Kitchissippi Ward

Office of Councillor Jeff Leiper

City appeals CoA Roosevelt decision

The City along with developer are taking the rare step of appealing a refusal by the Committee of Adjustment for variances at the property at 398/402/406 Roosevelt. A couple of weeks ago, the Committee refused a single variance being sought by the developer to reduce the required parking at that proposed apartment building by 10 spaces.

I support fully the City’s appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal of that refusal. As residents likely remember, that building was first proposed by Domicile as a mixed-use commercial/residential building. When the zoning for that building was approved by Council, the community unsuccessfully appealed that (I supported the community in that effort). However, Domicile eventually sold the property to ML Dev who re-worked the development to be completely residential, at first as a high-end, large-unit condo building with several improvements including a landscaped rear yard. That was pivoted again in the face of market conditions to be a proposed 61-unit apartment building. The increased number of apartments triggered a higher requirement for parking, and the developer sought a variance to that to be allowed to build just 15 parking spots instead of 25.

At the hearing, the Westboro Community Association was supportive and the City expressed no concerns. In order to accommodate all of the required parking, the builder will either have to dig an additional level of parking that result in higher rents or revert to the surface parking to which they are entitled. Neither another level of blasting to go down one level nor building surface parking would be beneficial to neighbours. The alternative is to reduce the number of units in a mid-rise building in extremely close proximity to transit, which is the wrong direction in our current housing crisis and counter to the direction of our Official Plan.

Staff tell me the appeal hearing should be fairly quickly scheduled, and they consider they have a high chance of success. Below, I’ve copied the City’s appeal document.


May 16, 2023


Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment,

City of Ottawa

101 Centrepointe Drive, 4th floor

Ottawa, Ontario, K2G 5K7

Dear Sir/Madame:

Re: City Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Minor Variance Decision

Municipal File: D08-02-24/A-00038

Municipal Address: 398, 402 and 406 Roosevelt

Legal Description: Lots 5, 6 and 8, Registered Plan 114

Zoning: R5B[2472] H(21)

Zoning By-law: 2008-250

Registered Owners/Applicants: ML Westboro Inc. (“Applicant”)

Decision Date: April 26, 2024

Please find enclosed Form A1, being an appeal from the City of Ottawa (the “City”)

with respect to the above-indicated minor variance decision of the Committee of

Adjustment (the “Decision”). Kindly forward this covering letter and enclosed Form A1

to the Ontario Land Tribunal for filing.


The contents of this letter form the reasons for the appeal required by Form A1.2


Application History and Context

The Applicant is seeking to redevelop a vacant property to construct a 61-unit, 6-storey

(stepping down to four-storey) residential apartment building.

The Applicant applied for a single minor variance to reduce the minimum number of

resident parking spaces otherwise required under section 101 of Zoning By-law 2008-

250 from 25 to 15.

The variance was required for the Applicant to proceed to phase 3 of the mandatory

pre-consultation of the site plan process for the proposed development.

Subject Site

The subject site is zoned Residential Fifth Density, Subzone B, Urban Exception 2472,

Maximum Building Height 21 Metres (R5B[2472] H(21)). The site-specific zoning

exception permits a building height of twenty-one metres, equivalent to 6 storeys, as

of right.

The subject site is designated “Neighbourhood” within the Evolving Overlay in the Inner

Urban transect in the Official Plan. This area is intended for mid- to high-density

development where walking, cycling and transit are prioritized.

The site is located within 250 metres of the future Kitchi Sibi O-Train Station and next

to the Richmond Road Transit Priority Corridor. Richmond Road is also a Mainstreet

Corridor, which permits a wide range of uses. This site scores a 9 out of 9 on the

“services and amenities” scale used in the City’s “15 Minutes Neighbourhood Baseline


, with “9” being assigned to the sites with the highest access to services and

amenities associated with a 15 minute neighbourhood.3


Grounds of Appeal

In the Decision, the Committee of Adjustment (the “Committee”) made no specific

finding as to whether the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the

Official Plan. A majority of the Committee found that the other three tests of the

statutory “four-part test” were not met, and accordingly rejected the application for

minor variance. One member of the Committee dissented.

The City, as a “public body” as defined in subsection 1 (1) the Planning Act, hereby

appeals the Decision pursuant to subsection 45 (12) on the following grounds:

1. The majority of the Committee erred by concluding that the requested variance

does not meet three of the four statutory rests for granting of such a variance.

