OTTCOA 2024

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 6 metres to 3.05 metres to construct a sunroom and an uncovered deck.

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 variance was authorized.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a refuse collection area located 3 metres from a public street, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum distance of 9 metres.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and area for a two-storey coach house.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 without opposition.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for Certificates of Cancellation under subsection 53(45) of the Planning Act to cancel a previously granted consent for conveyances at 1944 and 1946 Lenester Avenue.

The cancellation was requested to facilitate a future sale of the properties, which would merge under one ownership.

The Committee reviewed the evidence, including a City Planning Report that raised no concerns, and granted the application, issuing the certificates of cancellation.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot width of 15.43 metres (minimum 18.0 metres required) to construct a four-storey, 10-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning and no compelling evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The variance was authorized subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a one-storey pedestrian bridge connecting two proposed 40-storey mixed-use residential towers at the second storey, whereas the zoning by-law required a four-storey feature above the second storey.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal respected the intent of the by-law to limit massing and impact.

The application was unopposed and granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with reduced lot area, front yard setback, and corner side yard setback.

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 applications.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced minimum distance separation of 134 metres from an existing livestock facility to a proposed lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law required 185 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 maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

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

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

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

The applications for consent were granted, subject to several conditions including the approval of a concurrent minor variance application, the provision of a Geotechnical Report, and a Mineral Resource Impact Assessment.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment and to grant easements/rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property and the execution of a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement/right-of-way for parking in favour of the abutting property at 22 Concord Street North.

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

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and having adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, including filing a registered Reference Plan and electronic registration documents within two years.

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

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of independent municipal services.

The applicant sought permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to lease a portion of an existing legal non-conforming industrial/commercial building for use as an automobile service station.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed use was not desirable for the appropriate development of the property and that the applicant failed to establish that the impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding traffic and parking, would be similar to the existing warehouse use.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 2300 square metre portion of their property to the abutting property owners.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in compliance with the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions including a road widening conveyance and parcel consolidation.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width of 14.45 metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum of 18 metres, to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

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

The variances were 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 applications were granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 62 residential dwelling units in an existing building, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted a maximum of 58.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it aligned with the intent of the Residential zone and contributed to sustainable urban growth without adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of its property to an abutting property owner.

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

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

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and increased building heights to construct four townhouse dwellings on newly created parcels.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the 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 applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever a property into four separate parcels and establish easements/rights-of-way to construct four townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, satisfying the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications were granted subject to numerous conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the execution of various agreements with the City.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two parcels, creating one new vacant lot while retaining the remainder as farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, which was unopposed and supported by an Environmental Impact Statement.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, road widening conveyances, and groundwater adequacy reporting.