Here’s a report on the Committee of Adjustment hearing on 192 Carleton which Heather Pearl and Duncan Bury attended. The report has been reviewed by Heather and is ready to go. It’s a follow-up to 192 Carleton Avenue Development Proposal.
192 (194) Carleton Avenue Development Proposal
City of Ottawa, November 21, 2012
Committee of Adjustment
The owner of 192 Carleton Avenue applied to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for minor variance (lot width and lot area) and consent to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land to allow the building of a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling. Approval of the consent and minor variance applications would allow a reduced lot width and a reduced lot area for each of the two new parcels.
Heather Pearl and Duncan Bury attended the November 21st Committee of Adjustment hearing on behalf of the CPCA and to register the Association’s support for the applications.
What had originally been seen as a simple and straightforward application changed immediately upon introduction of the proposal by the chair of the COA, with the revelation that additional new variances were also being requested – variances that the CPCA had not been made aware of and which were not part of the original applications.
Concern about these new variances, which appeared to address the front yard set-back, was heightened by a confusing presentation by the staff planner. The chair of the Committee, John Lindsay, initially appeared to be equally confused by the new variances and to his credit expressed particular concern about the lack of public notice.
Upon further discussion and an examination of the plans it became apparent that the siting of the new proposed semi-detached dwelling had not changed and that the variances were being proposed by the City “in the abundance of caution” to address the front yard averaging with reference to the adjoining property to the north, 188 Carleton. It became clear that the front yard averaging was being measured based on the siting of the buildings that currently occupy the adjacent properties, and would not be using the set back in the approved re-development proposal for 188 Carleton. The existing house on 188 Carleton is set back 12.53 m. Averaging would have required 192 Carleton to have a 9.37 m set-back. The new last minute variances were requested to address this and allow the new 192 Carleton development the 6.21 m set-back that the proposal has shown from the beginning.
After this clarification and expressions of concern about the last minute filing of new variance applications, the CPCA representatives indicated support for the new variances and stated support for the other variances and consent.
The owner of the proposed semi-detached dwellings at 192 Carleton, and his agent, had been requested by the City to apply for the new variances but, unfortunately, had not thought to contact the CPCA because they saw the applications as a minor technical detail. That turned out to be true in this case. It is important to note, however, that last minute introductions of minor variance applications could result in considerable change to a proposal. The sudden appearance of these new variance requests served to emphasize the continued importance of vigilance and engagement with all COA applications.
November 25, 2012