OTTCOA 2023

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels for future industrial development.

The City requested conditions including a Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland dedication and an Environmental Impact Statement.

The applicant argued these were unnecessary as they had been addressed during a previous subdivision registration.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent, imposing the Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland condition but finding the Environmental Impact Statement condition unnecessary at this stage.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a landlocked 1.9-hectare portion of their property to an abutting owner.

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.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including a requirement for an agreement on title regarding groundwater quality and quantity, from which two members dissented.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns after a revised site plan addressed tree protection issues.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification within built-up areas.

The Committee was satisfied that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including tree protection and grading requirements.

The applicants sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

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, Nilestone Group Ltd., applied for a minor variance to permit front-facing attached garages for a proposed new semi-detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character provisions.

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

The majority found that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood, noting a similar nearby development, and that it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with the Chair dissenting on the grounds that the proposal negatively impacted streetscape continuity.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a rural property into two parcels, each containing an existing detached dwelling, and to establish easements for vehicular access and hydro utility maintenance.

The City's Planning Services raised no concerns after the applicant submitted a revised draft reference plan ensuring the severance line did not intersect unevaluated wetlands.

The Committee of Adjustment found the requested conditions regarding bedrock and groundwater agreements unnecessary.

The Committee granted the provisional consent, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in compliance with the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling and sewage system with reduced setbacks from the Ottawa River.

The City initially requested an adjournment for a planting plan, which was subsequently provided, resolving the municipality's concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found 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 application was granted subject to the submitted site plan.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling and detached garage on a lot that does not abut an improved public street for a distance of at least 3.0 metres, as required by the Zoning By-law.

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

Finding that the proposal improves upon the watercourse setback, features adequate waterproofing for the floodplain, and fits well within the neighbourhood without adverse impacts, 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 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 applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a new detached dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City's Planning Department raised no concerns, noting the reconfigured lots were in keeping with the neighbourhood's character.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the provisional consent, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to several conditions including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced lot area for proposed semi-detached dwellings with secondary dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 as amended.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their agricultural property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would be 45.3 hectares and remain agricultural, while the retained 1.69-hectare parcel would contain the existing dwelling and outbuildings.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including road widening and zoning by-law amendments.

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 applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback and a reduced total interior side yard setback to construct an attached garage and a one-storey front addition.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant, the Estate of Sherri Watson, sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, interior side yard setback, and accessory building rear yard setback to facilitate a lot line adjustment with an abutting property.

The Committee of Adjustment applied 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 applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their rural property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future development, retaining the existing detached dwelling.

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 represented orderly development, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment, road widening conveyance, and groundwater adequacy reporting.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling 19.9 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 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, the Committee concluded that the variance is minor, desirable, and maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

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.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot, while retaining the existing three-storey building.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.