Gary Duncan

The applicants sought consent to sever their property to create a new residential lot in an Agricultural Resource Area.

The City opposed the application, arguing it did not meet the criteria for a new residential lot in an agricultural area, which requires an existing habitable dwelling made surplus through farm consolidation.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding it was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement restricting new residential lot creation in agricultural areas and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicants requested a change of condition under section 53 of the Planning Act regarding a provisional consent for a conveyance.

They sought to change condition 11 to require a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone a portion of the retained lands to Rural General Industrial with a Rural Exception to permit a storage yard.

The Committee of Adjustment found the requested change reasonable and necessary, and granted the request.

The Committee also determined the change was not minor and directed notice be given pursuant to subsection 53(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 0.14 hectares, whereas the zoning by-law required 0.4 hectares, to convert an existing detached garage into a coach house dwelling.

The application sought to legalize an already-built structure.

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 minor variance.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a landlocked portion of its property to an abutting property owner.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act and the criteria in subsection 51(24).

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent to sever a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the provision of a hydrogeological report to demonstrate the adequacy of the aquifer for future servicing.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels.

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, and provisional consent was given subject to conditions, including obtaining a Zoning By-law Amendment and demonstrating the adequacy of the aquifer.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three separate parcels for future residential development, along with associated minor variances for reduced lot width, lot area, setbacks, and increased lot coverage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary.

The Committee also found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 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 subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 9.5% (maximum permitted is 8%) to construct a two-storey detached 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 maintained 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 three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The City requested conditions including proof of independent services and a revised Environmental Impact Study with a 0.2-hectare development envelope.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, subject to conditions including an amended 0.4-hectare development envelope.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two lots and establish easements for access, parking, and servicing.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy 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 consent to sever a property into two separate parcels for future residential and commercial development, and to establish an easement for servicing.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a 0.97-hectare parcel containing an existing surplus farm dwelling from a 16.5-hectare agricultural property.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, subject to conditions including a zoning by-law amendment to prohibit residential development on the retained lands and proof of independent services for the severed parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, granting the application subject to the requested conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced setbacks from the normal high-water mark of the Rideau River to construct a covered porch and deck for a new dwelling.

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

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

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, demolition of existing structures, and various servicing and grading requirements.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a Planned Unit Development with two three-storey residential buildings containing 44 stacked-townhouse dwelling units.

The requested variances included reduced setbacks, increased building height, reduced parking rate, and other zoning deviations.

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 the public.

The application was granted.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland and confirmation of adequate well and sewage systems.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units in each half, requiring reductions in lot width, lot area, and front and corner side yard setbacks.

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

The variances were 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 applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their rural property to create a new residential lot.

The City's Planning Services recommended refusal because the retained lot would not meet the minimum 10-hectare area requirement under the Official Plan for a Rural Countryside severance.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding it was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not satisfy the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a rural property into three separate parcels.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, and input from various municipal and provincial bodies.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and that the proposal was in the public interest, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property to create a new parcel for a two-storey detached dwelling, along with minor variances for reduced lot width and area.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Committee also found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Both applications were granted subject to conditions.