Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION MINOR VARIANCE
Panel: 1 - Urban
Files: D08-02-25/A-00236 and D08-02-25/A-00237
Application: Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant: Rose Integration Limited
Property Address: 272 Churchill Avenue North
Ward: 15 - Kitchissippi
Legal Description: Lot 348, Registered Plan 4M-28
Zoning: R3E
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Heard: November 19, 2025, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS
1The Applicant wants to construct a new three-storey semi-detached dwelling, as shown on plans filed with the Committee. The existing two-storey detached dwelling will be demolished.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
2The Applicant requests that the Committee authorize minor variances from the Zoning By-law:
A-00236: 272 Churchill Avenue North, Part 1 on draft 4R- Plan, proposed three-storey semi-detached dwelling unit:
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 7.61 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9.0 metres;
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 232.24 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 270 square metres;
c) To permit a front-facing garage, whereas the By-law does not permit a front-facing garage where the dominant pattern is not a front-facing garage based on the conclusions of a Streetscape Character Analysis;
d) To permit a reduced driveway width of 2.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum driveway width of 2.6 metres;
e) To permit an increased building height of 10.60 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 8.0 metres.
A-00237: 270 Churchill Avenue North, Part 2 on draft 4R- Plan, proposed three-storey semi-detached dwelling unit:
f) To permit a reduced lot width of 7.61 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9.0 metres;
g) To permit a reduced lot area of 232.24 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 270 square metres;
h) To permit a front-facing garage, whereas the By-law does not permit a front-facing garage where the dominant pattern is not a front-facing garage based on the conclusions of a Streetscape Character Analysis;
i) To permit an increased building height of 10.60 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 8.0 metres.
3The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
4Micheal Segreto, agent for the Applicant, was present.
5Responding to a question from the Committee, Mr. Segreto indicated that opaque screening would be installed along the sides and front of the proposed rear balconies to mitigate privacy impacts on abutting neighbours.
6City Planner Dylan Geldart summarized the City’s concerns with the proposed front-facing garages, noting that the dominant pattern identified by the Streetscape Character Analysis does not feature front-facing garages, and alternative solutions are available, including providing no parking or a shared driveway and a stacked parking model.
7In response, Mr. Segreto provided a brief slide presentation to address alternative parking options that were considered. He submitted that the alternatives would either risk impacting trees or eliminate rear yard amenity space, so the proposed front-facing garages were the preferred option.
8Responding to further questions from the Committee, Mr. Segreto confirmed that the site is well served by public transit.
9Z. Neilson of Rose Integration Limited, the Applicant, spoke to his efforts to respond to the concerns raised by the City and to ensure that the trees on site would be preserved.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
10The 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
11Evidence 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 November 13, 2025, with some concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated November 13, 2025, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email dated November 12, 2025, with comments.
Westboro Beach Community Association email dated November 18, 2025, with no objection.
Resident email dated November 19, 2025, in support.
J. Mac Millan dated November 19, 2025, with concerns.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
12The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.
13Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the requested variances meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
14The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “some concerns” regarding the applications, specifically relating to the proposed front-facing garages, highlighting that “the dominant streetscape pattern does not feature front-facing garages”. In this regard, the Committee notes the photos and other contextual evidence presented by the Applicant that demonstrate that, while not the dominant pattern, there are examples of existing front-facing garages on nearby properties.
15The Committee also notes that no compelling evidence was presented that the variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
16Considering 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.
17The 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.
18In 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.
19Moreover, the Committee finds that the requested variances, both individually and cumulatively, are minor because they will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood in general.
20THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ORDERS that the applications are granted and the variances to the Zoning By-law are authorized, subject to the location and size of the proposed construction complying with the plans filed with the Committee of Adjustment on October 21, 2025, as they relate to the requested variances.
Absent ANN M. TREMBLAY CHAIR
"John Blatherwick" JOHN BLATHERWICK MEMBER
"Colin Haskin" COLIN HASKIN MEMBER
"Arto Keklikian" ARTO KEKLIKIAN MEMBER
"Sharon Lécuyer" SHARON LÉCUYER ACTING PANEL CHAIR
I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated November 28, 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 December 18, 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