George Barrett

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 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 consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct a new detached dwelling, along with minor variances for reduced lot width, reduced rear yard setback, and increased driveway width.

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

The Committee also authorized the variances for lot width and rear yard setback, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

However, the Committee refused the variance for increased driveway width, finding it did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two semi-detached dwellings and to establish easements for parking access.

The application was unopposed.

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

The applications for consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever its property into two separate parcels to construct one long semi-detached dwelling and one semi-detached dwelling, with two additional dwelling units for each principal dwelling unit, for a total of 12 dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to construct a new detached dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling, along with minor variances for reduced lot area, reduced lot width, and increased driveway 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).

The applications were granted subject to conditions, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased driveway gradient of 17%, whereas the Zoning By-law limits the gradient to 8%.

The applicant proposed a snow melting system to ensure safety and functionality.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the 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 installation of the snow melting system as proposed.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 3.94 metres (instead of the required 7.5 metres) to construct a sunroom addition at the rear of their dwelling.

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 proposal fit well in the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for an existing church and a detached dwelling.

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

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

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including rezoning, independent servicing, and a road widening conveyance.

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 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.

The applicants sought minor variances to convert an existing attached garage into living space and introduce a front yard parking space with a reduced length.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns about the parking space length and the creation of front yard parking.

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

The application was granted, with one member dissenting on the variance for the reduced parking space length.

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 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 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 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 consent to sever a property into two parcels for the construction of two detached dwellings, along with minor variances for reduced lot width and increased driveway width.

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

The applications for consent and minor variances were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling with additional units, along with minor variances for reduced lot width and increased building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed development did not fit well in the area and the variances failed to meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

As the variances were refused, the provisional consent to sever was also refused because the resulting parcels would not conform to the Zoning By-law.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a front yard setback of 5.16 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres, to construct a second-floor addition above an existing attached garage.

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 evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

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 front yard setback of 3.00 metres to construct a sunroom at the front of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not fit well in the area, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.