Jocelyn Chandler

The applicants sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner.

The City Planner and the South Nation Conservation Authority raised concerns regarding the capacity of each lot to accommodate a new septic system.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, subject to conditions including the completion of a conceptual septic system design to the satisfaction of the Ottawa Septic System Office, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced rear and side yard setbacks for the construction of an industrial warehouse.

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 subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed site plan.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback for the construction of an attached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the rear yard functionally acts as a side yard and the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling and sewage system with reduced setbacks from the Ottawa River.

The City initially requested an adjournment for a planting plan, which was subsequently provided, resolving the municipality's concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under s. 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 application was granted subject to the submitted site plan.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a rural property into two parcels, each containing an existing detached dwelling, and to establish easements for vehicular access and hydro utility maintenance.

The City's Planning Services raised no concerns after the applicant submitted a revised draft reference plan ensuring the severance line did not intersect unevaluated wetlands.

The Committee of Adjustment found the requested conditions regarding bedrock and groundwater agreements unnecessary.

The Committee granted the provisional consent, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in compliance with the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a landlocked 1.9-hectare portion of their property to an abutting owner.

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 subject to conditions, including a requirement for an agreement on title regarding groundwater quality and quantity, from which two members dissented.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 0.80-hectare portion of their property to an abutting owner.

At the hearing, the applicant's agent requested that the Committee not impose a condition recommended by the City Planner requiring an agreement on title regarding groundwater quality and quantity, arguing it was unwarranted as no development was proposed.

The Committee agreed not to impose the condition, finding the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for provisional consent was granted subject to standard conditions.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their agricultural property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would be 45.3 hectares and remain agricultural, while the retained 1.69-hectare parcel would contain the existing dwelling and outbuildings.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including road widening and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property to create one new lot for future residential development.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns but requested conditions, including a revised Mineral Resource Impact Assessment and a noise study.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was 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 several conditions, including road widening conveyances, environmental studies, and groundwater adequacy reports.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit an increased front yard setback and a reduced building height to construct an addition and attached garage on the north side of their existing detached dwelling.

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 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 owner applied to subdivide their property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The City objected, arguing the proposal would impede future expansion of the settlement area and negatively impact natural heritage features.

The Committee split 2-2 on whether the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the applicable Official Plan policies.

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules of Procedure, a tie vote is deemed a refusal of the applications.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever and convey two 0.40-hectare parcels of land to abutting property owners as lot line adjustments.

The Committee considered oral and written submissions, including confirmation that an existing right-of-way would not be impacted.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the application subject to several conditions, including road widening and parcel consolidation.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create one new lot for future residential development.

The application raised the issue of whether the 2003 Official Plan or the newly approved 2022 Official Plan applied, invoking the Clergy principle.

City planning staff objected to the application, arguing it would impede the future planned expansion of the Village boundary and negatively impact natural heritage features.

The Committee of Adjustment split evenly on the application.

Two members found the application premature and inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the expansion of settlement areas.

Two members found the application consistent with the 2003 Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, noting it logically completed the existing community.

Due to the tie vote, the application was deemed refused.

The owner applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot widths for two proposed lots created by consent.

The applications required an extension of a road and raised issues regarding the applicable Official Plan policies, as the new Official Plan was approved shortly after the applications were submitted.

The Committee of Adjustment split 2-2 on whether the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Two members found the development premature and contrary to the general intent of the Official Plan regarding village expansion, while two members found it desirable and appropriate under the former Official Plan.

Due to the tie vote, the applications were deemed refused.

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

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

Finding no concerns from the City Planning department or other agencies, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including registering agreements regarding groundwater and soil conditions, obtaining a zoning by-law amendment, and conveying a road widening to the City.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 0 metres for a deck, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 0.60 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no compelling evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed site plan and elevations.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a vacant property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for a powersports dealership.

The City requested conditions including a noise attenuation study and proof of a private approach permit.

The applicant's agents argued these could be addressed during future Site Plan Control, but agreed that a previous noise study would satisfy the condition.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent applications, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, subject to the requested conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduced setback from a watercourse to construct a detached storage garage.

The City's Planning Report raised potential concerns regarding the proximity to a Hydro One corridor, but Hydro One did not comment or object.

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.