OTTCOA 2024

The owner applied for a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character requirements.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Chair dissented, finding insufficient evidence that the proposal was in keeping with the neighbourhood's character.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 5.1 metres to 4.35 metres to construct a second storey addition over an existing sunroom.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the addition would not expand the footprint closer to the front lot line and would not cause adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a home-based personal training business occupying 29% of the dwelling's gross floor area, exceeding the 25% permitted by the Zoning By-law.

Neighbours opposed the application, citing adverse impacts including noise, traffic, and parking issues.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the expanded business would likely contribute to additional adverse impacts and did not fit well in the area.

The Committee concluded that the requested variance failed three of the four statutory requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was not minor, not desirable for the appropriate use of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property to create a new lot for future commercial/industrial use.

The proposed lot was undersized for a Rural Countryside severance but located within the Carp Airport Special Policy Area, which permits smaller lots if serviced by a private well and septic system.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and granted the application subject to conditions, including requirements for a grading and drainage plan, road widening, and a hydrogeological report.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey semi-detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units per principal unit, requiring reductions in minimum lot width, lot area, and corner side yard setback.

Neighbours raised concerns regarding privacy, density, drainage, and parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood and that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applications were granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed site plan and elevations.

The applicant, 10926221 Canada Inc., applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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 Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan and confirmation of independent municipal services.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced parking rate of 0.96 spaces per unit for a proposed mid-rise apartment dwelling within a mixed-use development, whereas the zoning by-law required 1.2 spaces per unit.

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

Finding that the variance was minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 11.89 metres for a proposed three-storey, ten-unit apartment building, where the maximum permitted height is 11.0 metres.

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

Finding that the variance 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 Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 0.32-hectare landlocked parcel containing an accessory building to an abutting property.

The City requested an adjournment to clarify access and the accessory structure's size, but the Committee proceeded with the hearing.

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

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, including a private approach permit and a road widening condition limited to the Third Line Road frontage.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including an amended condition regarding Bell Canada easements.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever her property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling.

The application was unopposed.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, tree protection, and servicing requirements.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, reduced rear yard area, and reduced distance from an accessory structure to the dwelling to construct a single-storey addition at the rear of the existing dwelling.

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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two detached dwellings, each with additional dwelling units.

The City's Planning Department had no concerns, and the Committee found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded 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 applications were granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 7.5 metres, to construct a sunroom at the rear of the existing dwelling.

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

Finding no objections and noting the proposal fits well within the area 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 applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.92 metres (instead of the required 1.2 metres) to construct a 6-unit townhouse dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the reduction only affected the southwest corner of the building and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the required setback from a normal highwater mark from 30 metres to 25.37 metres to construct a new dwelling and detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the new dwelling would improve upon the existing setback and that there were no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced rear and interior side yard setbacks and front-facing garages for two new two-storey detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns about the front-facing garages breaking the street's character.

However, the majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the grade of the property reduced the impact of the garages and that the proposal fit well within a neighbourhood that already included several examples of front-facing garages.

The majority concluded that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and granted the applications.

One member dissented, finding that front-facing attached garages did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, and to establish associated easements for pedestrian access, vehicle access, and parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application 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 cash-in-lieu of parkland, a tree planting plan, independent servicing, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for 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 conveyance, and groundwater/septic impact assessments.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced parking space length and width to accommodate a residential addition.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed undersized parking space would likely result in non-compliant front yard parking and could encroach on the neighbouring property.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, failing the statutory four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.