Jay Baltz

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 0% of the frontage along the front lot line to be occupied by building walls located within 3.0 metres of the frontage, in order to construct a one-storey commercial medical imaging facility.

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

Finding 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 Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error that resulted in the current owner not having legal title to the property.

The property had inadvertently merged with an adjacent property in 1965, and a subsequent transfer in 2003 contravened the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest.

The application was granted and a certificate of validation was issued.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two lots, retaining an existing detached dwelling and constructing a new one.

The requested variances were for reduced lot area and lot width.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the 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 applications were granted.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error that resulted in the current owner not having legal title to the property.

The property had inadvertently merged with an adjacent property in 1965, and a subsequent transfer in 2003 contravened the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest.

The application was granted and a certificate of validation was issued.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to allow for separate ownership of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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 application was granted subject to several conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, the establishment of a joint use and maintenance agreement, and the planting of compensation trees.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and increased porch projection for the construction of a two-storey single-family dwelling.

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

Finding 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 Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to retain an existing detached dwelling and construct a new detached dwelling.

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 and in the public interest.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of independent municipal services.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into four separate parcels to construct three new two-storey detached dwellings, while retaining the existing dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under sections 53 and 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The majority of the Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, having adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and not requiring a plan of subdivision.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including tree protection, servicing, and noise attenuation.

One member dissented.

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

The retained parcel would continue to house an existing landscaping company, while the severed parcel would contain temporary greenhouses and be available for future development.

The City Planner raised no concerns, and the Committee 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 conditions, including a road widening conveyance and independent servicing.

The owners applied for a minor variance to construct a new detached dwelling 21.07 metres from the normal high-water mark of the Rideau River, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 30-metre setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal improves the existing setback and fits well within the area without causing adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought to subdivide their property into four parcels to construct three new detached dwellings, requiring minor variances for reduced lot area and increased driveway width.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns about the increased driveway width reducing opportunities for tree planting.

The majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the 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 of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted, with two members dissenting.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard setbacks for the construction of a carport on their residential property.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, aligned with the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted as amended.