OTTCOA 2024

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including the reduced lot dimensions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for two proposed low-rise apartment buildings.

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

Finding that the proposal promotes efficient land use and intensification within a built-up area, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a covered porch and balcony to project closer to the interior side lot line than permitted by the Zoning By-law for a townhouse unit under construction.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 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 Committee authorized the requested variances.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit parking in a corner side yard and a reduced lot area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two parcels for semi-detached dwellings with additional units.

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 public or city planning staff.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their 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 that the proposal aligned with the low-rise built form of the neighbourhood and maintained amenity space and privacy.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and a reduced rear yard area to construct a two-storey addition containing two additional dwelling units at the rear of their existing detached dwelling.

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, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, which is not permitted under the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal would maximize the visual dominance of the automobile on the streetscape and was not compatible with the surrounding area.

The majority of the Committee concluded that the variance failed three of the four statutory tests, as it was not desirable, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor.

The application was refused, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two parcels for the construction of two three-storey semi-detached dwellings with additional units.

The requested variances included a reduced front yard setback and an increased building height.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting 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 subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.91 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a one-storey sunroom addition.

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 departments.

The variance was authorized subject to the submitted site plan and elevations.

The applicant sought a minor variance to increase the permitted building height for a proposed two-storey coach house.

The City's Planning Forester and residents raised concerns regarding the impact on mature trees on the subject and adjacent properties.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the removal of the trees was avoidable and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the requested variance failed to meet the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it was not minor and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit two parking spaces with a reduced length of 4.8 metres for a proposed 25-storey residential building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the reduced length aligns with zoning requirements for compact car parking spaces and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact.

The application was granted.

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

The application was brought to resolve an issue where the applicants' pool was partially located on the abutting property, as part of a mutual land exchange.

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

The application for provisional consent was granted, subject to conditions including a grading and drainage plan and parcel consolidation.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey semi-detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units, and to establish reciprocal easements for shared driveway access.

The City had no concerns with the applications.

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

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement/right-of-way for servicing a property.

The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent for a lot line adjustment, which required this additional consent application to establish the servicing easement.

The Committee found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, and granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent 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 under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting efficient land use and intensification.

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

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a joint-use and maintenance agreement and a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a covered porch and a covered balcony to project closer to the interior side lot line than permitted by the Zoning By-law for a townhouse unit under construction.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area and respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The application was granted, legalizing the already-built structures.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into three separate parcels to construct three detached dwellings, requiring the demolition of the existing dwelling.

The application also sought to establish easements and rights-of-way for access and maintenance.

The Committee considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and was in the public interest.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the submission of a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area for the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee 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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased floor area for an accessory display and sales area of 35% of the total gross floor area of a proposed one-storey warehouse building, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 25%.

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 applicant sought minor variances to permit a 12-unit rooming house with one parking space, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 7 units and required 3 parking spaces.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The majority held that the proposal was desirable, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature.

Two members dissented regarding the increase in rooming units, finding it too significant to be considered minor.