Ann M. Tremblay

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey semi-detached dwellings, each with secondary dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a noise attenuation study, road widening conveyance, and a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant, 14007930 Canada Inc., applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas to subdivide a property at 60 Lees Avenue into two parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the statutory four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units, including variances for reduced lot width and area, front-facing garages, and secondary dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances related to lot width, area, and secondary dwelling units, finding they met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

However, the Committee refused the variances for front-facing garages, finding insufficient evidence that they were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as they would enhance the prominence of the automobile on the streetscape.

One member dissented regarding the refusal of the front-facing garages.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct an 18-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and contributes to residential intensification without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced corner side yard, interior side yard, and rear yard setbacks to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new attached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the neighbourhood, creates no unacceptable adverse impacts, and maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 1.62 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 2.5 metres, to construct a second storey addition over an existing front porch.

The Old Ottawa East Community Association initially raised concerns regarding tree protection, which were resolved prior to the hearing.

The Committee found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side, front, and rear yard setbacks to convert an existing semi-detached dwelling into a six-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they regularized existing conditions, fit well within the neighbourhood, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling with two secondary dwelling units per principal unit.

The requested variances included relief from maximum secondary dwelling unit limits, gross floor area restrictions, front wall entrance prohibitions, and minimum lot area and width requirements.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the neighbourhood character, and represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a low-rise apartment building with 10 dwelling units, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of eight.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee found that the variance related to density rather than building size, the lot greatly exceeded the minimum size, and the proposal fit well within the area without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a two-storey addition and a front-facing attached garage, requiring a reduced interior side yard and an increased front yard setback.

The City Planner expressed concerns that the front-facing garage did not reflect the dominant streetscape character, and a neighbour raised concerns about sunlight, privacy, and construction impacts.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the area and that no compelling evidence demonstrated an unacceptable adverse impact.

The Committee concluded that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a front-facing garage, an increased driveway width, and a reduced landscape buffer between the driveway and walkway for a proposed two-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found that the proposal maximized hard surfaces, enhanced the visual dominance of the automobile, and was not compatible with the surrounding streetscape, thereby failing to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent to sever land and establish an easement to construct a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling with secondary dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan, grading and drainage plan, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into two lots and establish an easement, after a previous conditional approval lapsed.

The applicant argued the previous application had not lapsed and objected to a new condition requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The Committee confirmed the previous approval had lapsed.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and a noise attenuation study.

The applicant sought consent to subdivide a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, along with necessary easements for access.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, and the Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the provision of a servicing plan and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a 10-unit low-rise apartment building and one tandem parking space on their property.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee found that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and achieved intensification.

The requested variances were authorized as they were deemed minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns after a revised site plan addressed tree protection issues.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification within built-up areas.

The Committee was satisfied that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including tree protection and grading requirements.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two parcels and the construction of two detached dwellings with reduced setbacks and other zoning deviations.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed design was not compatible with the existing context and would create unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties and the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including parkland dedication, tree protection, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into three separate parcels to construct three new two-storey townhouse dwellings.

The requested variances included reductions in soft landscaping, lot width, and garage setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted, subject to the revised site plan.