Committee of Adjustment / Comité de dérogation

DECISION

MINOR VARIANCE

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

Panel: 1 - Urban

File No(s).: D08-02-24/A-00088

Application: Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act

Owner(s)/Applicant(s): Evan Potter

Property Address: 80 Fourth Avenue

Ward: 17 – Capital

Legal Description: Part of Lot 31 (South of Fourth Avenue), Registered Plan 35085

Zoning: R3Q [1474]

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Heard: May 15, 2024, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Owner/Applicant wants to construct a two-storey coach house at the rear of the property, as shown on plans filed with the Committee. The existing detached garage will be demolished.

REQUESTED VARIANCE:

2The Applicant requires the Committee’s authorization for a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit an increased building height (for the coach house) of 6.21 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height for a coach house of 3.6 metres.

3The application indicates that the Property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.

PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Submissions Summary

4Alain Bisson, Agent for the Applicant, provided an overview of the application. Mr. Bisson explained that, according to the Tree Information Report, one tree (#3) would be removed and replaced with a new tree. Also, he highlighted that excavation measures could be undertaken to mitigate potential damage to tree #4.

5City Planner Penelope Horn expressed concerns over the proposed height and construction of the coach house, highlighting the potential impact to tree #4, a mature tree located on the adjacent property at 82 Fourth Avenue.

6In response to questions from the Committee, City Forester Julian Alvarez-Barham raised concerns over the potential impact to the critical root zone of tree #4. Mr. Alvarez-Barham highlighted that the Tree Information Report submitted by the Applicant did not provide adequate detail regarding what mitigation measures would be undertaken to protect tree #4 during excavation. He added that significant clearance pruning of tree #4 would need to occur prior to construction to allow for the additional height needed for the two-storey structure. Mr. Alvarez-Barham also believed that the proposal could be redesigned to retain tree #3 by utilizing the current footprint of the garage.

7The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individual:

• M. Green, resident, highlighted discrepancies in the Applicant’s submission materials and expressed concerns over the removal of the mature trees, on the subject property as well as on the adjacent property at 82 Fourth Avenue.

8Evan Potter, the Owner of both 80 and 82 Fourth Avenue, indicated his intention to retain tree #4 at 82 Fourth Avenue.

9In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Bisson confirmed the total square feet of the existing dwelling and the proposed coach house, highlighting that the proposal is subsidiary in size to the principal dwelling.

10Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION REFUSED

Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test

11The 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

12Evidence 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, tree information report, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.

• City Planning Report received May 9, 2024, with some concerns.

• Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received May 10, 2024, with no objections.

• Ontario Ministry of Transportation email received May 3, 2024, with no comments.

• M. Green, resident, email received May 14, 2024, with concerns.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

13The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and refused the application.

14Based on the evidence, the Committee is not satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

15The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “some concerns” regarding the application, highlighting that “this proposal would require the removal of a distinctive tree and significant injury to a mature tree on an abutting property. Injury to the neighbouring tree will likely be exacerbated by the minor variance sought to increase the maximum height. As a result, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance does not meet the intent of the Official Plan.”

16The Committee also notes the concerns raised by the City’s Planning Forester regarding the impact of the proposal on the significant tree located on the adjacent property at 82 Fourth Avenue (tree #4), and the evidence presented that there might be an opportunity to redesign the proposed coach house to retain the other large tree, located on the subject property (tree #3). The Committee is also mindful of the City’s Official Plan which states that “the Committee of Adjustment may refuse a development application where it deems the loss of a tree avoidable.”

17Based on the evidence, the Committee is not satisfied that the requested variance is desirable, from a planning and public interest point of view, to override the public interest in retaining both mature trees which contribute to the urban canopy of the neighbourhood.

18The Committee also finds that, in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the removal of the tree #3 is avoidable in this instance, and therefore the requested variance fails to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

19The Committee also finds that, because the removal or loss of either tree would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood, the requested variance is not minor.

20Failing three of the four statutory requirements, the Committee is unable to grant the application.

21THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore does not authorize the requested variance.

“Simon Coakeley” SIMON COAKELEY ACTING PANEL CHAIR

“John Blatherwick” JOHN BLATHERWICK MEMBER

Absent ANN M. TREMBLAY CHAIR

“Arto Keklikian” ARTO KEKLIKIAN MEMBER

Absent SHARON LÉCUYER MEMBER

“William Hunter” WILLIAM HUNTER VICE-CHAIR

“Jay Baltz” JAY BALTZ MEMBER

I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated May 24, 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 June 13, 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