Julianne Wright

The applicants sought minor variances to convert an existing attached garage into living space and introduce a front yard parking space with a reduced length.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns about the parking space length and the creation of front yard parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting on the variance for the reduced parking space length.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels for the construction of two detached dwellings, along with minor variances for reduced lot width and increased driveway width.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

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

The applications for consent and minor variances were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling with additional units, along with minor variances for reduced lot width and increased building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed development did not fit well in the area and the variances failed to meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

As the variances were refused, the provisional consent to sever was also refused because the resulting parcels would not conform to the Zoning By-law.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct semi-detached dwellings, and for minor variances for reduced lot width and rear yard setbacks.

Neighbours raised concerns regarding overdevelopment, loss of trees, parking, and traffic.

The Committee found that the requested variances did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were not minor, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The consent and minor variance applications were refused.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 3.00 metres to construct a sunroom at the front of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not fit well in the area, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a front yard setback of 5.16 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres, to construct a second-floor addition above an existing attached garage.

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 application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of her property to an abutting property.

The existing dwelling on the retained land would be demolished.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions, including the removal of a cash-in-lieu of parkland condition.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit, three-storey stacked dwelling with reduced lot area, lot width, front yard setback, interior side yard setback, and first floor habitable floor space.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances 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.

The application was granted as amended.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, a reduced interior side yard setback, and a front steps projection to construct a new three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the interior side yard and front steps variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

However, the Committee found insufficient evidence that the reduced rear yard setback represented orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The application was granted in part, authorizing the side yard and front steps variances but refusing the rear yard setback variance.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of a new commercial building with a convenience store and the relocation of an existing gas pump island.

The requested variances included an increased front yard setback and reduced minimum glazing requirements for building walls facing two public streets.

The Committee of Adjustment considered 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 subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into five separate parcels for the construction of eight townhouse units, along with associated easements for access and parking.

The applicant also requested minor variances for reduced frontage and transparent glazing.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, demolition of existing structures, and various servicing and grading requirements.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels for future residential and commercial development, and to establish an easement for servicing.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units in each half, requiring reductions in lot width, lot area, and front and corner side yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the unopposed applications 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 in keeping with 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 Planned Unit Development with two three-storey residential buildings containing 44 stacked-townhouse dwelling units.

The requested variances included reduced setbacks, increased building height, reduced parking rate, and other zoning deviations.

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 the public.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to legalize several existing accessory structures, including sheds, a hot tub, and a play structure, which did not comply with zoning regulations regarding setbacks, height, and the number of permitted structures.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances for the sheds and hot tub, finding they supported the residential use and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, the Committee refused the variances for the play structure, finding its reduced setback and increased height did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law to minimize impacts on adjacent neighbours.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings, each containing additional dwelling units, for a total of 12 units.

Area residents opposed the application, raising concerns about overdevelopment, parking, traffic, and stormwater drainage.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding that the proposed lots met zoning requirements and that the development was permitted as of right.

The Committee concluded that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding intensification and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of an attached garage at the front of an existing detached dwelling, requiring a reduced front yard setback and allowing the garage to project further than the principal entrance.

The applicant cited recurring drainage and flooding issues with the existing reverse slope driveway.

The Committee refused the application, finding that the proposed projecting garage would dominate the streetscape and be out of character with the neighbourhood.

The majority concluded that the variances failed all four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that alternate solutions were available to resolve the drainage issues.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a storage shed 15.03 metres from the normal high-water mark of the Rideau River, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 30-metre setback.

The application was unopposed, and the City Planning Report raised no concerns.

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 to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units, along with shared driveway easements.

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

The applications were granted subject to standard conditions, including demolition of existing structures and noise attenuation measures.