Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

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 an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

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

The application was granted subject to standard conditions regarding building code compliance, servicing, and joint use agreements.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a one-storey detached dwelling, deck, septic system, and lap pool closer to the normal high-water mark of the Rideau River than the 30 metres required by the Zoning By-law.

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 no compelling evidence of adverse impacts.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two semi-detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance and permission to enlarge a legally non-conforming commercial use and reduce the interior side yard setback for a second-storey addition at the rear of an existing commercial building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the requested permission met the two-part test relating to desirability and impact.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit an increased canopy projection of 8.78 metres into the rear yard for a proposed two-storey industrial warehouse facility.

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

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings and to establish easements for a shared driveway and servicing.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions, including independent servicing, stormwater management, and cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area for a sunroom constructed at the rear of their dwelling.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found the variances to be minor, desirable, and in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted, subject to the variances being tied to the life of the sunroom.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a portion of their rural property for a lot line adjustment, merging it with an abutting property.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns.

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

The application was granted subject to standard conditions regarding well and sewage systems, noise warnings, and parcel consolidation.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling and a storage shed on a waterfront property, requiring reduced setbacks from the Rideau River and permission to develop within a Floodplain Overlay.

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

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 minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area for a sunroom constructed 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 no objections from the City or neighbours, and determining that the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood and represents orderly development, 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, subject to the variances being tied to the life of the sunroom.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width, reduced lot area, and reduced parking rate to construct a second-storey residential addition above an existing ground-floor commercial use.

The application was unopposed.

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 consent to sever a property to create a new lot for a proposed three-storey stacked dwelling, along with minor variances for reduced setbacks and landscape buffers.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

However, the Committee refused the minor variance application, concluding that the proposed development would not fit well in the neighbourhood and failed to 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 three separate parcels for future residential development.

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 applications were unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee granted the applications, subject to various conditions including cash-in-lieu of parkland, geotechnical studies, and road widening conveyances.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to establish separate ownership for two existing office buildings and to establish easements for access, parking, and stormwater management.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee declined to impose a City-requested condition requiring a Development Agreement for a noise warning on title, finding it unnecessary as no new noise-sensitive uses were being introduced.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced total interior side yard setback of 3.02 metres to construct an addition expanding an existing single attached garage into a two-car 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 fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and represents orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced front yard and corner side yard setbacks for a proposed block of six townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application 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 compatible with the surrounding area, the Committee concluded that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct four townhouse dwellings and minor variances for reduced rear yard soft landscaping and reduced lot area.

Neighbours objected due to concerns about an existing right-of-way.

The Committee of Adjustment (majority) found the applications met the statutory tests under the Planning Act, noting the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented orderly development.

The consent and minor variance applications were granted subject to conditions, with the Chair dissenting.

The applicant sought permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to expand an existing legal non-conforming gas bar use by adding a take-out restaurant inside the convenience store.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a traffic impact assessment.

The majority concluded that without such an assessment, it could not be satisfied that the proposal was desirable for the appropriate development of the land or that it would not create an unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding area.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a parking space in the front yard of their semi-detached dwelling, which is generally prohibited by the Zoning By-law.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the statutory 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 would not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee granted the application and authorized the variances.