OTTCOA 2026

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels, converting an existing detached dwelling into a semi-detached dwelling and creating a vacant parcel for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to enter into a long-term lease of more than 21 years for a property containing commercial buildings and a shared parking lot.

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

The application was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and had regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to reduce the required residential and visitor parking spaces for a proposed 64-unit, six-storey mid-rise apartment building.

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

The majority 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, noting the site's proximity to transit and lack of unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted as amended, with two members dissenting on the basis of insufficient evidence regarding adverse impacts.

The applicant sought a certificate of validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error relating to an easement that contravened section 50.

The easement was registered before a part lot control exemption by-law was enacted.

The application was unopposed and placed on the fast-track consent agenda.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application had adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest.

The application was granted and the certificate of validation was issued.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels to accommodate an assisted living facility.

Due to a moratorium on road work, the parcels required shared municipal services, which was addressed through restrictive covenants and easements.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants requested a change to a condition of a provisional consent previously granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

The requested change related to the requirements for the registered reference plan.

The Committee considered the submissions of the applicants' agent and the City Planner, who had no concerns.

The Committee found the requested change to be reasonable, necessary, and minor under subsection 53(23) of the Planning Act, and granted the request.

The applicants sought minor variances to convert their duplex into a low-rise apartment building by adding two dwelling units.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, interior side yard setbacks, and front façade window percentage.

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

The application was granted.

The applicant, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.75 metres for a proposed secondary school, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres.

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

Finding that the variance would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, fits well in the area, and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit front yard parking, reduce the required soft landscaping between a walkway and driveway, and reduce the parking space length.

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

Noting no objections from city staff or neighbours, and finding that the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood and represents orderly development, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable.

The application was granted.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a portion of their property for a lot line adjustment, transferring vacant land to an adjacent property owner.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including the registration of a noise warning agreement due to an adjacent active pit operation and the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to create a new lot for future residential development, along with a minor variance for reduced lot width.

The City had no concerns, though the applicant contested two conditions proposed by the City's Building Code Services regarding independent services and limited distance separation.

The Committee found these conditions were not reasonable or necessary and declined to impose them.

The Committee granted the consent and authorized the minor variance, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including requirements for stormwater management, noise control, and a road widening conveyance.

The applicant sought consent for an easement for a shared driveway and a minor variance to permit a 10-unit low-rise apartment building where the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 8 units.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variance met the four-part test under section 45(1).

Both applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to convert an existing medical facility into a restaurant (bakery) and reduce the required parking spaces from 17 to 9.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well in the area, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions limiting the capacity to thirty seats.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit an existing rear deck that projected 3.76 metres into the rear yard, exceeding the 2-metre maximum permitted by the Zoning By-law.

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 fit well in the area, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature with no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit 10 dwelling units in a low-rise apartment building, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 8 units.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well in the area, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement for a shared driveway over parts of its property in favour of an adjacent property.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the filing of a registered Reference Plan.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three parcels to create one new lot for future commercial development.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal had adequate regard for provincial interests, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent to sever a 3.9 square metre portion of their property for a lot line adjustment to merge with an abutting property, along with minor variances for reduced lot area and increased lot coverage for the retained parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an additional front yard parking space, an increased driveway width, and reduced soft landscaping for an existing six-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not minor, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, as the proposal prioritized parking over the pedestrian environment and soft landscaping.