Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and floor area for an accessory structure (workshop) on their residential property.

A neighbour expressed concerns regarding the size, visual impact, noise, and water drainage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed structure was compatible with the surrounding area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

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

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 applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased building height of 5.9 metres for a coach house, whereas the Zoning By-law restricts the height to that of the principal dwelling (4.3 metres).

The application was unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

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 applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, along with reciprocal easements for a shared laneway.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a Heritage Impact Assessment, and a Joint Use, Maintenance and Operating Agreement.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment and to grant easements/rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property and the execution of a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings, and to create easements for pedestrian and vehicular access.

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 Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including the provision of a grading and drainage plan, a tree planting plan, and a noise attenuation study.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for a proposed semi-detached dwelling.

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

The Committee was satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a grant of easement/right-of-way to facilitate the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the approval of an associated minor variance application.

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a one-storey addition containing an additional dwelling unit to the rear of an existing duplex dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to side and rear yard setbacks, rear yard area, and relief from heritage overlay provisions.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning staff and no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for residential development.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including tree protection, grading and servicing plans, and the demolition or relocation of an existing structure straddling the proposed severance line.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and interior side yard setbacks to construct two long semi-detached dwellings at 958 Woodroffe Avenue.

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 without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, rear yard landscape area, and parking spaces.

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 application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required resident parking from 25 to 15 spaces for a proposed six-storey, 62-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found the variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor, as insufficient technical evidence was provided to demonstrate the proposal would not create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing detached dwelling into a 12-unit rooming house.

The requested variances included increasing the permitted number of rooming units from 7 to 12, allowing a driveway between the front wall and the street, reducing the driveway width, and reducing the parallel parking space length.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances related to the driveway and parking met the four-part test under the Planning Act and would not cause adverse impacts.

However, the Committee found insufficient evidence that the variance to allow 12 rooming units was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The application was granted in part, with the parking and driveway variances approved and the rooming unit variance denied.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two separate parcels, creating one new lot for future residential development while retaining the 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 no concerns from City Planning and community support subject to certain conditions.

The application was granted, with the variances restricted to the life of the existing dwelling.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased lot coverage of 43.15% (229.38 square metres) for the construction of a detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 40%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

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

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 110 metres from a mineral aggregate reserve zone for a proposed detached dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 150 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City Planner or conservation authority.

The variance was authorized.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a 16-unit low-rise apartment building with zero parking spaces and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

The City expressed concerns regarding an external access ramp and the proximity of balconies to a waste storage area, suggesting the inability to internalize these elements was tied to the proposed number of units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, did not represent orderly development, and failed to demonstrate no adverse impact on accessibility.

The requested variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant, VIKA Land Development, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling on the other lot.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and that the proposal was in the public interest, the Committee granted the application subject to several conditions.