Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
Panel: 2 - Suburban
Applications: Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant: 11195590 Canada Inc.
Property Address: 1217 Anoka Street
Ward: 18 - Alta Vista
Legal Description: Lot 424, North Side of Anoka Street, Registered Plan 4M-23
Zoning: R2F
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Heard: September 2, 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 for the construction of a semi-detached dwelling, with additional dwelling units, as shown on plans filed with the Committee. The existing dwelling and garage are to be demolished.
CONSENT REQUIRED:
2The Applicant seeks the Committee’s consent to sever land. The property is shown as Part 1 and Part 2 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-00171 | 7.59 metres | 30.40 metres | 231.4 sq. metres | 1 | 1217 Anoka Street Proposed semi-detached |
| B-00172 | 7.59 metres | 30.41 metres | 229.6 sq. metres | 2 | 1219 Anoka Street Proposed semi-detached |
3Approval 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. D08-02-25/A-00184 & D08-02-25/A-00185) have been filed and will be heard concurrently with these applications.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
4The Applicant requests that the Committee authorize minor variances from the Zoning By-law as follows:
A-00184: 1217 Anoka Street, Part 1 on draft 4R-plan, proposed semi- detached dwelling:
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 7.59 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9 metres.
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 231.4 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 270 square metres.
c) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 8.52 metres.
d) To permit a reduced side yard setback of 1.28 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum reduced side yard setback of 1.5 metres.
A-00185 : 1219 Anoka Street, Part 2 on draft 4R-plan, proposed semi-detached dwelling:
e) To permit a reduced lot width of 7.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9 metres.
f) To permit a reduced lot area of 229.6 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 270 square metres.
g) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear lot setback of 8.52 metres
h) To permit a reduced side yard setback of 1.21 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum reduced side yard setback of 1.5 metres.
5The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
6Alex Forget, 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.
7“Responding to a question from the Panel Mr. Forget explained that some soft landscaping would be provided in the front yard, including two new trees, as well as permeable driveways.”
8City Planner Elizabeth King indicated that the City had some “light concerns” related to the removal of a City-owned tree, but no concerns with the requested consent or variances.
9City Forester Julian Alvarez-Barkham explained that a tree planting plan was not requested as a condition of provisional consent because one was provided in the Applicant’s tree information report. He further confirmed that the requested condition requiring a grading and servicing plan would ensure that services would be located to provide enough space for new trees.
10The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:
J. P. Johnson, resident, highlighted concerns about the tenancy of the proposed development; its incompatibility with the character of the community predominantly comprised of detached dwellings; the demolition of the existing dwelling that remains habitable; and the characterization of the proposal as a semi-detached dwelling.
M. Cheriyan, resident, expressed his opposition to the applications, highlighting concerns with the rate of redevelopment in the neighbourhood; the incompatibility of multi-unit buildings with the character of the neighbourhood; misrepresentations in the Applicant’s evidence; and inadequate parking and garbage storage.
C. Dolgna, resident, highlighted concerns about a lack of transparency; the potential use of the development for a rooming house and related property standard issues associated with other recent developments; impacts on traffic and pedestrian safety; and parking issues.
11Mr. Forget confirmed that the proposal was for a semi-detached dwelling, not a rooming house, and clarified that he was not involved with the other developments referenced in presentations by area residents.
12Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
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.
Evidence
15Evidence 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:
16Applications and supporting documents, including cover letter, plans, tree information report, parcel abstract, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received August 27, 2025, with some concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received August 29, 2025, with no objections.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation email received August 21, 2025, with no comments.
R. and G. Savone, residents, email received September 2, 2025, opposed.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
17The Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.
18The Committee notes the submission of the City Planner that the City no longer has any concerns regarding the applications.
19Based on the evidence, 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.
20The 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.
21Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.
22Moreover, 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.
23Based on the evidence, the Committee is also satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
24The Committee notes that no compelling evidence was presented that the variance would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Regarding concerns raised related to the number of proposed dwelling units, the Committee notes that, as required by the Planning Act, the City’s Zoning By-law permits a semi-detached dwelling to contain two additional dwelling units per principal unit.
25Considering 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.
26The Committee also finds that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan because the proposal contributes mild intensification in the urban area and respects the character of the neighbourhood.
27In 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.
28Moreover, 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.
29THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT THEREFORE ORDERS that the consent applications are granted and the provisional consent is to be given, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this decision.
30THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO ORDERS that the minor variance 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 July 30, 2025, as they relate to the requested variances.
