Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into three separate parcels for the construction of three new two-storey townhouse dwellings.

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 several conditions, including a development agreement for an asphalt overlay and a noise attenuation study.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a driveway to be located between the front wall of a dwelling and the street for the construction of a detached dwelling.

An initial variance regarding a watercourse setback was removed after the proposal was redesigned.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it was compatible with the surrounding area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact.

The application was granted as amended.

The applicant sought a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit office and research and development centre uses on the ground floor within six metres of the front wall of an existing commercial building and addition.

The Committee of Adjustment applied 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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

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 consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a new detached dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City's Planning Department raised no concerns, noting the reconfigured lots were in keeping with the neighbourhood's character.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the provisional consent, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to several conditions including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced lot area for proposed semi-detached dwellings with secondary dwelling units.

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

Finding 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, the Committee granted the application as amended.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their agricultural property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would be 45.3 hectares and remain agricultural, while the retained 1.69-hectare parcel would contain the existing dwelling and outbuildings.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including road widening and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant, the Estate of Sherri Watson, sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, interior side yard setback, and accessory building rear yard setback to facilitate a lot line adjustment with an abutting property.

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

Finding 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, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling 19.9 metres from the normal high-water mark of the Ottawa River, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 30-metre setback.

The Committee of Adjustment applied 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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded that the variance is minor, desirable, and maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey, low-rise apartment buildings.

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 and that the proposal represented appropriate infill development, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, tree planting, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand an existing legal non-complying single detached dwelling by constructing a second-storey addition.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, noting the addition would utilize existing exterior wall locations and create no privacy issues.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal met the two-part test under subsection 45(2), as it was desirable for the appropriate development of the property and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for the construction of a new detached dwelling, while retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment applied 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 authorized the requested variances.

The applicant, Intek Building Inc., applied for consent to sever a property to create two new parcels for the construction of two three-storey semi-detached dwellings with secondary dwelling units, while retaining a parcel for a detached dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal promotes efficient land use and intensification within a built-up area, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of a noise attenuation study.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced front and interior side yard setbacks to construct a two-car garage in place of an existing carport.

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

Finding 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, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant, Nilestone Group Ltd., applied for a minor variance to permit front-facing attached garages for a proposed new semi-detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character provisions.

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

The majority found that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood, noting a similar nearby development, and that it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with the Chair dissenting on the grounds that the proposal negatively impacted streetscape continuity.

The applicant sought four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey addition containing four dwelling units at the rear of an existing building.

The requested variances included a reduced interior side yard setback, a reduced percentage of front façade windows, permission for a motor vehicle parking space on a lot less than 450 square metres, and access to the garbage storage area through a parking space.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances for the side yard setback and front façade windows, finding them to be minor and desirable.

However, the Committee refused the variances for the parking space and garbage access, concluding they did not represent orderly development or maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding accessibility and safety.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 143.79 square metres for one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, to allow the property to be subdivided into two separate parcels.

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

The majority 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, with one member dissenting.

The applicants sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error stemming from a 1985 conveyance that contravened the Act.

The City's planning staff had no concerns with validating the transfer.

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 applicants sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 11 metres for a proposed three-storey detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 10 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and that insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan were maintained.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 6.1 metres for a coach house, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 3.6 metres.

The intent was to rebuild a detached garage with a second-storey coach house.

Despite the City Planning Report raising no concerns, neighbours objected due to loss of sunlight and lack of consultation.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not fit well in the area, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor as it would create an unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.