Julianne Wright

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 14.35 metres for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 8.5 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the increased height was due to the significant slope of the site and would have minimal visual impact on the streetscape.

The application was granted, subject to conditions requiring the submission of an Environmental Impact Study and a slope stability report prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a seniors' retirement community, including an eight-storey long-term care home and a fifteen-storey retirement home.

The requested variances included reductions to front yard setbacks, landscaped areas, drive aisle widths, parking space dimensions, and loading space requirements.

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 provided adequate parking and fit well within the area.

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

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, requiring the demolition of the existing detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 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 the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the approval of accompanying minor variances and tree protection measures.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two lots for a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, requesting reduced lot width and area, and permission for front-facing attached garages.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the lot width and area variances, finding they met the four-part test under the Planning Act and fit well within the neighbourhood.

However, the Committee denied the variances for front-facing garages, as they were inconsistent with the dominant streetscape character and lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property and create a new vacant parcel for future development.

The proposed parcel required variances for reduced lot width and lot area.

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 evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The variances were authorized.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.45 metres for an attached carport, whereas the zoning by-law requires 1.2 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance 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 applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels, creating one new vacant parcel for future development while retaining the existing detached dwelling on the other.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, having adequate regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to standard conditions regarding parkland dedication, servicing, grading, and registration.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.77 metres, instead of the required 9 metres, to construct a sunroom addition.

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

The proposal fit well in the area, 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 sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels, each containing one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the establishment of a new driveway, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the registration of a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The existing dwelling was to be demolished.

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

The Committee found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The applications for consent were granted, subject to several conditions including tree protection measures, servicing requirements, and the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a long semi-detached dwelling.

The City raised concerns regarding the proposal's impact on the urban forest canopy and tree replacement.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, noting it promotes efficient land use and intensification.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including tree protection measures and infrastructure agreements, with one member dissenting.

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 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 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 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two new detached dwellings.

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 fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

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 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.