October 17, 2025

P & R High Five Properties Inc., 2025 CanLII 105938

Case Summary

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels and minor variances for reduced lot areas to construct two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units. The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1). The applications were granted subject to conditions.

DECISION

CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE

Date of Decision: October 17, 2025

Panel: 2 - Suburban

Files: D08-01-25/B-00189, D08-02-25/A-00199 & D08-02-25/A-00200

Applications: Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act

Applicant: P & R High Five Properties Inc.

Property Address: 6851 Edgar-Brault Street

Ward: 1 - Orléans East-Cumberland

Legal Description: Part of Lots 11 and 12, Registered Plan 86

Zoning: R1WW

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Heard: October 7, 2025, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS

1The Applicant wants to subdivide their property into two separate parcels of land for the construction of two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units. One of the proposed dwellings will be located on each of the newly created parcels. The existing dwelling will be demolished.

2The Applicant seeks the Committee of Adjustment’s consent to sever land. The property is shown as Part 1 and 2 on a Draft 4R-Plan filed with the applications and the separate parcels will be as follows:

Table 1 Proposed Parcels

File No.	Frontage	Depth	Area	Part No.	Municipal Address
B-00189	11.78 m	36.15 m	411.9 sq. m	1	6849 Edgar-Brault Street Proposed detached dwelling
retained	11.08 m	36.22 m	409.5 sq. m	2	6851 Edgar-Brault Proposed detached dwelling

3The proposal does not comply with the Zoning By-law and therefore minor variance applications have also been filed.

REQUESTED VARIANCE

4The Applicant seeks the Committee of Adjustment’s authorization for minor variances from the Zoning By-law as follows:

A-00199: 6849 Edgar-Brault Street, Part 1 on draft 4R- Plan, proposed detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units:

a) To permit a reduced lot area of 411.9 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 450 square metres.

A-00200: 6851 Edgar-Brault Street, Part 2 on draft 4R- Plan, proposed detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units:

b) To permit a reduced lot area of 409.5 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 450 square metres.

5The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.

PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Submissions Summary

6Syed Yarmohammad and Amrinder Kaur, agents for the Applicant, provided a slide presentation, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request.

7Responding to a question from the Panel, City Forester Nancy Young confirmed that the City would prefer to retain the municipally owned tree at the front of the property that is proposed for removal. Ms. Young also highlighted this concern would be addressed through the requested conditions, and that the removal of this tree would require compensation and the planting of nine replacement trees.

8The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:

P. Bernard, resident, highlighted concerns that the proposal is incompatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighbourhood and about the potential impact of construction on the shared cedar hedges and wildlife.
R. Sauvé, resident, highlighted concerns that the application is not in keeping with the established character of the lower, older section of Edgar-Brault. Mr. Sauvé also highlighted concerns about the impact on the shared cedar hedges between properties, the removal of mature vegetation, increased parking and traffic, snow removal and storage, elevated noise levels, and reduced privacy for neighbouring residents.

9City Planner Elizabeth King confirmed that the City had no concerns with the applications.

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

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:

CONSENT APPLICATION GRANTED
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS GRANTED

11Under 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 Planning Statement, 2024, 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 Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test

12The 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

13Evidence 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, tree information, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received October 2, 2025, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated October 3, 2025, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email dated October 1, 2025, with no comments.
L. & P. Bernard, residents, email dated October 1, 2025, opposed.
R. Sauvé, resident, email dated October 2, 2025, opposed.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

14The Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.

15The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the consent applications, subject to the requested conditions agreed to by the Applicant’s agents.

16Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, that promotes building homes, sustaining strong communities; providing infrastructure and public service facilities in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs; the wise use and management of resources; and, protecting public health and safety.

17The 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.

18Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

19Moreover, 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.

20Based on the evidence, the Committee is also satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

21Considering 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.

22The 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.

23In 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.

24Moreover, 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.

25THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ORDERS that the consent application is granted and the provisional consent is to be given, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this decision.

26THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO ORDERS that the requested minor variance applications are granted and the variances to the Zoning By-law are authorized.

"Fabian Poulin" FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR

"Jay Baltz" JAY BALTZ MEMBER

"George Barrett" GEORGE BARRETT MEMBER

"Heather MacLean" HEATHER MACLEAN MEMBER

Absent JULIANNE WRIGHT MEMBER

I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated October 17, 2025 “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 November 6, 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”

Conditions from Planning and Committee’s standard conditions

The Owner(s) provide evidence that the accompanying minor variance application (D08-01-25/B-00189, D08-02-25/A-00199 & D08-02-25/A-00200) has been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.
That the Owner(s) provide proof 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 cost. The value of the 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 Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, that the existing dwelling/building has been demolished in accordance with the demolition permit. Notice shall be provided in writing to the Committee from the Department confirming this condition has been fulfilled.
That the Owner(s) provide evidence, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards, Planning, Development and Building Services Department, that each existing parcel has its own independent storm, sanitary and water services connected to City infrastructure and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line. If they do cross or are not independent, the Owner(s) will be required, at their own cost, to relocate the existing services or construct new services from the City sewers/watermain. Notice shall be provided in writing to the Committee from the Department confirming this condition has been fulfilled.
That the Owner(s) provide a Stormwater Management Report, prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer, licensed in the Province of Ontario, demonstrating a design for post-development stormwater peak flows that are controlled to pre-development peak flows for all stormwater events up to and including the 100 year storm event. The report shall be to the satisfaction of and approved by the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.

If the Stormwater Management Report includes infiltration techniques, the Owner(s) must provide a supporting Geotechnical Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, for approval by the Manager of 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 any required stormwater system, which may include 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(s) provide proof 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, delineating the existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained lands has been provided to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch 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 the 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 Insert ROW Name, fronting the subject lands, to the limits shown on the approved Site Servicing Plan. Where the approved Site Servicing Plan demonstrates the resurfacing is not required, based on the City’s Road Cut Resurfacing Policy, the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, shall deem this condition satisfied.
That the Owner provide a Slope Stability Analysis, that generally concludes the proposed development is feasible, prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer or professional geoscientist, licensed in the Province of Ontario, to the satisfaction of both the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
That the Owner/Applicant(s) provide a Grading and Servicing Plan with the proposed elements (driveways, parking, retaining walls, projections, services, etc.) designed and located based on the least impact to protected trees and tree cover, as well as a revised Tree Information Report reflecting these changes to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
That the Owner/Applicant(s) provide a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, showing the location(s) and species or ultimate size of at least one new tree (50 mm caliper) per lot, in addition to any compensation trees required under the Tree Protection By-law.
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.