Terence Otto

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to enter into two long-term leases for a commercial property.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two lots, retaining an existing church and a house, along with an easement for sanitary infrastructure.

The applicant also requested minor variances to permit a reduced lot area for the retained house.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant applied to the Ottawa Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of an exterior gazebo and pool house.

The requested variances involved a reduced rear yard setback.

An initial request for a reduced setback from a watercourse was deleted as the proposal met the minimum requirement.

The Committee 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 as amended.

The Ottawa Catholic School Board applied for a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 31.77% for an addition at the rear of an existing school, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 30%.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the four-part test of 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 granted the application and authorized the variance.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced setback from the normal highwater mark and top of bank of the Rideau River to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling and hot tub.

The application was amended at the hearing to reflect the setback from the proposed hot tub.

The Committee applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the requested variances are minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted as amended.

The applicants requested a change of condition to a provisional consent previously granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

The requested change would require the submission of a registered reference plan that conforms to a newly submitted draft reference plan, rather than the one originally filed.

The Committee found the requested change to be reasonable, necessary, and minor under subsection 53(23) of the Planning Act, and granted the request.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two lots to build two three-storey apartment buildings on one lot and six stacked townhouse blocks on the other.

The applicant also requested a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 14.5 metres, where the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 12.5 metres.

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

Both applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced setback of 15.05 metres from the normal highwater mark and top of bank of the Rideau River, to allow for the expansion of an attached garage.

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

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a 0.482-hectare parcel containing an existing surplus farm dwelling from a 34.51-hectare agricultural property.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including obtaining a Zoning By-law Amendment to restrict residential development on the retained lands.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property to create one new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The Committee considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and that the proposal was consistent with provincial interests, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions, including obtaining a Zoning By-law Amendment to restrict residential development on the retained lands.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 9 parking spaces for a restaurant use, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 17 parking spaces.

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

The proposal was deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was considered minor as it would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted subject to compliance with the filed site plan.

The applicant sought consent to sever land to transfer parts of three properties to an abutting neighbour to the north.

The City requested a road widening condition, which the applicant contested as it applied to the abutting property not subject to the applications.

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

The Committee maintained the road widening condition for the subject properties but waived it for the abutting property, with one member dissenting on the exception.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into four parcels to create three new lots for future residential development.

A neighboring resident raised concerns regarding the hydrogeological sensitivity of the area and the impact of recent droughts on groundwater supply.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, subject to conditions including a requirement for a hydrogeological and terrain analysis report to demonstrate the adequacy of the aquifer.

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

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two parcels to construct a new semi-detached dwelling while retaining the existing detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two parcels for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Finding no objections and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, the Committee granted the application subject to standard conditions regarding municipal addressing, hydrogeological reporting, and grading.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and an eave projection for an already-built garage extension.

The Committee of Adjustment found the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or neighbours.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied to the Ottawa Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two parcels and for minor variances to permit reduced lot widths for the construction of two detached dwellings.

Neighbours raised concerns regarding loss of privacy and the impact on neighbourhood character.

The Committee found that the proposed severances and variances met the criteria under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood and represents orderly development.

The consent and minor variance applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to transfer 5.58 hectares of agricultural land to an adjacent property, retaining 0.72 hectares containing an existing dwelling.

The applicant also requested a minor variance to permit the reduced retained lot area, where the zoning by-law required a minimum of 6.0 hectares.

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 Planning Statement.

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

Both applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent from the Committee of Adjustment under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two parcels, retaining the existing dwelling on one parcel and leaving the other as vacant agricultural land.

The application was unopposed and the City Planner raised no concerns.

The Committee found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 18.48 metres to the normal highwater mark of the Rideau River for the construction of a new detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 30-metre setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from the City or the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.

The application was granted.