Fabian Poulin

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into three separate parcels for future residential development.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to establish separate ownership for two existing office buildings and to establish easements for access, parking, and stormwater management.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee declined to impose a City-requested condition requiring a Development Agreement for a noise warning on title, finding it unnecessary as no new noise-sensitive uses were being introduced.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 13.8 square metre portion of their property to an abutting property.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

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 standard conditions regarding parcel consolidation and servicing.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced front yard and corner side yard setbacks for a proposed block of six townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application 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 compatible with the surrounding area, the Committee concluded that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into three parcels, creating two new lots for future residential development.

The applications were unopposed and heard as part of the Committee's fast-track consent agenda.

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

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels and establish easements for access and parking.

The existing 30-unit apartment building would remain on one parcel, while a new 10-unit apartment building would be constructed on the other.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including requirements for stormwater management, tree protection, and noise control.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced total interior side yard setback of 3.02 metres to construct an addition expanding an existing single attached garage into a two-car attached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of 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 applicants sought consent to sever 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 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.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey, eight-unit stacked dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to the minimum lot width, lot area, front yard setback, and rear yard setback.

Despite the City's Planning Report raising no concerns, the Committee refused the application.

The majority found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development was desirable for the appropriate development of the land or that it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, noting concerns about orderly development and compatibility with the surrounding area.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit the entire driveway of a proposed two-storey detached dwelling to be located between the front wall of the building and the street.

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

Finding no objections from the public or city planning staff, and determining that the proposal fits well within the area and respects the neighbourhood's character, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 3.87 metres, instead of the required 6 metres, to construct a sunroom at the rear of their 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 concerns from City Planning and no compelling evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard setbacks, a reduced resident parking space rate, and an increased rear yard parking area to construct a 4-storey, 10-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.

The proposal was deemed 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 without opposition.

The applicant sought consent for a long-term lease over 21 years and minor variances to construct a 4-storey, 39-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions to front yard setbacks, parking space rates, glazing, and private way width.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application 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).

Both the consent and the amended minor variance applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to enter into three long-term leases, each for a period of more than 21 years, for parcels within a commercial property containing strip-mall segments and free-standing buildings.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the applications satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced northernly interior side yard setback of 2.8 metres for a proposed townhouse dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 7.5 metres.

The applicant originally sought a second variance for a reduced rear yard setback, but submitted revised plans negating the need for it.

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

Finding no objections from the City Planner or the public, and concluding that the proposal respected the character of the neighbourhood and represented orderly development, the Committee granted the amended application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width of 7.61 metres for a semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units, where the zoning by-law required 9 metres.

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

The proposal was deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature with no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted as amended.

The applicant, Minto Communities Inc., applied for consent to sever a property to create a new lot for a future commercial sales centre building.

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

Finding no objections and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions regarding servicing, grading, and registration.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 6 metres for a new one-storey detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from the City Planner or the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.

The variance was authorized subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit increased building heights of 19 metres for three new apartment buildings, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted a maximum of 18 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the statutory four-part test and found that the variance 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, subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced first storey height of 3.5 metres for a proposed eight-storey apartment building, whereas the zoning by-law required a minimum of 4.5 metres.

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.

The application was granted.