Simon Coakeley

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and having adequate regard for the criteria in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, independent servicing, and noise attenuation warnings.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and reduced soft landscaping area to subdivide a property and construct two three-storey low-rise apartment buildings.

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 fit well in the neighbourhood and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for the construction of three long semi-detached dwellings, and to establish associated easements and rights-of-way.

The Committee 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 adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced tower separation distance of 13.6 metres between two areas of a proposed 35-floor mixed-use high-rise building, whereas the zoning by-law required 15 metres.

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

Finding no concerns from city planning or adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Mattamy Rockcliffe Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 0 metres from the exterior wall for 86 rooftop terraces in a planned unit development of stacked dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment applied 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 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 sought minor variances to permit a front-facing attached garage, a driveway, a reduced garage setback, and an increased front yard setback for a proposed three-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the increased front yard setback met the four-part test under the Planning Act as it respected the neighbourhood's character.

However, the majority of the Committee found that the variances for the garage and driveway did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

The application was granted in part, authorizing only the front yard setback variance.

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, 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 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 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 consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey semi-detached dwellings, each with secondary dwelling units.

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 promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a noise attenuation study, road widening conveyance, and a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

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 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 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 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 sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling with two secondary dwelling units per principal unit.

The requested variances included relief from maximum secondary dwelling unit limits, gross floor area restrictions, front wall entrance prohibitions, and minimum lot area and width requirements.

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 neighbourhood character, and represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

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 applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into two lots and establish an easement, after a previous conditional approval lapsed.

The applicant argued the previous application had not lapsed and objected to a new condition requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The Committee confirmed the previous approval had lapsed.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and a noise attenuation study.