Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
January 24, 2025
Panel:
2 - Suburban
D08-01-24/B-00246 & D08-01-24/B-00247 D08-02-24/A-00295 & D08-02-24/A00296
Applications:
Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act
Minor Variances under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant:
Igor Pupovac
Property Address:
1299 Dorchester Avenue
Ward:
16 - River
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 21, Registered Plan 294
Zoning:
R4UC
Zoning By-law:
2008-250
Heard:
January 14, 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 to construct two, 3-storey, 8-unit, low-rise apartment buildings, as shown on plans filed with the Committee. The existing 4-unit building is to be demolished.
CONSENT REQUIRED:
2The Applicant seeks the Committee of Adjustment’s consent to sever land and for grants of easements/rights of way. The property is shown as Part 1 to 4 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-00246
12.915 m
30.35 m
391.0 sq. m
1 to 4
1301 Dorchester Avenue
B-00247
12.915 m
30.35 m
392.9 sq. m
5 to 8
1299 Dorchester Avenue
3The Applications indicate that the property is subject to an existing easement as set out in Instrument Number OC2219952.
4It is proposed to establish easements/rights of way as follows:
Over Part 2 in favour of Parts 5 to 8 (1299 Dorchester Avenue) for access to a shared laneway.
Over Part 7 in favour of Parts 1 to 4 (1301 Dorchester Avenue) for access to a shared laneway
5Approval of these applications will have the effect of creating separate parcels of land, which along with the proposed development will not be in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and therefore, minor variance applications (File Nos) have been filed and will be heard concurrently with these applications.
6The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
7The Applicant seeks the Committee of Adjustment’s authorization for minor variances from the Zoning By-law as follows:
A-00295: 1301 Dorchester Avenue, Parts 1 to 4 on Draft 4R-plan, proposed 8- unit, 3-storey, low-rise, apartment building:
a) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 26.52% of the lot depth, or 8.05 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum required rear yard setback of 30% of the lot depth, in this case 9.10 metres.
b) To permit one parking space on the property (located in the rear yard), whereas the By-law does not permit parking on a lot less than 450 square metres.
c) To permit an increased building height of 11.85 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 11 metres.
A-00296: 1299 Dorchester Avenue, Parts 5 to 8 on Draft 4R-plan, proposed 8- unit, 3-storey, low-rise apartment building:
d) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 26.52% of the lot depth, or 8.05 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum required rear yard setback of 30% of the lot depth, in this case 9.10 metres.
e) To permit one parking space on the property (located in the rear yard), whereas the By-law does not permit parking on a lot less than 450 square metres.
f) To permit an increased building height of 11.85 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 11 metres.
8The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
9Mike Segreto, agent for the Applicant, responded to questions from the Panel Chair, confirming that, while parking is not required under the Zoning By-law, one parking space would be provided for each building. Mr. Segreto highlighted that even with the inclusion of the two proposed parking spaces, the soft landscaped area provided in the rear yard would exceed the requirements of the Zoning By- law.
10City Planner Elizabeth King confirmed that she had no concerns with the applications. She further highlighted that the space in the rear yard would allow the planting of two large trees.
11Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
Evidence
12Evidence 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 report, tree planting plan, letters of support, parcel abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received January 9, 2025, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received January 9, 2025, with no comments.
Hydro Ottawa email received January 13, 2025, with comments.
Hydro One email received January 6, 2025, with no comments.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation email received December 27, 2024, with no comments.
P. Fraser and R. Chubb, residents, email received January 13, 2025, with comments.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:
CONSENT APPLICATIONS GRANTED
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Consent Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
13Under 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 Policy Statement 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
14The 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.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
15The Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.
16The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the consent applications, subject to the requested conditions agreed to by their agent.
17Based on the evidence, the majority of the Committee is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement that promotes efficient land use and development as well as intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local conditions.
18The 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.
19Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.
20Moreover, 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.
