C. Murphy and J. Murphy, 2025 CanLII 97738

DECISION CONSENT/SEVERANCE

Date of Decision: September 26, 2025

Panel: 2 - Suburban

Files: D08-01-25/B-00180

Application: Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act

Applicants: C. Murphy and J. Murphy

Property Address: 4681 Newtown Road

Ward: 5 - West Carleton-March

Legal Description: Part of Lot 19, Concession 11, Geographic Township of Fitzroy

Zoning: RU

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Heard: September 16, 2025, in person and by videoconference

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Applicants want to subdivide their property into two separate parcels of land to create one new parcel for future residential development. The existing dwelling will remain.

2The Applicants seek the Committee’s consent to sever land. The property is shown as Parts 1 and 2 on a sketch filed with the application.

3The land to be severed, shown on said sketch, will have a frontage of 140 metres, an irregular depth, and a lot area of 2.1 hectares. This parcel will contain the existing dwelling and be known municipally as 4681 Newtown Road.

4The land to be retained, shown on said sketch, will have a broken frontage of 293 metres, an irregular depth, and a lot area of 39.5 hectares. This parcel will be vacant and known municipally as 4665 Newtown Road.

5The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.

PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Submissions Summary

6Syed Yarmohammad and Yasaman Bahadori, agents for the Applicants, provided a slide presentation, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request.

7Mr. Yarmohammed asked that the Committee not impose a condition requested in the City’s Planning Report requiring the registration of a notice on title warning of environmental noise due to a nearby railway line. He explained that the railway was abandoned by CN Rail and had not operated for over ten years, and that a bridge further along the line, over Carling Avenue, was recently removed at the City’s expense.

8Responding to questions from the Panel, City Planner Wendy Yang requested that the requirement for a notice on title remain, as the railway line could be active in the future. Ms. Yang also indicated that a condition not originally requested in the City’s Planning Report, requiring that any existing accessory structures within two metres of the proposed lot line be removed or relocated to comply with the Zoning By-law, should also be imposed.

9C. Murphy, one of the owners of the property, indicated that he was not opposed to this additional condition of provisional consent.

10Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED

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 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).

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:

Application and supporting documents, including cover letter, plans, parcel abstract, environmental impact study, minimum distance separation calculations, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received September 11, 2025, with no concerns.
Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority email received September 9, 2025, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received September 8, 2025, with no comments.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

13The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

14The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application.

15Regarding the condition requested by the City requiring the registration of a notice on title warning of potential environmental noise due to a nearby railway line, the Committee finds that the imposition of this condition is both reasonable and necessary, since no evidence was presented that CN Rail had disposed of its rights to the nearby lands on which the line was located or that it would not be active in the future, notwithstanding the removal of the old bridge over Carling Avenue.

16Based 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.

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.

20THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ORDERS that the application is granted and the provisional consent is to be given, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this decision.

"Fabian Poulin" FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR

"Jay Baltz" 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 26, 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 16, 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

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(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) provide a report, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, demonstrating the adequacy of the aquifer, with respect to quality and quantity, to support the proposed development. Where adequacy cannot be demonstrated, the Owner(s) shall construct a new well on the severed lands and provide a report, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, to demonstrate the adequacy of the aquifer, with respect to quality and quantity, to support the proposed development. The report must include a septic impact assessment to evaluate the water quality impact of the on-site septic system on the receiving aquifer. The report must demonstrate that the construction of any new well is in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regulations and City of Ottawa requirements, and that the quality and quantity of water and the septic impact assessment meets the requirements and is prepared as per the City of Ottawa Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Guidelines (March, 2021). A qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist must prepare the report. It is the Owner’s responsibility to coordinate the person drilling a new well, if required, and the professional noted herein in order to properly satisfy this condition. If the accepted report recommends specific mitigation measures or design requirements, the Owner(s) shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s), to include those recommendations and such agreement shall be registered on title. In instances where the subject site has sensitive soils, the drilling of a well and/or the conveyance of a 30-centimetre reserve may be required. Both the report and any required Development Agreement shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate.
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) 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 has identified that there are potential thin soils and organic soils within the area that may require site specific detailed geotechnical engineering solutions to allow for development, 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.”