Terence Otto

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three separate parcels for future residential development, along with associated minor variances for reduced lot width, lot area, setbacks, and increased lot coverage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary.

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 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 subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 9.5% (maximum permitted is 8%) to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

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

The variance was deemed 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 a minor variance to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 3.83 metres for a townhome unit, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 4 metres.

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

The variance was 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced resident parking space rate of 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit (177 spaces total) for a proposed six-storey, 177-unit apartment building, whereas the Zoning By-law required 1.2 spaces per unit (212 spaces total).

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, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 3.85 metres for a townhome unit, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 4 metres.

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

The variance was 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 application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced side yard setback of 1.98 metres, instead of the required 3 metres, to expand their existing garage.

The application was unopposed and supported by City planning staff.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the statutory four-part test, 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 consent to sever a 40.6-hectare portion of their property to merge with an abutting property, retaining a 1.6-hectare parcel with an existing dwelling.

The City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application under section 53 of the Planning Act.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced number of resident and visitor parking spaces for a proposed 28-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee 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.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three separate parcels for future residential development, along with minor variances for reduced lot widths.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the provision of a geotechnical report and proof of adequate well water.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a 17-square-metre portion of its property to an abutting property owner.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions for lot additions.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property to create one new lot for future residential development, retaining the existing dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including a private maintenance agreement for the road and proof of independent private sewage and well systems.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would contain the dwelling and outbuildings, while the retained parcel would remain vacant farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in compliance with 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 prohibit residential development on the retained land.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to establish easements for emergency vehicle access over several parts of the subject property.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee 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 had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 8.46 metres for an addition to an 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 objections from the City or neighbours.

The application was granted as it was deemed minor, desirable, and in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two parcels to create a new lot for future residential development.

The City requested an adjournment to require a revised Environmental Impact Study with reduced development envelopes.

The Committee proceeded with the hearing and granted the provisional consent, subject to conditions including the submission of a revised Environmental Impact Study with development envelopes reduced to 0.2 hectares.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a rural property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment 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, road widening, and groundwater adequacy reports.

The applicant, Manotick Tree Movers Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced lot width of 6 metres (down from the required 60 metres) to subdivide their property and create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

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

Finding no objections and noting that the proposal fit the agricultural character of the area without adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Manotick Tree Movers Inc., applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application alongside a concurrent minor variance application.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of the minor variance and the provision of independent private sewage and well systems.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a building to be setback 10.26 metres from the normal high-water mark of the Ottawa River, 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 that the proposed new dwelling improves upon the existing setback and that there were no objections.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to convert an existing covered patio into a family room, which required a reduced setback of 21.70 metres from the normal high-water mark of the Rideau River, contrary to the 30-metre requirement in the Zoning By-law.

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

Finding no objections from the City or conservation authority, and determining that the proposal fit the neighbourhood character without adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.