Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
CONSENT/SEVERANCE AND MINOR VARIANCE
January 23, 2026
Panel:
2 - Suburban
Files:
D08-01-25/B-00277 D08-02-25/A-00261-00262
Applications:
Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant:
L. Bremer
Property Address:
877 Contour Street
Ward:
19 - Orléans South-Navan
Legal Description:
Part Lot 5, Concession 3 (Ottawa Front), Geographic Township of Gloucester; Part 2 on Plan 4R-28318
Zoning:
R3Z
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 their property into two parcels of land for the construction of two detached dwellings, as shown on plans filed with the Committee.
CONSENT REQUIRED:
2The Applicant seeks the Committee’s consent to sever land. The property is shown as Parts 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
Parts
Municipal Address
B-0027
7.63 m
30.85 m (irregular)
233.55 sq. m
1 and 3
879 Contour Street
(Retained)
7.63 m
30.44 m (irregular)
230.44 sq. m
2 and 4
877 Contour Street
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-00261: 879 Contour Street, Parts 1 and 3, proposed detached dwelling:
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 7.62 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9.0 metres.
A-00262: 877 Contour Street, Parts 2 and 4, proposed detached dwelling:
b) To permit a reduced lot width of 7.62 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 9.0 metres.
5The property is not the subject of any other current application under the Planning Act.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
6Mark Bremer, agent for the Applicant, and City Planner Elizabeth King were present.
7There were no objections to granting these unopposed applications as part of the Panel’s fast-track consent agenda.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:
• CONSENT APPLICATION GRANTED
• MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Consent Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
8Under 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
9The 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
10Evidence 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, 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
11The Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in making its decision and granted the applications.
12The 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.
13Based 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.
14The 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.
15Additionally, the Committee is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.
16Moreover, 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.
17Based on the evidence, the Committee is also satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
18The Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
19Considering 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.
20The 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.
21In 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.
22Moreover, the 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.
23THE 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.
24THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO ORDERS that the minor variance applications are granted and the variances to the Zoning By-law are authorized.
"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 January 23, 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 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-00262) have been approved, with all levels of appeal exhausted.
The Owner(s) provide and implement a tree planting plan, 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), species/ultimate size of one new tree (50 mm caliper) per lot, in addition to any compensation trees required under the Tree Protection By-law, to contribute to the City’s 40% canopy target. Planting within the municipal right-of-way should be prioritized, where space allows, to enhance the streetscape and maximize public benefit.
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 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 Contour 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(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.