OTTCOA 2024

The applicant, Barrhaven Conservancy Development Corporation, applied for a minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a detached dwelling at 338 Peninsula Road.

The requested variance sought a reduced rear yard setback of 4.5 metres for 55% of the lot width, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted this reduction for a maximum of 50% of the lot width.

The Committee of Adjustment, by a majority, found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the rear yard amenity area would still exceed the minimum requirement and that there was no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant, VIKA Land Development, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling on the other lot.

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

Finding 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 Committee granted the application subject to several conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to reduce the rear yard setback and rear yard area to enclose an existing porch at the rear of a detached dwelling.

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

Finding no objections and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a 16-unit low-rise apartment building with zero parking spaces and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

The City expressed concerns regarding an external access ramp and the proximity of balconies to a waste storage area, suggesting the inability to internalize these elements was tied to the proposed number of units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, did not represent orderly development, and failed to demonstrate no adverse impact on accessibility.

The requested variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a grant of easement/right-of-way to facilitate the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the approval of an associated minor variance application.

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a one-storey addition containing an additional dwelling unit to the rear of an existing duplex dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to side and rear yard setbacks, rear yard area, and relief from heritage overlay provisions.

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

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 95.3 square metre landlocked portion of their property to an abutting owner.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City Planner subject to conditions.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions regarding grading, drainage, private sewage systems, and parcel consolidation.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including tree protection, grading and servicing plans, and the demolition or relocation of an existing structure straddling the proposed severance line.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and interior side yard setbacks to construct two long semi-detached dwellings at 958 Woodroffe Avenue.

The Committee of Adjustment considered 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 represents orderly development without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would contain the existing dwelling and accessory buildings, while the retained parcel would consist of vacant farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the provisional consent, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, including obtaining a zoning by-law amendment to address a lot width and interior side yard setback deficiency.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a vacant property into two parcels, one for commercial/industrial use and the other for a future subdivision.

The requested variances included permitting a lot with 0.0 metres of street frontage, a reduced lot width of 26.0 metres, and designating the southeastern lot line as the front lot line.

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

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 110 metres from a mineral aggregate reserve zone for a proposed detached dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 150 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City Planner or conservation authority.

The variance was authorized.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into four separate parcels for future residential development, retaining two existing dwellings.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicants sought permission under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act to construct a three-storey addition containing seven apartment dwellings at the rear of an existing building, resulting in a 10-unit low-rise apartment dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested permission met the two-fold test relating to desirability and impact.

The application was granted, as the proposal fits well in the area and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, rear yard landscape area, and parking spaces.

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 application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths to subdivide their property into four separate parcels for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City Planning Report or neighbours.

The applications were granted.

The applicants applied for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future 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 application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions including cash-in-lieu of parkland and registration of a reference plan.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing carport into an attached garage, requiring reductions in the rear yard setback, rear yard area, and front yard setback.

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.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required resident parking from 25 to 15 spaces for a proposed six-storey, 62-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found the variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor, as insufficient technical evidence was provided to demonstrate the proposal would not create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres, instead of the required 4.5 metres, to construct an attached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.