Simon Coakeley

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions, including requirements for independent municipal services, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and tree planting.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings, along with easements for shared access.

The applicant also requested minor variances to permit an increased building height of 11 metres, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 10 metres.

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

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

Both the consent and minor variance applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 10.1 metres for a new detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 8.5 metres.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

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 consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into three separate parcels to create separate ownership for three existing buildings.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions, including requirements for a Common Elements Agreement and compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicants applied for a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law which prohibited it based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the area and respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the variance met the four-part test under 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 for a lot line adjustment to convey a vacant 112.3 square metre portion of its property to an abutting property owner.

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 a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to standard conditions regarding parcel consolidation and servicing.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a four-storey, ten-unit low-rise residential apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, rear yard setback, interior side yard setback, and rear yard soft landscape area, as well as an increase in exterior stairs projection.

Several residents objected to the proposal, raising concerns about the building's size and the cumulative impact of the variances.

The majority of the Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variances met the four-part test under 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 Chair dissented, finding that the proposal did not represent orderly development.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased number of dwelling units (from 8 to 10) and reduced setbacks and landscaping for an existing low-rise apartment building undergoing renovations.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances for setbacks and landscaping met the four-part test under the Planning Act, as they were appropriate for the adaptive reuse of the building and improved site conditions.

However, the majority of the Committee found insufficient evidence that the variance for increased dwelling units maintained the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The application was granted in part, with the setback and landscaping variances authorized and the dwelling unit variance denied.

The applicants sought consent to sever land and establish easements, as well as minor variances for reduced interior yard area and soft landscaped area, to construct four three-storey apartment buildings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent applications, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.

The Committee authorized the variance for reduced soft landscaped area, finding it met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

However, the majority of the Committee refused the variance for reduced interior yard area, finding insufficient evidence that it was desirable or maintained the general intent of the Zoning By-law, as no alternative provision for communal outdoor amenity space was made.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, reduced interior side yard setbacks, and a reduced front façade window percentage to construct an addition at the rear of an existing duplex, converting it into a six-unit 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 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 the construction of a three-unit townhouse dwelling with two additional dwelling units per principal unit.

The requested variances included increased building height, reduced lot area, and reduced front yard setback.

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, with the Chair dissenting.

The applicants applied for minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit, low-rise apartment building, requiring reductions in lot width, lot area, and yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment evaluated the application against 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 creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit, low-rise apartment building, requiring reductions in lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks.

The local community association and several residents opposed the application, raising concerns about overdevelopment, privacy, noise, and waste management.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law, and would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicants applied to the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.7 metres for a proposed one-storey detached garage, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 1.2 metres.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

The Committee granted the application, finding 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 applicant sought consent to sever a property into two lots and establish easements for access, parking, and servicing.

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 a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced setbacks from the normal high-water mark of the Rideau River to construct a covered porch and deck for a new 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 area, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland and confirmation of adequate well and sewage systems.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a 0.97-hectare parcel containing an existing surplus farm dwelling from a 16.5-hectare agricultural property.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, subject to conditions including a zoning by-law amendment to prohibit residential development on the retained lands and proof of independent services for the severed parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, granting the application subject to the requested conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey, 10-unit low-rise apartment dwelling, requiring reductions in front, rear, and interior side yard setbacks, and an increase in the maximum permitted dwelling units.

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 subject to revised site plans.