Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
January 23, 2026
Panel:
2 - Suburban
Files:
D08-01-25/B-00278, B-00280, D08-02-25/A-00263, A-00264
Applications:
Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant:
Neoteric Developments Inc.
Property Address:
1Amberly Place
Ward:
11 - Beacon Hill-Cyrville
Legal Description:
Lot 32, Registered Plan 555
Zoning:
R1AA
Zoning By-law:
2008-250
Heard:
January 13, 2026, 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 one residential lot for the construction of a detached dwelling. The existing dwelling will remain on the other lot.
CONSENT REQUIRED
2The Applicant seeks the Committee’s consent to sever land. The property is shown as Parts 1 and 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-00278
30.34 m
22.975 m
682.7 sq. m
1
8 Davidson Drive (proposed dwelling)
B-00280
24.42 m
30.48 m
744.8 sq. m
2
1 Amberly Place (existing dwelling)
3The proposal does not comply with the Zoning By-law and therefore minor variance applications have also been filed.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
4The Applicant seeks the Committee’s authorization for minor variances from the Zoning By-law as follows:
A-00263: 8 Davidson Drive, Part 1, proposed detached dwelling:
a) To permit an entrance to a garage to be located 1.83 metres closer to a lot line abutting a street than a porch, whereas the By-law requires an entrance to a garage to be set back 0.6 metres further from the lot line than the porch.
b) To permit a reduced front yard setback of 3.35 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres.
A-00264: 1 Amberly Place, Part 2, existing detached dwelling:
c) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 8.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 8.53 metres.
d) To permit a reduced lot width of 24.42 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 30 metres.
5The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
6Chris Jalkotzy, 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.
7Responding to the Panel’s questions, Mr. Jalkotzy explained that the proposal involved shifting the permitted building footprint to create a consistent façade along the Davidson Drive streetscape, to provide more sunlight in the rear yard, and to preserve trees, resulting in the need for variances (a) and (b).
8The Committee also heard from O. Bielak of Neoteric Developments Inc., the Applicant, who highlighted the importance of preserving trees and respecting the character of the neighborhood.
9City Planner Wendy Yang confirmed that she had no concerns with the applications.
10Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:
• CONSENT APPLICATIONS GRANTED
• MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION 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 Application 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, parcel abstract, plans, tree information report, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received January 8, 2026, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received January 8, 2026, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received January 8, 2026, with comments.
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 “no concerns” regarding the applications, subject to the requested conditions agreed to by the Applicant’s agent.
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 majority of the Committee (Member J. Wright dissenting) is satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
21The majority of the Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
22Considering 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.
23The 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.
24In 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.
25Moreover, the majority of Committee finds that the requested variances 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 applications are 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 minor variance application is granted and the variances to the Zoning By-law are authorized, subject to the location and size of the proposed construction complying with the elevation drawings filed with the Committee of Adjustment on December 10, 2025, and site plan filed with the Committee of Adjustment on December 15, 2025, as they relate to the requested variances.
"Fabian Poulin"
FABIAN POULIN
VICE-CHAIR
"Jay Baltz"
JAY BALTZ
MEMBER
"George Barrett"
GEORGE BARRETT
MEMBER
"Heather MacLean"
HEATHER MACLEAN
MEMBER
"Julianne Wright"
(With noted dissent)
JULIANNE WRIGHT
MEMBER
I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated January 13, 2026 “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 12, 2026.
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-00264) have been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.
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) shall provide evidence that a grading and drainage plan, prepared by a qualified Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, an 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 provide a Slope Stability Analysis, prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer or professional geoscientist, licensed in the Province of Ontario, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate. Where the approved Site Grading Plan demonstrates the slope stability analysis is not required, based on Ottawa Slope Stability Guidelines for Development Applications, 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) provide a Grading and Servicing Plan with the proposed elements/structures (driveways, parking, retaining walls, projections, services, etc.) designed and located based on the least impact to protected trees and tree cover, as well as a revised Tree Information Report reflecting these changes 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) provide a tree planting plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review All Wards Branch within Planning, Development and Building Services Department, or their designate, 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. Planting within the municipal right-of-way [or frontage] should be prioritized, where space allows, to enhance the streetscape and maximize public benefit
That the Owner(s) satisfies the Chief Building Official, or designate, by providing design drawings or other documentation prepared by a qualified designer, that as a result of the proposed severance on Draft R-plan shall comply with the Ontario Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12 as amended, in regard to the limiting distance along the proposed property line northerly side are affected. If necessary, a building permit shall be obtained from Building Code Services for any required alterations.
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 a Conveyance for which the Consent is required to the satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or their designate.