Fabian Poulin

The applicants applied to the Ottawa Committee of Adjustment for permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge a legally non-conforming building by demolishing an existing porch and deck and constructing a new sunroom and deck.

The application was unopposed and proceeded on the fast-track consent agenda.

The Committee found that the requested permission met the two-fold test of desirability and impact, noting no concerns from the City's Planning Report and no evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.

The application was granted subject to compliance with the submitted plans.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into four lots to construct four mixed-use high-rise buildings and transfer one lot to the City for parkland, along with establishing various easements.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced front and corner side yard setbacks for the construction of a new house.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced separation distance of 0.5 metres for a proposed carport, whereas the zoning by-laws require 1.2 metres.

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 will not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit a cantilevered balcony at the rear of the existing house, located 25.1 metres from the normal high-water mark of the Ottawa River, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback of 30 metres.

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

Finding no objections and noting that the proposal fits well within the area without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded that the variance is minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a residential property into two separate lots, retaining the existing house on one lot and leaving the other vacant for future development.

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

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to several conditions including servicing, stormwater management, and a corner sight triangle conveyance.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced parking space rate and reduced landscaped buffer widths for an addition at the rear of an existing hotel.

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 to sever a property into two lots, each containing an existing semi-detached home, and requested minor variances for reduced lot area and width.

The applications were unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent, finding it consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee also authorized the minor variances, concluding they met the four-part test under s. 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced front and rear yard setbacks and an increased building height to construct a three-storey semi-detached dwelling.

Neighbours raised concerns regarding building height, parking, and neighbourhood character.

The Committee of Adjustment (majority) found that the 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 applications were granted, with two members dissenting on the building height variances.

The applicant sought an easement to establish a right of way for pedestrian and vehicular access in favour of a neighbouring property.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Committee granted the application, subject to conditions, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three separate lots to build a new two-storey detached house on each, along with minor variances for reduced lot area, width, and setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including a revised tree information report and stormwater management requirements.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback of 3.98 metres for a residential addition.

The application was unopposed and proceeded on the fast-track consent agenda.

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 minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, reduced rear yard area, and reduced interior side yard setbacks to construct a single-storey addition at the rear of their existing house.

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 applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate lots to build future homes, which would require demolishing the existing house and removing two mature, healthy trees.

City staff opposed the application, arguing that alternative lot configurations could preserve the high-priority trees while achieving the same residential density.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement regarding climate change adaptation and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, as the removal of the trees was avoidable and contrary to Official Plan policies prioritizing tree retention.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 2.808 metres for a residential addition, whereas the zoning by-law required 7.5 metres.

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

Finding no objections and noting the proposal respected the neighbourhood's character, 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 applied for consent to sever a property into two separate lots and to create access easements under section 53 of the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and had regard for the criteria in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate lots, each containing one half of a semi-detached house currently under construction.

Local residents raised concerns regarding the potential need for minor variances for driveways and front-facing garages.

The Committee of Adjustment found that no minor variances were required as the plans did not include driveways or garages for vehicle parking.

The Committee granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions including tree planting and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought permission to enlarge a legally non-conforming detached garage by adding a second storey for a coach house, along with minor variances for increased height and reduced interior side yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested permission met the requirements of subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act, as it was desirable for the development of the property and would not have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area.

The majority of the Committee also found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings with additional units, and to establish access easements.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including stormwater management, noise control, and tree protection.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of its property to the owner of the adjacent land.

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 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.