Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 4.75 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment evaluated the application against 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 both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for an end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.75 metres.

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

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

The Committee found the variance 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a one-storey gazebo in the rear yard, requiring an increased cumulative floor area for accessory buildings and allowing three accessory buildings instead of the permitted two.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The proposal was deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintained the general intent and purpose 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, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.75 metres.

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

Finding no objections and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, the Committee concluded 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.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased lot coverage of 26% for the construction of a detached dwelling, where the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 15%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and represents orderly development.

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

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and a reduced rear yard setback for the construction of two six-storey mid-rise apartment buildings.

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 general intent of the zone and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0 metres for a new canopy over an existing fueling station, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.5 metres.

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 in keeping with 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 to subdivide their agricultural property to create one new lot for a surplus farm dwelling, with the retained land continuing to be used for agricultural purposes.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, the City's planning report, and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a 13-metre road widening.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns subject to certain conditions, which were amended at the hearing with the agreement of the applicant's agent and the City.

The Committee found that the proposed severances were 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 applications for consent were granted subject to conditions, including requirements for private sewage systems, groundwater quality, and a noise warning clause.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a front yard parking space, reduced parking space length, reduced rear yard setback, reduced interior side yard setback, and a front-facing carport setback to accommodate accessibility needs.

The City raised concerns regarding the loss of soft landscaping.

The majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the proposal fits well in the area and contributes to inclusive housing.

The application was granted.

Two members dissented in part, finding the front yard parking space would be significantly undersized and violate Official Plan policies prioritizing soft landscaping.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, with plans to construct a coach house on each newly created parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, noting concerns from the City's Forestry department regarding tree removal and from neighbours regarding privacy and parking.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting intensification and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including tree protection and servicing requirements.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a coach house on each of two newly created parcels at 882 and 884 Smyth Road, with an interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres instead of the required 1.0 metres.

The City's Forestry and Planning departments raised concerns regarding the removal of distinctive trees.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the location of the coach houses was constrained by a hydro easement and that the trees would be impacted regardless of the location.

The majority of the Committee authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property to create one new lot, with the retained land remaining as farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, an Environmental Impact Statement, and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, the Committee granted the application subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, road widening, and well water adequacy reports.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and increased building heights to construct four townhouse dwellings on newly created parcels.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the 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 applications were granted.

The applicant applied for consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of its property to an abutting property owner.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 62 residential dwelling units in an existing building, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted a maximum of 58.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it aligned with the intent of the Residential zone and contributed to sustainable urban growth without adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two parcels, creating one new vacant lot while retaining the remainder as farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, which was unopposed and supported by an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, road widening conveyances, and groundwater adequacy reporting.

The applicants sought consent to sever a property into four separate parcels and establish easements/rights-of-way to construct four townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 were granted subject to numerous conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the execution of various agreements with the City.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width of 14.45 metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum of 18 metres, to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variances were 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 applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of independent municipal services.