Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION CONSENT/SEVERANCE
November 14, 2025
Panel:
3 - Rural
File:
D08-01-25/B-00190
Application:
Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act
Applicants:
F. and B. Oakes
Property Address:
3455 River Road
Ward:
20 - Osgoode
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 31, Broken Front Concession, Geographic Township of Osgoode
Zoning:
AG
Zoning By-law:
2008-250
Heard:
November 4, 2025, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
1The Applicants want to convey a portion of their property to the abutting property owner to the north, known municipally as 3435 River Road.
CONSENT REQUIRED
2The Applicants seek the Committee’s consent for a lot line adjustment.
3The severed land, shown on a sketch filed with the application, is landlocked, has a frontage of 15.24 metres on River Road, a width of 125.65 metres, and a depth of 125.65 metres and a lot area of 1,915 square metres. This vacant land will be merged with the property to the north, known municipally as 3435 River Road.
4The retained land, shown on said sketch, will have a frontage of 274.32 metres, a depth of 1,463 metres and a lot area of 62.5 hectares. The vacant parcel is known municipally as 3455 River Road and is used for agricultural purposes.
5The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
6Frank Oakes, the Applicant and City Planner Wendy Yang were present.
7There 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 Tests
8Under 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).
Evidence
9Evidence 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:
- Application and supporting documents, including cover letter, plans, parcel abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
- City Planning Report received October 30, 2025, with no concerns.
- Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received October 31, 2025, with no objections.
- Hydro Ottawa email received October 29, 2025, with no comments.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
10The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.
[11