Fabian Poulin

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to the front yard and interior side yard setbacks, permitting a driveway between the front wall and the street, and a reduction in aggregated soft landscaping.

The Committee applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found 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 application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 8.51 metres for a detached dwelling under construction, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 8 metres.

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

The variance was deemed minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced total interior side yard setback to construct an addition expanding their existing single attached garage into a two-car garage.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns that the reduced setback, combined with an existing air conditioner and deck, would restrict access to the rear yard from the front yard.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as it failed to ensure adequate space between the dwelling and the lot line.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduction in resident and visitor parking spaces to construct a seven-unit low-rise apartment building.

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

Specifically, the Committee found that the proposed reduction to zero visitor parking spaces was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor, as no parking demand study was provided to demonstrate the absence of adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels, creating separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, and for a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

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

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in compliance with the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions regarding servicing, grading, and the registration of a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels for future residential development, along with associated easements for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

The Committee of Adjustment found the unopposed application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to standard conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and grading and servicing requirements.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.39 metres for a proposed semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units.

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 and no adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels, each containing an existing detached dwelling.

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.

The application was granted subject to standard conditions of provisional consent, with the exception of a noise attenuation study condition which was removed.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a one-storey addition containing living space and an attached garage, requiring reductions in corner side yard setback, rear yard setback, rear yard area, and accessory structure setbacks, as well as increased garage projections.

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 granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, increased cumulative floor area for accessory buildings, an altered garage entrance setback, and an increased driveway width for a detached dwelling.

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, with one member dissenting on the driveway width variance.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and reduced interior side yard setbacks to construct a three-storey, 17-unit stacked dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal supported intensification, respected the neighbourhood character, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant sought permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to lease a portion of an existing legal non-conforming industrial/commercial building for use as an automobile service station.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed use was not desirable for the appropriate development of the property and that the applicant failed to establish that the impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding traffic and parking, would be similar to the existing warehouse use.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed.

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 Policy Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to standard conditions regarding grading, servicing, and common elements agreements.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a refuse collection area located 3 metres from a public street, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum distance of 9 metres.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 applied to the Committee of Adjustment for Certificates of Cancellation under subsection 53(45) of the Planning Act to cancel a previously granted consent for conveyances at 1944 and 1946 Lenester Avenue.

The cancellation was requested to facilitate a future sale of the properties, which would merge under one ownership.

The Committee reviewed the evidence, including a City Planning Report that raised no concerns, and granted the application, issuing the certificates of cancellation.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and driveway width for a new two-storey dwelling with a three-car garage.

The City raised concerns regarding the driveway width and its potential impact on stormwater management facilities under the Carleton Heights Secondary Plan.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the proposal fit well in the area and would not have an adverse impact on stormwater management.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting on the driveway width variance.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a long semi-detached dwelling and one semi-detached dwelling, each containing two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a tree planting plan, and the conveyance of corner sight triangles.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.27 metres to construct a sunroom at the rear of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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 City or neighbours, and granted the variance.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for the construction of a single detached dwelling, while retaining the existing dwelling.

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

The Committee declined to impose the City's requested condition for a Grading and Servicing/Site Plan, finding it unnecessary at the severance stage.

The application for consent was granted subject to standard conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 15% to 17.16% to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed and supported by City planning staff.

The Committee of Adjustment 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.