Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
November 28, 2025
Panel:
3 - Rural
Files:
D08-01-25/B-00229 D08-02-25/A-00227 & D08-02-25/A-00228
Applications:
Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicants:
2693263 Ontario Inc.
Property Address:
7609 and 7617 Flewellyn Road
Ward:
21 - Rideau-Jock
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 12, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Goulbourn
Zoning:
RU
Zoning By-law:
2008-250
Heard:
November 18, 2025, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS
1The Applicant wants to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land to create separate ownership for each of the existing dwellings.
CONSENT REQUIRED:
2The Applicant seeks the Committee’s consent to sever land.
3The land to be severed, shown as Part 1 on a draft 4R-Plan filed with the applications, will have a frontage of 21.95 metres, a depth of 80.47 metres and a lot area of 1766.32 square metres. This parcel contains an existing detached dwelling and is known municipally as 7617 Flewellyn Road.
4The land to be retained, is shown as Part 2 on said plan, will have a frontage of 40.23 metres, a depth of 80.47 metres and a lot area of 3237.31 square metres. This parcel contains an existing detached dwelling and is known municipally as 7609 Flewellyn Road.
5The proposal does not comply with the Zoning By-law and therefore minor variance applications have also been filed.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
6The Applicant seeks the Committee of Adjustment’s authorization for minor variances from the Zoning By-law as follows:
A-00227: 7617 Flewellyn Road, Part 1 on draft 4R- Plan, existing detached dwelling:
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 21.95 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 50 metres.
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 0.177 hectares, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares.
c) To permit a reduced (west) interior side yard setback of 3.12 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 5 metres.
A-00228: 7609 Flewellyn Road, Part 2 on draft 4R- Plan, existing detached dwelling:
d) To permit a reduced lot width of 40.23 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 50 metres.
e) To permit a reduced lot area of 0.32 hectares, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares.
f) To permit a reduced (west) interior side yard setback of 3.51 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 5 metres.
7The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
8Krista Libman, agent 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.
9Ms. Libman asked that the conditions requested in the City’s Planning Report requiring a Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Report and Mineral Resources Impact Assessment Report be removed because the dwellings already exist and no new development is proposed.
10City Planner Wendy Yang agreed that these conditions could be removed.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:
• CONSENT APPLICATION GRANTED
• MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Consent Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
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):
Minor Variance Applications 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.
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
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, parcel abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received November 13, 2025, with concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received November 13, 2025, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received November 10, 2025, with no comments.
C. and S. Rousson email received November 13, 2025, in support.
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 “some concerns” regarding the applications, highlighting that “Staff do not believe the minor variance request for reducing lot size meets the intent of Official Plan.”
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.
21The Committee notes that no compelling evidence was presented that the variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
22Considering 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.
23The 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.
24In 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.
25Moreover, 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.
26THE 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.
27THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO ORDERS that the requested minor variance applications are granted and the variances to the Zoning By-law are authorized.
"Terence Otto"
TERENCE OTTO
VICE-CHAIR
"Gary Duncan"
GARY DUNCAN
MEMBER
"Beth Henderson"
BETH HENDERSON
MEMBER
"Martin Vervoort"
MARTIN VERVOORT
MEMBER
Absent
JOCELYN CHANDLER
MEMBER
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
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
613-580-2436
Comité de dérogation
Ville d’Ottawa
Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation
613-580-2436
APPENDIX “A”
The Owner(s) provide evidence that the accompanying minor variance applications (D08-02-25/A-00227 & D08-02-25/A-00228) have been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.
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 each existing parcel has its own well, independent private sewage system, and storm/foundation drainage and that they do not cross the proposed severance line. If the systems do cross, are not independent, or do not meet the minimum spacing requirements of the Ontario Building Code and City of Ottawa Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Guidelines, the Owner(s) will be required, at their own cost, to relocate the existing systems or construct new systems.
That the Owner(s) enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s), which is to be registered on title to deal with the following covenant/notice that shall run with the land and bind future owners 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 Committee shall be provided a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.
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 to the satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or their designate.
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 conveyance for which the Consent is required to the satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or their designate.