Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into two parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings with a shared driveway, and to establish associated easements and rights-of-way.

The Committee considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, independent servicing, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

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

The Committee of Adjustment heard concerns regarding tree canopy preservation, parking, and water runoff.

The Committee 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 suitability of the land for the proposed subdivision.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into three separate parcels to construct a detached dwelling and a semi-detached dwelling, requiring the demolition of the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment heard objections from residents and the local community association regarding the scale, density, and incompatibility with the neighbourhood character.

The Committee refused the applications, finding they were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property and construct two long semi-detached dwellings, requiring relief for lot width, lot area, interior side yard setback, and building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal represented overdevelopment at the expense of tree planting and parking functionality.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan's tree canopy objectives.

The applicant, Ashcroft Leasing Inc., applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for two existing townhouse dwellings.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the provision of independent water and sanitary connections, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant constructed a semi-detached dwelling that exceeded the maximum permitted building height by 0.12 metres and sought a minor variance to legalize the structure.

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

The Committee found that the variance 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, subject to the relief being restricted to the life of the building.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling, while retaining the remainder for agricultural purposes.

The City raised concerns regarding the use of existing structures on the retained lands, which were addressed through requested conditions, including a zoning by-law amendment to prohibit future residential development on the retained parcel.

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

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into three parcels for the construction of a detached dwelling and a semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reduced lot areas, reduced rear yard setbacks, and increased shared driveway widths.

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

The Committee concluded that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, eliminated opportunities for soft landscaping, and did not respect the character of the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit reduced side yard setbacks for an addition to their existing garage.

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 under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 282-square-metre portion of their property to an abutting property.

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, including the submission of an Environmental Impact Study and the registration of a groundwater covenant.

The applicant sought consent to sever land and for a lot line adjustment to create two new lots for the construction of two three-storey, long semi-detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding efficient land use and intensification, and did not have adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including the suitability of the land for the proposed subdivision.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas for the construction of two detached dwellings.

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, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable.

The applications were granted subject to the submission of a Stormwater Management Brief.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 912.7 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 1,390 square metres, to bring an existing lot into compliance for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application 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 regarding the amendment of the Plan of Subdivision and the lifting of a 30-centimetre reserve.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two lots for the construction of two three-storey, long semi-detached dwellings.

The requested variances included reductions in minimum lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setback, as well as an increase in maximum building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal represented overdevelopment at the expense of tree planting and parking functionality.

The Committee concluded that the variances did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan regarding the maintenance of the urban forest canopy.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct a new detached dwelling, while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City's Planning Department raised no concerns subject to conditions.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification within built-up areas.

The Committee was satisfied that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including the approval of a concurrent minor variance application.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 3.29 metres, whereas the zoning by-law required 5.0 metres, to regularize an existing non-complying dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance 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 a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 11.12 metres for an already-constructed semi-detached dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 11 metres.

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

Finding that the variance 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 Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot width, lot area, and setbacks to construct two two-storey detached dwellings.

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 neighbourhood's character, and represents orderly development, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable.

The applications were granted subject to the submission of a Stormwater Management Brief.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a commercial property into two parcels, creating one new vacant lot for future development while retaining the existing commercial building and parking.

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 application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including a road widening conveyance and cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit increased driveway widths for an existing dwelling and a proposed new dwelling on a subdivided lot.

The City's Planning Department raised concerns that the double driveways were not in keeping with the intent of the zoning designation.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well in the area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

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