Jay Baltz

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and interior side yard setbacks to construct two long semi-detached dwellings at 958 Woodroffe Avenue.

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 creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including tree protection, grading and servicing plans, and the demolition or relocation of an existing structure straddling the proposed severance line.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a grant of easement/right-of-way to facilitate the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the approval of an associated minor variance application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a 16-unit low-rise apartment building with zero parking spaces and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

The City expressed concerns regarding an external access ramp and the proximity of balconies to a waste storage area, suggesting the inability to internalize these elements was tied to the proposed number of units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, did not represent orderly development, and failed to demonstrate no adverse impact on accessibility.

The requested variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant, VIKA Land Development, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling on the other lot.

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

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 application subject to several conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing detached dwelling into a 12-unit rooming house.

The requested variances included increasing the permitted number of rooming units from 7 to 12, allowing a driveway between the front wall and the street, reducing the driveway width, and reducing the parallel parking space length.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances related to the driveway and parking met the four-part test under the Planning Act and would not cause adverse impacts.

However, the Committee found insufficient evidence that the variance to allow 12 rooming units was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The application was granted in part, with the parking and driveway variances approved and the rooming unit variance denied.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two separate parcels, creating one new lot for future residential development while retaining the existing dwelling.

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 City Planning and community support subject to certain conditions.

The application was granted, with the variances restricted to the life of the existing dwelling.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required resident parking from 25 to 15 spaces for a proposed six-storey, 62-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found the variance 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, as insufficient technical evidence was provided to demonstrate the proposal would not create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling, requiring reductions in lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, landscape area, and parking spaces.

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 neighbourhood character, and represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for a proposed semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee was satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for 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 subdivide a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings, and to create easements for pedestrian and vehicular access.

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 Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including the provision of a grading and drainage plan, a tree planting plan, and a noise attenuation study.

The applicant sought minor variances to reduce the rear yard setback and rear yard area to enclose an existing porch at the rear of a detached dwelling.

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

Finding no objections and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, 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 applicants sought minor variances to construct a one-storey addition containing an additional dwelling unit to the rear of an existing duplex dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to side and rear yard setbacks, rear yard area, and relief from heritage overlay provisions.

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

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment and to grant easements/rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property and the execution of a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.5 metres for 55% of the lot width, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted this reduction for a maximum of 50% of the lot width.

The variance was requested to accommodate a specific dwelling design chosen by potential purchasers in a new subdivision.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the rear of the property abutted a river, reducing the potential for overlook.

The application was granted, with two members dissenting.

The applicant, Barrhaven Conservancy Development Corporation, applied for a minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a detached dwelling at 338 Peninsula Road.

The requested variance sought a reduced rear yard setback of 4.5 metres for 55% of the lot width, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted this reduction for a maximum of 50% of the lot width.

The Committee of Adjustment, by a majority, found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the rear yard amenity area would still exceed the minimum requirement and that there was 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 4.5 metres for 55% of the lot width for a new detached dwelling.

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

The majority of the Committee 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, with two members dissenting.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing carport into an attached garage, requiring reductions in the rear yard setback, rear yard area, and front yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever its property into two parcels to construct a new school, with the retained lands to be merged with an abutting parcel.

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 for consent was granted subject to conditions, including the demolition of the existing dwelling and the merging of the retained lands.

The applicant, Greenbelt Baptist Church, applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever its property to create one new lot for future development, and to establish an easement/right-of-way and a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant objected to a proposed condition requiring evidence that the severed and retained parcels could accommodate independent services, arguing it was onerous since the eventual use was unknown.

The Committee found the condition necessary and reasonable.

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

The applications for consent were granted subject to conditions.