Fabian Poulin

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced number of parking spaces (309 instead of the required 355) to facilitate the expansion of an existing commercial 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 reduction aligns with City policy directions and will not result in undue adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error discovered during the conversion to Land Titles.

The subject lands were inadvertently omitted from a 1989 Quit Claim transfer, though the owners had continued use of the lots since 1971.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest, granting the certificate.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit zero loading spaces and a reduced parking aisle width for a proposed four-storey, 88-unit hotel.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 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 application.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.88 metres for a new two-storey garage addition with a loft, replacing an existing garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application 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 applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each unit of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the provision of independent services and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a long semi-detached dwelling with secondary dwelling units, and to establish easements for access, parking, and amenity space.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including a joint use and maintenance agreement and a tree planting plan.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act.

The City Planner had no concerns, while a neighbour raised concerns about parking and past short-term rental use.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey sunroom addition on the west side of their existing dwelling.

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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, 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 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 a semi-detached dwelling.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, though it requested a condition requiring evidence that the party wall met the Ontario Building Code's fire separation requirements.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee declined to impose the requested fire separation condition, noting the dwelling was subject to the building permit process when constructed.

The applicant, Hydro Ottawa Limited, sought a minor variance to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 2.2 metres for two existing electrical control buildings, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres.

The structures were built without a building permit, resulting in an order to comply.

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, legalizing the structures.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a wood trellis to project 7.26 metres into the rear yard, exceeding the 2-metre maximum permitted by the Zoning By-law.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.62 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a sunroom at the rear of their dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application 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 applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and the elimination of a landscape buffer to construct a pharmacy and clinic.

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

The application was granted.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming use by replacing an existing rear deck with a new covered deck located 27.7 metres from the normal high-water mark, contrary to the 30-metre zoning setback.

The City requested a scoped Environmental Impact Statement as a condition of approval.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it met the two-part test for desirability and impact.

The majority of the Committee declined to impose the Environmental Impact Statement condition, finding it unreasonable and unnecessary.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment and a grant of easement to convey a portion of a property containing surface parking to an adjacent property.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced setback for a septic system from the normal high-water mark of the Ottawa River and a reduced garage setback to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

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

Finding no evidence of adverse impacts and noting no concerns from the City or the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit reduced front and rear yard setbacks for a detached dwelling on a newly subdivided parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment considered 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 applicants, Minto Greenfield GP Inc. and Greenfield Limited Partnership, applied for consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment.

The proposal involved conveying a portion of vacant land to merge with an abutting property, while retaining another vacant parcel.

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 conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant, Ottawa Salus Corporation, applied for minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two parcels for a 54-unit low-rise apartment building and a four-unit townhouse block.

The requested variances included reductions in lot area, lot width, interior side yard setbacks, and landscaping requirements, as well as permissions for additional walkways and front yard parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from the City and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted subject to the development proceeding in accordance with the revised site plan and elevation drawings.

The applicant sought consent to sever its property into three separate parcels for the construction of a long semi-detached dwelling and a detached dwelling, and to grant an easement/right-of-way.

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.