Julianne Wright

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a one-storey pedestrian bridge connecting two proposed 40-storey mixed-use residential towers at the second storey, whereas the zoning by-law required a four-storey feature above the second storey.

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 respected the intent of the by-law to limit massing and impact.

The application was unopposed and granted.

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, with plans to construct a coach house on each newly created parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, noting concerns from the City's Forestry department regarding tree removal and from neighbours regarding privacy and parking.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting intensification and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including tree protection and servicing requirements.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for an end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.75 metres.

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

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

The Committee found the variance to be 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 applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width of 14.45 metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum of 18 metres, to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variances were deemed 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 minor variances to permit the construction of a one-storey gazebo in the rear yard, requiring an increased cumulative floor area for accessory buildings and allowing three accessory buildings instead of the permitted two.

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 application was granted.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 4.75 metres.

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 both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.75 metres.

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

Finding no objections and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, the Committee concluded 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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and a reduced rear yard setback for the construction of two six-storey mid-rise apartment buildings.

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 aligned with the general intent of the zone and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into three separate parcels for residential development, along with reciprocal easements for vehicular and pedestrian access.

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 and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan, grading and drainage plans, and a potential road widening conveyance.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

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

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

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a coach house on each of two newly created parcels at 882 and 884 Smyth Road, with an interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres instead of the required 1.0 metres.

The City's Forestry and Planning departments raised concerns regarding the removal of distinctive trees.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the location of the coach houses was constrained by a hydro easement and that the trees would be impacted regardless of the location.

The majority of the Committee authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for Certificates of Cancellation under subsection 53(45) of the Planning Act to cancel a previously granted consent for conveyances at 1944 and 1946 Lenester Avenue.

The cancellation was requested to facilitate a future sale of the properties, which would merge under one ownership.

The Committee reviewed the evidence, including a City Planning Report that raised no concerns, and granted the application, issuing the certificates of cancellation.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for the construction of a single detached dwelling, while retaining the existing dwelling.

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

The Committee declined to impose the City's requested condition for a Grading and Servicing/Site Plan, finding it unnecessary at the severance stage.

The application for consent was granted subject to standard conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 15% to 17.16% to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed and supported by City planning staff.

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.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a long semi-detached dwelling and one semi-detached dwelling, each containing two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a tree planting plan, and the conveyance of corner sight triangles.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and driveway width for a new two-storey dwelling with a three-car garage.

The City raised concerns regarding the driveway width and its potential impact on stormwater management facilities under the Carleton Heights Secondary Plan.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the proposal fit well in the area and would not have an adverse impact on stormwater management.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting on the driveway width variance.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot width of 15.43 metres (minimum 18.0 metres required) to construct a four-storey, 10-unit apartment building.

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 variance was authorized subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit an increased driveway width of 10.96 metres, exceeding the maximum permitted width of 6 metres, to accommodate a garage addition.

The City expressed concerns regarding visual impact and soft landscaping.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the 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, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.27 metres to construct a sunroom at the rear of an existing semi-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 objections from the City or neighbours, and granted the variance.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a refuse collection area located 3 metres from a public street, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum distance of 9 metres.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

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.