Douglas Garland (Re), 2024 CanLII 148882

DECISION

CONSENT/SEVERANCE

Date of Decision: April 12, 2024

Panel: 3 - Rural

File No(s).: D08-01-22/B-00267 & D08-01-22/B-00268

Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act

Owner(s)/Applicant(s): Douglas Garland

Property Address: 7604 Franktown Road

Ward: 21 – Rideau-Jock

Legal Description: Part of Lots 12 and 13, Concession 3, former Township of Goulbourn

Zoning: RU

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Hearing Date: April 2, 2024, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS

1The Owner wants to subdivide its property into three separate parcels of land to create two new lots for future residential development. The existing dwelling will remain.

2On March 1, 2023, the Committee adjourned these applications to allow the Owner to revise the proposal.

3The Owner requires the Committee’s consent to sever its property. The property is shown as Parts A, B and C on a sketch filed with the applications, and the separate parcels will be as follows:

Table 1 Proposed Parcels

File No.	Frontage	Depth	Area	Parcel	Municipal Address
B-00267	88.7 m	137.16 m	1.21 ha	B	7521 Jock Trail
B-00268	198.31 m	65.58 m	1.36 ha	C	7610 Franktown Road

4The retained land (Parcel A) will have a frontage of 728.08 metres, a depth of 1,295.04 metres and a lot area of 136.64 hectares. This parcel will contain the existing dwelling and will be known municipally as 7604 Franktown Road.

PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Submissions Summary

5Michael Segreto, Agent for the Applicant, confirmed that he had no concerns with the City’s requested conditions of provisional consent.

6City Planner Luke Teeft was also in attendance.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATIONS GRANTED

Applications Must Satisfy Statutory Tests

7Under 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).

Evidence

8Evidence 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, environmental impact statement, plans, minimum distance separation sketch, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received March 26, 2024, with no concerns; received March 14, 2024, with no concerns; received February 27, 2023, with concerns and requesting adjournment.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received March 27, 2024, with comments; received March 12, 2024, with no objections; received February 23, 2023, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received March 27, 2024, with no comments; received March 13, 2024, with comments; received February 27, 2023, with comments.
Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority email received March 20, 2024, with no comments.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation email received March 22, 2024, with no comments.
W. Laughland, resident, by phone, March 11, 2024, with concerns.
L. Sutton, resident, email received March 19, 2024, with concerns.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

9The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

10The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the applications, highlighting that “[s]taff previously had concerns over the proposed fragmentation of [wetlands], however the latest submission avoids fragmenting these features and addresses our concerns.”

11Based 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. The 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. Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Moreover, 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.

12THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore grants the provisional consent, subject to the following conditions, which must be fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of this Decision:

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) enter into an Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the relevant Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be placed on title that includes the development envelope(s) and mitigation measures identified in the “Proposed Severances – 7604 Franktown Road Environmental Impact Statement” provided by Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc. and dated June 6, 2022.
That the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, which provides the following covenants/notices that run with the land and binds future Owner(s) on subsequent transfers:

“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.”

“The City of Ottawa has identified that there are potential thin soils and karst topography 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 homeowner.”

The agreement must also include the development envelope(s) and mitigation measures identified in the “Proposed Severances – 7604 Franktown Road Environmental Impact Statement” provided by Muncaster Environmental PlanningInc. and dated June 6, 2022.

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 the Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department and to the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority to be confirmed in writing from the PREDD and the Authority to the Committee, demonstrating the following:

That all parcels to be created by this application are or can be made suitable for residential purposes (slope stability, erosion protection, karst topography, and building limits adjacent to slopes);
That there are no adverse environmental impacts.

The Geotechnical Report shall, as a minimum, determine the limit of karst topography present on the severed parcel and provide recommendations for construction methods based on the soil types encountered.

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 (arterial road) and may therefore be subject to noise and other activities associated with that use.”

The Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her 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 acknowledges and agrees to convey to the City, at no cost to the City, an unencumbered road widening across the complete frontage of the lands, measuring 15 meters from the existing centerline of pavement/the abutting rightof-way along Franktown Road and 13 meters from the existing centerline of pavement/the abutting right-of-way along Jock Trail, pursuant to Section 50.1(25)(c) of the Planning Act and Schedule C16 of the City’s new Official Plan, if required. The exact widening must be determined by legal survey. The Owner shall provide a reference plan for registration, indicating the widening to the City Surveyor for review and approval prior to its deposit in the Land Registry Office. Such reference plan must be tied to the Horizontal Control Network in accordance with the municipal requirements and guidelines for referencing legal surveys. The Owner(s) must provide to the City Surveyor a copy of the Committee of Adjustment Decision and a draft Reference Plan that sets out the required widening. The Committee requires written confirmation from City Legal Services that the transfer of the widening to the City has been registered. All costs shall be borne by the Owner.
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:

That the construction of any new well on the severed parcel is in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
That the quality of the water meets the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Regulations, Standards, Guidelines and Objectives;
That the quantity of water meets all the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requirements
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 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 the Development Review Manager of the Rural Branch within the Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate.

That the Owner(s) satisfy the requirements of Hydro Ottawa with respect to the relocation of the existing overhead services or grant an easement as required, the consent to which is hereby granted.
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 the conveyances for which the Consent is required.

“William Hunter” WILLIAM HUNTER VICE-CHAIR

“Terence Otto” TERENCE OTTO 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 April 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 May 2, 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.

If a major change to condition(s) is requested, you will be entitled to receive Notice of the changes only if you have made a written request to be notified.

NOTICE TO APPLICANT(S)

All technical studies must be submitted to Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department a minimum of 40 working days prior to lapsing date of the consent. Should a Development Agreement be required, such request should be initiated 15 working days prior to lapsing date of the consent and should include all required documentation including the approved technical studies.

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