Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION MINOR VARIANCE
Panel: 3 - Rural
File: D08-02-25/A-00204
Application: Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant: Z. Kang
Property Address: 236 Cedar Pond Road
Ward: 5 - West Carleton-March
Legal Description: Lot 10, Registered Plan 4M-1534
Zoning: RR
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Heard: October 7, 2025, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
1The Applicant wants to construct an accessory structure on the property, as shown on plans filed with the application.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
2The Applicant requests that the Committee authorize the following minor variances from the Zoning By-law:
a) To permit an increased height of 7.25 metres for an accessory structure, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 6 metres for an accessory structure.
b) To permit an increased lot coverage of 8.17% or 796.6 square meters, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 5% of the lot area or, in this case, 487.5 square metres.
3The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
4Dextor A Edwards, agent for the Applicant, provided an overview of the application and responded to questions from the Committee. Mr. Edwards submitted that increased roof clearance was needed for the proposed recreational use of the building and clarified that the lot coverage provision proposed to be varied relates to accessing buildings only, not the residential dwelling, and includes both existing and proposed structures, and one existing shed to be removed.
5City Planner Wendy Yang confirmed that she had no concerns with the application. She summarized the intent of the Rural Residential zone, which includes regulating development in a manner that respects both the residential character and the surrounding rural context. Ms. Yang also confirmed that, for Zoning By-law purposes, building height is measured at the midpoint of a sloped roof, between the eaves and the peak.
6The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:
G. Callaghan, resident, provided a slide presentation and highlighted concerns about the size and the height of the proposed structure and its impact on the streetscape, the extent of the increase in lot coverage, the size of the building relative to existing buildings in the neighbourhood, and its incompatibility with the residential character of the area.
S. Shell, resident, highlighted concerns about the proposed increase in lot coverage and the extent of the requested variance.
L. Hervato, resident, highlighted concerns about the visual impact of the proposed building on neighbours and on the streetscape, as well as the precedent for future development.
M. Ambriozak, resident, highlighted concerns about the design of the building and the impact of outdoor lighting on a structure with an increased building height.
7In response to the concerns raised, Mr. Edwards explained that the building would be used seasonally, that no heating or washrooms would be installed, and that the structure would be for the personal use of the Applicant and their family and guests. Mr. Edwards also submitted that the impact on the streetscape would be minimal since it would be located behind the existing dwelling, setback significantly from the front lot line, and because the property slopes down from the road.
8Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION REFUSED
Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
9The 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 variances are minor, are 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
10Evidence 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, a sign posting declaration, and a response to residents’ concerns
City Planning Report received October 2, 2025, with no concerns.
Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority email received September 29, 2025, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received October 1, 2025, with no comments.
C. Martyniuk, resident, email received September 24, 2025, opposed.
L. Hervato, resident, email received September 24, 2025, opposed.
M. Osman, resident, email received September 26, 2025, opposed.
G. Callaghan, resident, email received October 6, 2025, opposed; petition signed by 24 residents received October 6, 2025, opposed.
B. Taylor, resident, email received October 6, 2025, opposed.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
11The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and refused the application.
12Based on the evidence, the majority of the Committee (Member H. MacLean dissenting) is not satisfied that the requested variance meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
13Based on the circumstances, the majority of the Committee is not satisfied that sufficient evidence was presented to conclude that, from a planning and public interest point of view, the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure on the property, and relative to neighbouring lands.
14Also, the majority of the Committee finds that the requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law because the proposal does not represent development that is compatible with the surrounding residential uses and rural context of the area.
15Additionally, the majority of the Committee finds that the cumulative impact of the increased lot coverage and building height are not minor in terms of their unacceptable adverse impact on immediate neighbours, the streetscape, and the rural residential character of the area.
16Failing three of the four statutory tests, the Committee is unable to grant the application.
17THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ORDERS that the application is refused and the variances are not authorized.
Absent TERENCE OTTO VICE-CHAIR
"Gary Duncan" GARY DUNCAN MEMBER
Absent BETH HENDERSON MEMBER
Absent MARTIN VERVOORT MEMBER
"Jocelyn Chandler" JOCELYN CHANDLER ACTING PANEL CHAIR
“George Barrett" GEORGE BARRETT MEMBER
Dissent HEATHER MACLEAN 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
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