2. The variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan. The

variance would permit the construction of residential units in a building that

conforms to the height and built form requirements of the applicable transect,

designation and overlay policies while prioritizing transit and alternative forms of

transportation, encouraging the creation of a 15-minute neighbourhood. In

particular, the general purpose and intent of policies contained in the Official Plan

sections with respect to the Growth Management Framework (S. 3), Mobility (s.

4.1), Urban Design (s. 4.6), Inner Urban Transect (s. 5.2), and Neighbourhood

designation (s. 6.3) are maintained.

3. The variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-law. The

proposed building use and building height, massing, and location are permitted in

the zoning by-law. The only variance required pertains to minimum parking. The

loss of resident motor vehicle parking is mitigated by the proximity to transit, extra

bicycle parking, and retention of visitor parking.

4. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land,

buildings, and/or structures on the property and relative to neighbouring lands. No

variance is sought for visitor parking which would have been expected to have a

disproportionate impact on use of on-street parking shared with neighbouring lands.4


The development is desirable intensification in an area in proximity to transit, and

the built form is sensitive to surrounding land uses.

5. The variance is minor. Only one variance was necessary for the development, and

the reduction in resident parking is consistent with policy goals identified in the

Official Plan and reflected in the zoning by-law.

6. Section 3 (5) of the Planning Act requires any decision of the Committee to be

consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), which was in force at

the time of the Decision in issue. The variance is consistent with the policies of the

PPS which encourage transit-supportive development, including but not limited to

policies 1.1.1., 1.1.3, 1.4.3, 1.6.7, 1.8.1,

7. Section 2 of the Planning Act requires that any decision of the Committee of

Adjustment have regard to listed matters of provincial interest. The variance is

consistent with all the listed matters of provincial interest, in particular:

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable


(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to

support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(r) the promotion of built form that,

(i) is well-designed,

(ii) encourages a sense of place, and

(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible,

attractive and vibrant;

(s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a

changing climate.

8. A traffic impact assessment or parking demand study was not reasonably required

in order to make the above-stated findings and conclude that there would not be

unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood. The need for any such study5


is appropriately a matter to be considered through an eventual site plan application,

in accordance with the City’s Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines.

9. While not strictly binding on the Committee or the Tribunal, regard should be had

to pending legislative and policy changes which favour reduction of parking in

proximity to transit:

a. On April 12, 2024 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing posted a

revision to the PPS for comment on the Environmental Registry. The

comment period expired May 12, but the new PPS has not been adopted.

The proposed PPS would, among other things, add provisions relevant to

this case, which promote reduced parking provision near higher-order


i. Section 2.4.2 policy 3 “Planning authorities are encouraged to

promote development and intensification within major transit station

areas, where appropriate, by: […] b) supporting the redevelopment of

surface parking lots within major transit station areas, including

commuter parking lots, to be transit supportive and promote complete


ii. Section 2.4.2 policy 6: “All major transit station areas should be

planned and designed to be transit-supportive and to achieve

multimodal access to stations and connections to nearby major trip

generators by providing, where feasible: a) connections to local and

regional transit services to support transit service integration; b)

infrastructure that accommodates a range of mobility needs and

supports active transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes,

and secure bicycle parking; and c) commuter pick-up/drop-off areas.”

b. Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, received a

second reading and was sent to Standing Committee on Finance and

Economic Affairs on April 17, 2024, but has not yet been enacted or received

Royal Assent. The version of Schedule 12 of the legislation sent to Standing6


Committee would amend s. 34 of the Planning Act, to add a new subsection

34 (1.1) which would state that a zoning by-law may not require an owner or

occupant of a building or structure to provide and maintain parking facilities,

other than parking facilities for bicycles, on land that is not part of a highway

and that is located within either a protected major transit station area or an

area delineated in the official plan of the municipality surrounding and

including an existing or planned higher order transit station or stop, within

which area the official plan policies identify the minimum number of residents

and jobs, collectively, per hectare that are planned to be accommodated, but

only if those policies are required to be included in the official plan to conform

with a provincial plan or be consistent with a policy statement issued under

subsection 3 (1).

Relief Requested

The City therefore respectfully requests an order allowing the City’s appeal and

authorizing the minor variance.

Thank you for your attention to this appeal.

Yours Truly,

Garett Schromm