Christine McCuaig

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a three-storey, 16-unit low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included an increase in permitted units, a reduction in required parking spaces to zero, and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, representing appropriate intensification in a transit-supported area.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 34-unit townhouse and semi-detached development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new single-detached dwelling with a front-facing attached garage, increased driveway width, and reduced landscape buffer.

The City did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the Streetscape Character Analysis did not accurately reflect the existing neighbourhood character, which already featured numerous front-facing garages.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and being desirable and minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance for a reduced rear yard setback to permit the construction of a three-storey, 12-unit apartment building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, provides missing middle housing, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the reduced setback would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.