Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION MINOR VARIANCE AND PERMISSION
Panel: 2 - Suburban
File: D08-02-26/A-00023
Applications: Minor Variance and Permission under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicants: K. Tharris and C. Tharris
Property Address: 77 Glen Avenue
Ward: 17 - Capital
Legal Description: Part of Lot 16, Block G (North Glen Avenue), Registered Plan 115
Zoning (By-law 2008-250): R3Q [1475]
Zoning (By-law 2026-50): N3B [1475]
Heard: May 5, 2026, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
1The Applicants want to rebuild a legally non-conforming detached garage and add a second-storey addition to accommodate a coach house, as shown on the plans submitted to the Committee.
2At the hearing scheduled for April 8, 2026, the Committee postponed consideration of the application to give the Applicants time to revise the application and apply for an additional minor variance.
REQUESTED PERMISSION
3The Applicants are seeking the Committee’s permission to enlarge or extend a building that is legally non-conforming by adding a second storey.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
4The Applicants are requesting that the Committee authorize minor variances from Zoning By-law 2008-250, as follows:
a) To permit an increased height for a coach house of 6.28 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height for a coach house of 3.6 metres.
b) To permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 2.55 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 4 metres.
5There are no other pending applications regarding the property under the Planning Act.
6For the purposes of the transition and continuation provisions of Zoning By-law 2026-50, this application was deemed complete on April 13, 2026.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
7Peter Hume, the Applicants’ agent, gave a presentation accompanied by slides; a copy of the slides is available upon request from the coordinator. Mr. Hume outlined the application and answered questions from the Panel.
8In response to the Panel’s questions, Mr. Hume explained that the coach house had windows only on the south façade and a single entrance door, located on the east façade, leading to the second-floor coach house. He clarified that no windows had been planned for the other three façades, and that this was intentional, to minimize any intrusion on the privacy of the immediate neighbour.
9In response to the Panel’s questions, Mr. C. Tharris, one of the Applicants, confirmed that the cedar trees served as a screen between their yard and that of one of their neighbours at the rear.
10Mr. Hume confirmed that the requested variances related solely to the second-floor addition, as the proposed ground floor corresponded exactly to the footprint of the former legally non-conforming garage. He added that the second floor featured a cantilevered section on the south side and that the external staircase extended beyond the original footprint of the garage.
11City Planner Dyan Geldart explained that the garage was covered by an established legal non-conforming use, with a reduced setback of 0.27 metres, adding that, in the context of a permission application, a legally non-conforming setback could be extended provided that the coach house provisions governing this use were not further compromised. He further clarified that the proposed setback was in line with the provisions relating to coach houses, which allow for a maximum setback of one metre where no windows are planned on that side.
12In response to the Panel’s questions, Mr. Geldart stated that the proposed coach house would not have a negative impact on the privacy of the immediate neighbours.
13The Committee also heard oral submissions from the following individuals:
R. Henderson and S. Wilson, local residents, expressed concerns about the impact of the coach house’s planned height on their property, as well as the potential loss of privacy and sunlight.
A. Demarisco, local resident, highlighted concerns about stormwater management and the potential loss of sunlight.
14When questioned by the Panel, Mr. Hume confirmed that the Applicants would agree to install privacy screens on either side of the landing at the top of the exterior staircase to address the privacy and overlook concerns raised by the neighbours at the rear of the property.
15Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED
Permission Must Satisfy Two-Part Test
16Under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act, the Committee of Adjustment has the power to permit the enlargement or extension of a building or structure, or the expansion of a legal non-conforming use based upon both the desirability for development of the subject property and the impact on the surrounding area.
Minor Variance Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test
17The 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
18The evidence reviewed by the Committee included any oral statements made during the hearing, as noted above, as well as the following written documents, which may be obtained upon request from the coordinator:
Application and supporting documents, including cover letter, plans, letter of support, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received April 30, 2026, with no concerns; received April 2, 2026, requesting an adjournment.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received April 19, 2026, with no objections; received March 30, 2026, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received April 28, 2026, with comments; received April 2, 2026, with comments.
S. Wilson and R. Henderson and I. Lorimer, local residents, email received April 28, 2026, opposed; received March 26, 2026, opposed.
Z. Culbreath, local resident, email received April 27, 2026, in support.
A. Demarsico, local resident, email received March 10. 2026, with comments.
A. Fallow, resident, email received March 27, 2026, in support.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
19The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.
20Based on the evidence, the Committee the Committee is satisfied that the requested permission meets the the requirements under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act based upon both the desirability for development of the property in question and the impact on the surrounding area. Also, 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 Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application.
22The Committee also notes that no compelling evidence was presented to show that the requested permission and variances would have unacceptable negative impacts on neighbouring properties.
23Considering 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.
24The 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 and contributes to appropriate infill development in the Inner Urban Transect.
25In 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.
26Moreover, the majority of 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.
27Furthermore, the Committee finds that, because the proposal fits well in the area, the requested permission is, from a planning and public interest point of view, desirable for the appropriate use of the land, building or structure on the property, and relative to the neighbouring lands. The Committee finds as well that the requested permission will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
28THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 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 plans filed with the Committee of Adjustment on April 13, 2026.
29THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO ORDERS that the permission application is granted, and the extension or enlargement is permitted, subject to the proposed construction complying with the plans filed with the Committee of Adjustment on April 13, 2026.
"Fabian Poulin" FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR
"Jay Baltz" JAY BALTZ MEMBER
"George Barrett" GEORGE BARRETT MEMBER
Absent HEATHER MACLEAN MEMBER
"Julianne Wright" (With noted dissent) JULIANNE WRIGHT MEMBER
I certify this is a true copy of the decision of the Ottawa Committee of Adjustment, dated May 15, 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 June 4, 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
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