"Fabian Poulin" FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR
Absent JAY BALTZ MEMBER
"George Barrett" GEORGE BARRETT MEMBER
"Heather MacLean" HEATHER MACLEAN MEMBER
"Julianne Wright" JULIANNE WRIGHT MEMBER
I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated September 12, 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 October 2, 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 cofa@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436
Comité de dérogation Ville d’Ottawa Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation cded@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436
APPENDIX “A”
The Owner(s) provide evidence that the accompanying minor variance applications (D08-02-25/A-00184 & D08-02-25/A-00185) have been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.
That the Owner(s) provide proof 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 cost. The value of the 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/Applicant(s) provide a Grading and Servicing Plan with the locations of proposed elements (buildings, driveways, services, grading, capping location of existing services, etc.) designed and located to provide sufficient soil volume to plant new trees, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. The Tree Information Report must be revised to reflect changes to the site plan, to show accurate tree protection areas and provide specific mitigation measures.
That the Owner(s) provide evidence, to the satisfaction of both the Chief Building Official and the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designates, that both severed and retained parcels have their own independent water, sanitary and storm connection as appropriate, 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) provide a Stormwater Management Report, prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer, licensed in the Province of Ontario, demonstrating a design for post-development stormwater peak flows that are controlled to pre-development peak flows for all stormwater events up to and including the 100 year storm event. The report shall be to the satisfaction of and approved by the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. If the Stormwater Management Report includes infiltration techniques, the Owner(s) must provide a supporting Geotechnical Brief prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, for approval by the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. That the Owner(s) enter into a Development Agreement with the City to construct the required stormwater system, including posting required securities. A copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title, shall be forwarded to the Committee of Adjustment. If applicable, the Owner(s) shall obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Should the stormwater management system cross property lines or access to the system be over multiple properties, that the owner will seek approval of the Committee to grant easement(s) for access and maintenance of the stormwater system or register a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement on title of the properties, all at the owner(s) costs.
That the Owner(s) provide proof 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, delineating the existing and proposed grades for both the severed and retained lands has been provided to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
The Owner(s) shall:
- prepare a Noise Control Study, in compliance with the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. The Owner(s) shall enter into an agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s), that requires the Owner(s) to implement any noise control attenuation measures recommended in the approved study. The Agreement shall also deal with any covenants/notices, recommended in the approved study, that shall run with the land and bind future owners on subsequent transfers, warning purchasers and/or tenants of expected noise levels due to the existing source of environmental noise (arterial). The Committee shall be provided a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title.
or
- Design the dwelling units with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant’s discretion and enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner, which is to be registered on title to deal with the covenants/ notices that shall run with the land and bind future owners on subsequent transfers, warning purchasers and/or tenants of expected noise levels due to the existing source of environmental noise. The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title. The following two conditions will be included in the above-noted Agreement:
Notices-on-Title respecting noise:
i) “The Purchaser/Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns acknowledges being advised that this dwelling unit has been fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting, etc. was sized to accommodate central air conditioning. Installation of central air conditioning by the Purchaser/Lessee will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the City of Ottawa’s and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's noise criteria;” and
ii) “The Purchaser/Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns acknowledges being advised that noise levels due to increasing roadway traffic may be of concern, occasionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the outdoor sound level exceeds the City of Ottawa’s and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s noise criteria.”
- That the Owner(s) enter into a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement, at the expense of the Owner(s), setting forth the obligations between the Owner(s) and the proposed future owners with respect to the joint use and maintenance of all common elements including, but not limited to, the common party walls, common structural elements such as roof, footings, soffits, foundations, common areas, common driveways and common landscaping.
The Owner shall ensure that the Agreement is binding upon all unit owners and successors in title and shall be to the satisfaction of Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, or City Legal Services. The Committee shall be provided written confirmation that the Agreement is satisfactory to the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch 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) enter into a Resurfacing Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Program Manager, Right of Way Branch within the 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 Anoka St, fronting the subject lands, to the limits shown on the approved Site Servicing Plan. Where the approved Site Servicing Plan demonstrates the resurfacing is not required, based on the City’s Road Cut Resurfacing Policy, the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, shall deem this condition satisfied.
That the Owner provide a Slope Stability Analysis, prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer or professional geoscientist, licensed in the Province of Ontario, to the satisfaction of both the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department.
Where the approved Grading Plan demonstrates the slope stability analysis is not required, based on the City’s Slope Stability Guidelines, the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, shall deem this condition satisfied.
That the Owner(s) satisfy the requirements of Hydro Ottawa with respect to the provision of a Common Elements Agreement to provide each property with mutual access, maintenance and cost sharing responsibilities for the electrical supplies.
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.
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 a Conveyance for which the Consent is required.