Sharon Lécuyer

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment building, requiring reductions in interior side yard setbacks, rear yard setback, rear yard area, and rear yard soft landscaped area.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 neighborhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable.

The application was granted subject to the submitted site plan and elevations.

The applicant, 14007930 Canada Inc., applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas to subdivide a property at 60 Lees Avenue into two parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the statutory 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 that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to extend an existing deck, requesting a 0-metre projection from the rear lot line and a reduced rear yard setback of 1.06 metres.

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

The proposal fit well within the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard area of 18.92% to construct a one-storey sunroom addition.

The Committee considered 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 minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, rear yard setback, and rear yard area to construct a three-storey low-rise apartment building with eight units.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties, 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 a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct an 18-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 contributes to residential intensification without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units, including variances for reduced lot width and area, front-facing garages, and secondary dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances related to lot width, area, and secondary dwelling units, finding they met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

However, the Committee refused the variances for front-facing garages, finding insufficient evidence that they were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as they would enhance the prominence of the automobile on the streetscape.

One member dissented regarding the refusal of the front-facing garages.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced corner side yard, interior side yard, and rear yard setbacks to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new attached garage.

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

Finding that the proposal fits well in the neighbourhood, creates no unacceptable adverse impacts, and maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 1.62 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 2.5 metres, to construct a second storey addition over an existing front porch.

The Old Ottawa East Community Association initially raised concerns regarding tree protection, which were resolved prior to the hearing.

The Committee 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 minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a four-storey, eight-unit apartment building.

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

Despite some concerns raised by City Planning staff regarding massing, the Committee found the proposal fit well within the area and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, subject to conditions regarding construction plans and balcony privacy screens.

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.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing office building into a mix of residential and commercial units.

The requested variances included reductions to the required commercial ground floor area, driveway width, drive aisle width, parking space dimensions, and vertical clearance.

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, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit 0 residential and 0 visitor parking spaces for a proposed 6-storey, 19-unit mixed-use building.

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 represents orderly development without 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 applicants sought minor variances to permit front-facing garages for a proposed semi-detached dwelling, which the Zoning By-law otherwise prohibited based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The City's Planning Department raised concerns about the proposal's impact on the streetscape.

However, the Committee of Adjustment found no compelling evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The Committee concluded 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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback, a reduced side yard setback, the principal entrance to face the side lot line, and a covered porch projection for an addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard setbacks, reduced soft landscaping, and reduced front facade windows to accommodate three additional dwelling units for a total of six units.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee granted the application as amended.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a two-storey addition and a front-facing attached garage, requiring a reduced interior side yard and an increased front yard setback.

The City Planner expressed concerns that the front-facing garage did not reflect the dominant streetscape character, and a neighbour raised concerns about sunlight, privacy, and construction impacts.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the area and that no compelling evidence demonstrated an unacceptable adverse impact.

The Committee concluded that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a front-facing garage, an increased driveway width, and a reduced landscape buffer between the driveway and walkway for a proposed two-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found that the proposal maximized hard surfaces, enhanced the visual dominance of the automobile, and was not compatible with the surrounding streetscape, thereby failing to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a low-rise apartment building with 10 dwelling units, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of eight.

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

The Committee found that the variance related to density rather than building size, the lot greatly exceeded the minimum size, and the proposal fit well within the area without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side, front, and rear yard setbacks to convert an existing semi-detached dwelling into a six-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they regularized existing conditions, fit well within the neighbourhood, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.