21Based on the evidence, the majority of the Committee (Members J. Baltz and H. MacLean dissenting on variances (b) and (e)) is also satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
22The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the applications, highlighting that “[t]he proposal of two low-rise apartments and the requested variances are minor and appropriate given the context of the site and maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law”.
23The majority of the Committee also notes that no compelling evidence was presented that the variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
24Considering the circumstances, the majority of 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.
25The majority of the 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.
26In addition, the majority of 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.
27Moreover, the majority of 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.
28THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ORDERS that the applications are granted and the provisional consent is to be given, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this order.
29THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO 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 being in accordance with the plans filed, Committee of Adjustment date stamped November 18, 2024, as they relate to the requested variances.
"Fabian Poulin" FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR
"Jay Baltz"
"George Barrett"
(with noted dissent)
GEORGE BARRETT
JAY BALTZ
MEMBER
MEMBER
"Julianne Wright"
"Heather MacLean"
JULIANNE WRIGHT
(with noted dissent)
MEMBER
HEATHER MACLEAN
MEMBER
I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated January 24, 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 February 13, 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 (D08-02-24/A-00295 & D08-02-24/A-00296) have been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.
That the Owner(s) provide evidence 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 costs. The value of 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 evidence to the satisfaction of both the Chief Building Official and Development Review Manager, Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or designates, that both severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and storm connection as appropriate, and that these services do not cross the proposed severance line and are connected directly to City infrastructure. Further, the Owner(s) shall comply to 7.1.5.4(1) of the Ontario Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12 as amended. If necessary, a plumbing permit shall be obtained from Building Code Services for any required alterations.
That the Owner(s) enter into a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement, at the expense of the Owner(s), setting forth the obligations between the Owner(s) and the proposed future owners.
The Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement shall set forth the joint use and maintenance of all common elements including, but not limited to, common driveways.
The Owner shall ensure that the Agreement is binding upon all the unit owners and successors in title and shall be to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, or City Legal Services. The Committee requires written confirmation that the Agreement is satisfactory to Development Review All Wards Manager within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, or is satisfactory to City Legal Services, as well as a copy of the Agreement and confirmation that it has been registered on title.
That the Owner(s) shall provide evidence 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, has been submitted to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager of the Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee. The grading and drainage plan shall delineate existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained properties, to the satisfaction of Development Review All Wards Manager of the 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 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 Dorchester Ave, fronting the subject lands, to the limits shown on the approved Site Servicing Plan. Where the approved Site Servicing Plan demonstrates that resurfacing is not required based on the City’s Road Cut Resurfacing Policy, the Development Review Manager of the All-Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, shall deem this condition satisfied.
That the Owner/Applicant(s) enter into a Development Agreement or a Letter of Undertaking (LOU) with the City of Ottawa, at the expense of the Owner/Applicant(s), and to the satisfaction of the Manager of the relevant branch within Planning, Building and Development Department, or their designate(s). A development agreement is to be registered on Title of the property (where applicable). The agreement will include the mitigation measures outlined in the approved Tree Information Report, prepared by Dendron Forestry Services, dated 08/10/2024, and associated securities for tree protection. The securities, which will be based on the value of the tree(s) to be protected (Tree(s) 8240135) shall be retained for 2 years following issuance of an occupancy permit, and thereafter returned to the owner only upon the City having received a report from an arborist or appropriate professional confirming that the identified tree(s) is/are healthy, retainable, and remain(s) structurally stable. The Owner(s) acknowledge(s) and agree(s) that if, in the opinion of the City Forester and/or the Manager of the relevant Branch within Planning, Building Development Department, the report indicates that any tree is declining and/or must be removed, the Security for that tree, in its entirety, will be forfeited.
That the Owner/Applicant(s) provide a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager of the relevant Branch within the Planning, Building and Development Department, or their designate(s), 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 the conveyances for which the Consent is required.