Craig Hamilton

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance for a reduced interior side yard setback for a proposed new dwelling, filed concurrently with a consent application to subdivide the property.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance, representing a 0.59-metre difference from the zoning by-law requirement, met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the City, which did not oppose the variance, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying an application for minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey semi-detached dwelling with secondary dwelling units.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the requested variances.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent to sever and minor variances required to create a new lot for a long semi-detached dwelling and establish a parking easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance had regard for the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal noted the development represented appropriate infill intensification in a transit-friendly area and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the expansion of an existing three-level deck and staircase structure at the rear of a six-unit apartment building.

The appellants argued the proposed structure would be incompatible with the neighbourhood and cause significant overlook and noise impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the existing structure enjoyed legal non-complying status and the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found the proposal was compatible with the neighbourhood and that potential impacts would be appropriately mitigated by the required opaque privacy screening.