Arto Keklikian

The applicants applied for minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduced front yard setback to build a second-storey addition above their existing house.

The application was unopposed.

The Ottawa Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were 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 applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduced westerly side yard setback to build an addition at the side of their house.

The application originally included a variance for a front yard parking space, which was withdrawn after the applicants submitted revised plans.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were 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 as amended.

The applicants applied for a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced northerly interior side yard setback of 0.4 metres for a rear addition, whereas the zoning by-law requires 1.2 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and represents orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit an increased floor space index of 0.39, exceeding the maximum 0.35 permitted, to build a carport and a second-floor extension.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were 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 applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, noting that a previous provisional consent had lapsed.

After reviewing the municipal planning report, which raised no concerns, and hearing submissions from the applicants' agent and local residents, the Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 2.5 metres for the construction of an 18-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate lots for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with provincial interests and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert a ground-floor commercial unit into a residential apartment, resulting in a 13-unit residential building.

The requested variances included reductions to setbacks, landscaped area, parking spaces, and amenity areas.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the public or city planning staff.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a residential property into two separate lots for future development.

The existing house would be retained while a detached garage would be demolished.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including requirements for independent municipal services, stormwater management, and tree protection.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced soft landscaped area and an increased balcony projection for a proposed semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment evaluated the applications against the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the variances were 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 Committee granted the applications.

The applicants sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to build a one-storey addition with a roof top terrace at the rear of their existing legal non-conforming house.

The Committee of Adjustment found the requested permission desirable for the appropriate use of the land and noted it would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted as an unopposed fast-track consent item.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and a reduced chimney projection setback to facilitate the addition of a third storey and a single-storey rear extension to their single-family home.

The application was unopposed, and the City's Planning Report raised no concerns.

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

The application was granted.

The applicants applied for consent to sever their property into two separate lots, each containing one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit an increased building height, a reduced easterly interior side yard setback, and an eave projection to construct an addition within the existing footprint of a detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, along with necessary easements for access and parking.

The applications were unopposed and proceeded on the fast-track consent agenda.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications were granted subject to standard conditions, including a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and an increased building height to construct a three-storey, eight-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or neighbours.

The application was granted, subject to the proposed construction complying with the filed plans.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced lot width of 9.17 metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum of 10 metres, to construct a three-storey 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 represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement for a shared driveway over parts of its property in favour of an adjacent property.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, had adequate 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 filing of a registered Reference Plan.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit 10 dwelling units in a low-rise apartment building, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 8 units.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well in the area, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an additional front yard parking space, an increased driveway width, and reduced soft landscaping for an existing six-unit apartment building.

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.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not minor, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, as the proposal prioritized parking over the pedestrian environment and soft landscaping.