Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION MINOR VARIANCE
May 29, 2026
Panel:
2 - Suburban
Files:
D08-02-26/A-00049 & D08-02-26/A-00054
Application:
Minor Variance under section 45 of the Planning Act
Applicant:
S. Scaini
Property Address:
177 Compton Avenue
Ward:
7 - Bay
Legal Description:
Lot 535, Registered Plan 352
Zoning (By-law 2008-250):
R4D
Zoning (By-law 2026-50):
N3B
Heard:
May 19, 2026, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS
1The Applicant wants to build a three-storey semi-detached dwelling, as shown on the plans filed with the Committee.
REQUESTED VARIANCES
2The Applicant is requesting that the Committee authorize the following minor variances from the zoning regulations.
A-00049: North half of proposed semi-detached dwelling
Under Zoning By-Law 2008-250:
a) To permit a reduced front yard setback of 5.05 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 6 metres.
b) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.85 metres, or 25.75% of the lot depth, whereas the By-law states that the minimum required rear yard setback is 28% of the lot depth, or in this case 8.53 metres.
c) To permit an increased building height of 11 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 8 metres.
A-00054: South half of proposed semi-detached dwelling
Under Zoning By-Law 2008-250:
d) To permit a reduced front yard setback of 5.05 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 6 metres.
e) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.85 metres, or 25.75% of the lot depth, whereas the By-law states that the minimum required rear yard setback is 28% of the lot depth, or in this case 8.53 metres.
f) To permit an increased building height of 11 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 8 metres.
3There are no other pending applications regarding the property under the Planning Act.
4For the purposes of the transition and continuation provisions of Zoning By-law 2026-50, these applications were deemed complete on April 24, 2026.
PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Submissions Summary
5Jacob Bolduc, the Applicant’s agent, gave a presentation accompanied by slides; a copy of the slides is available upon request from the coordinator.
6Mr. Bolduc stated that the proposed height is compatible with the surrounding area and aligns with the permitted height of other built forms. He explained that other designs had been considered, such as a low-rise apartment building, however, this type of building would be limited to four units, but with the same building envelope, and would automatically qualify for a building height of 11 metres. In his view, the taller building height, combined with a limited number of permitted units, created a mismatch between height and density within the zoning regulations. Mr. Bolduc stated that the proposed semi-detached dwelling would optimize living space per unit, thereby providing housing for large families, which is identified as a priority in the City’s Official Plan.
7Mr. Bolduc explained that the proposed front yard setback was consistent with both the existing house and the adjacent properties.
8In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Bolduc clarified that the floor plans depicting two additional units were based on the initial proposal and incorrectly designated that space as living quarters. However, the intention is for this basement space to serve as storage for future tenants.
9Mr. Bolduc also explained that variances (b) and (e) represented a deviation of less than 10 per cent from current zoning setback provisions, and therefore, in accordance with provincial regulations, were allowed as of right.
10City Planner Nick Burnie provided clarification on what would be automatically permitted under current zoning regulations. In response to questions from the Panel, he confirmed that, within a semi-detached dwelling, the larger unit is considered the primary dwelling unit; however, secondary units may be of equivalent size. He further confirmed that no parking spaces would be required for the property, regardless of the type of dwelling proposed.
11Stefano Scaini, the Applicant, explained that a carpooling service was being considered for the property to address parking concerns.
12The Panel also heard from the following individuals:
D. Napier, a local resident, stated that he had submitted a written comment and that his concerns mirrored those of other neighbours who were about to speak.
K. Winges, a local resident, expressed his concerns about the similarities between this project and the application previously denied in 2025. He also expressed frustration that the proposed building is classified as a semi-detached dwelling and believed the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. He also raised concerns regarding the impact on on-street parking, snow removal, pedestrian safety, and the possibility of additional units.
M. Kaulback, a local resident, expressed concerns about the increase in the building’s height, and the possibility of more units being added. He also raised concerns about on-street parking and pedestrian safety.
K. Shimmons, a local resident, expressed concerns that the project does not fit in with the character, and about the impact that increased density could have on safety and sanitation in the neighbourhood. She also raised concerns regarding parking and the impact on the trees on the property.
D. Bayliss, a local resident, expressed frustration over the number of proposed housing units, the population increase, and its potential impact on the neighbourhood. She also highlighted on-street parking issues.
A. Gurung, a local resident, raised concerns about the proposed increase in building height and the resulting shading, changes to the neighbourhood’s streetscape, as well as the loss of privacy and sunlight. He also highlighted parking issues and believed the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site.
J. Restrepo, a local resident, expressed concerns about parking and traffic issues in the neighbourhood.
13Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATIONS GRANTED
Applications 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 variances are minor, are 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:
Applications and supporting documents, including a cover letter, plans, tree information, photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received May 13, 2026, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email dated May 12, 2026, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email dated May 13, 2026, with comments.
D. Napier, local resident, email received May 11, 2026, with comments.
C. Jackson, local resident, email received May 11, 2026, with comments.
K. Shimmons, local resident, email received May 15, 2026, with comments.
D. Bayliss, local resident, email received May 15, 2026, with comments.
C. George, local resident, email received May 15, 2026, with comments.
P. McCurdy, local resident, email received May 18, 2026, with comments.
C. Steer and A. DiCesare, local residents, email received May 18, 2026, with comments.
K. Winges, local resident, email received May 19, 2026, with comments.
Effect of Submissions on Decision
16The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the applications in reaching its decision and granted the applications.
17Based on the evidence, the majority of the Committee (Panel Chair F. Poulin and Member G. Barrett dissenting on variances (c) and (f)), is satisfied that the requested variances meet all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
18The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the applications.
19The majority of the Committee also notes that no compelling evidence was presented that the variances would result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
20Considering 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.
21The 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.
22In 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.
23Moreover, the majority of 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.
24THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ORDERS that the 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 site plan filed with the Committee of Adjustment on April 24, 2026 and the elevation plans filed April 20, 2026, as they relate to the requested variances.
"Fabian Poulin"
(With noted dissent)
FABIAN POULIN
VICE-CHAIR
"Jay Baltz"
JAY BALTZ
MEMBER
"George Barrett"
(With noted dissent)
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 Ottawa Committee of Adjustment, dated May 29, 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 18, 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
613-580-2436
Comité de dérogation
Ville d’Ottawa
Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation
613-580-2436