Julianne Wright

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, lot width, and interior side yard setback to subdivide their property and construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

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 and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for residential development, while retaining the existing 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.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including obtaining minor variance approval and providing necessary servicing and grading plans.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback and a reduced number of parking spaces for the construction of a new 6-storey, 115-room hotel and restaurant.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the four-part test of 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 minor variances to permit an increased building height and aggregate floor area for a new detached garage.

The City's Planning Report recommended refusal, noting the accessory building would become the predominant feature on the lot and the discrepancy between the principal and proposed accessory structure was not minor.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding the requested variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and were not minor, as they would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a sunroom addition at the rear 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 fit well in the neighbourhood, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature with no adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit zero loading spaces and a reduced parking aisle width for a proposed four-storey, 88-unit hotel.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 create separate ownerships for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, along with associated easements.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including provisions for cash-in-lieu of parkland, servicing, and joint-use agreements.

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 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 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 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 permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming office use in a residential zone to construct a third storey addition with a rooftop terrace.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the two-part test under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act, evaluating the desirability of the development and its impact on the surrounding area.

Despite concerns from residents regarding parking, the Committee found the proposal desirable and concluded it would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted subject to conditions.