-laws. The Committee has no jurisdiction over such matters
12The Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the variance would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
13Considering 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.
14The 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.
15In 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.
16Moreover, 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.
17THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore authorizes the requested variance.
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 July 12, 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 August 1, 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