Heather MacLean

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 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 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 an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal 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 independent servicing, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and fire separation verification.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with two principal units and two additional dwelling units.

The requested variances included reduced lot areas, increased building height, and reduced interior and corner side yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area and respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the severance of a property into two parcels, allowing for the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling on one parcel while retaining the existing dwelling on the other.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, front yard setback, and interior yard setback, as well as an increased canopy projection.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey sunroom addition.

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, respected the neighbourhood's character, and had no unacceptable adverse impacts, 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 applicant applied for consent to sever its property into two separate parcels, each containing an existing industrial building.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct a two-storey detached dwelling on the new parcel, while retaining the existing dwelling on the other.

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

Finding that the proposal promoted efficient land use and development within a built-up area, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including tree protection, servicing, and noise warning registration.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced pole width of 1.45 metres for a flag lot, whereas the zoning by-law required a minimum of 2.2 metres.

The variance was requested to subdivide the property into two parcels to create separate ownerships for each half of an existing long semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from city planning or conservation authorities, and granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into four separate parcels to create long semi-detached dwellings with a shared driveway.

The City opposed the application, arguing that a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Condominium were the appropriate mechanisms for the proposed planned unit development.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal would result in constrained lots incapable of functioning independently, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent to subdivide a property into four separate parcels to create long semi-detached dwellings with shared easements for access and utilities.

The City opposed the applications, arguing the proposal should be reviewed as a planned unit development under a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Condominium.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.