OTTCOA 2024

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 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 variance was requested to accommodate a specific dwelling design chosen by potential purchasers in a new subdivision.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the rear of the property abutted a river, reducing the potential for overlook.

The application was granted, with two members dissenting.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of the dwelling.

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

Finding no objections and noting that the proposal fits well within the area without adverse impacts, the Committee concluded that the variances met the statutory four-part test.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of four two-storey detached dwellings, requiring reductions in minimum lot area, lot width, rear yard setback, and street frontage.

At the hearing, the City Planner requested an adjournment to provide notice of additional variances related to street frontage.

The Committee, by majority, denied the adjournment, finding the additional variances closely related to the original requests.

Applying the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Committee found the variances to be minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing detached dwelling into a 12-unit rooming house.

The requested variances included increasing the permitted number of rooming units from 7 to 12, allowing a driveway between the front wall and the street, reducing the driveway width, and reducing the parallel parking space length.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances related to the driveway and parking met the four-part test under the Planning Act and would not cause adverse impacts.

However, the Committee found insufficient evidence that the variance to allow 12 rooming units was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The application was granted in part, with the parking and driveway variances approved and the rooming unit variance denied.

The applicants applied for minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling with reduced setbacks from a watercourse.

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

Finding that the watercourse functioned similarly to a swale and that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood without adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were 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 convert an existing two-story, three-unit dwelling into a four-unit, low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included reduced front and rear yard setbacks and permission for two rear yard parking spaces on a lot smaller than normally required.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the changes were primarily internal and would not create adverse impacts on the surrounding area.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two separate parcels, creating one new lot for future residential development while retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning and community support subject to certain conditions.

The application was granted, with the variances restricted to the life of the existing dwelling.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling, requiring reductions in lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, landscape area, and parking spaces.

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 application.

The applicant, 1332710 Ontario Inc., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever land and grant easements/rights of way at 1598 Prince of Wales Drive to construct four two-storey detached dwellings.

The City Planner initially requested an adjournment due to additional variances required for reduced street frontage, but the Committee proceeded with the hearing as the issues were closely related.

The Committee 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 for provisional consent were granted subject to several conditions, including stormwater management, grading, and noise warnings.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for a proposed semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee was satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to convert an existing three-unit dwelling into a five-unit low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included reduced rear and interior side yard setbacks, increased building height, reduced front façade fenestration, and a reduction in required parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal maintained the character of the neighbourhood and represented orderly development without creating unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased lot coverage of 43.15% (229.38 square metres) for the construction of a detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 40%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage, which was not permitted by the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The proposal also required the removal of a mature bur oak tree in the rear yard.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the variance did not meet the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded that the loss of the significant tree was avoidable, the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and the proposed garage and tree removal would cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings, and to create easements for pedestrian and vehicular access.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including the provision of a grading and drainage plan, a tree planting plan, and a noise attenuation study.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and floor area for an accessory structure (workshop) on their residential property.

A neighbour expressed concerns regarding the size, visual impact, noise, and water drainage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed structure was compatible with the surrounding area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

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

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 9.3% (maximum permitted is 8%) to construct a two-storey detached dwelling and a one-storey pool house.

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 public or city planning staff.

The variance was authorized.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, along with reciprocal easements for a shared laneway.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a Heritage Impact Assessment, and a Joint Use, Maintenance and Operating Agreement.

The applicant, Dilworth Developments Inc, applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property to create one new lot for future residential development.

The retained parcel contains an existing single-family dwelling.

After an initial adjournment to address concerns from the City and the Conservation Authority, the applicant provided additional documentation.

The Committee 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 for consent was granted subject to several conditions, including the provision of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and a Hydrogeological Evaluation.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into three separate parcels for the construction of three detached dwellings, requiring relief for lot width, lot area, building height, and front-facing attached garages.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal would improve the existing condition by removing front yard parking and adding greenspace.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two parcels for the construction of a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks, as well as permission for an attached front-facing garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area and represents orderly development compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The applications were granted, with one member dissenting.