Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with a rooftop terrace, requiring reductions in minimum lot width and area, as well as permitted projections for a front porch and steps.

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

Finding that the proposal integrated well with the streetscape and that no evidence of adverse impacts was presented, 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.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing triplex into a low-rise apartment building, requesting relief for parking, soft landscaping, and interior side yard setbacks.

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 fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and contributes new housing.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels, each containing one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the establishment of a new driveway, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the registration of a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels, creating one new vacant parcel for future development while retaining the existing detached dwelling on the other.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns.

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

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to standard conditions regarding parkland dedication, servicing, grading, and registration.

The applicant sought a minor variance to construct a 442-square-metre agricultural storage building and a 93-square-metre grain silo within a floodplain for a willow tree farm.

The Zoning By-law prohibits accessory structures greater than 50 square metres in the floodplain.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and no evidence of adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a two-storey rear addition and a covered front porch, and to establish a front yard parking space for a semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances for the rear and interior side yard setbacks, finding they met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

However, the Committee refused the variance for front yard parking, concluding it did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and was incompatible with the neighbourhood's streetscape character.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property to create one new lot for a detached dwelling, retaining the existing dwelling on the other parcel.

The City requested an adjournment to correct an Official Plan error, but the Committee proceeded with the hearing.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including requirements for an updated Environmental Impact Statement, a hydrogeological assessment, and road widening conveyance.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property and create a new vacant parcel for future development.

The proposed parcel required variances for reduced lot width and lot area.

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 evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The variances were authorized.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.77 metres, instead of the required 9 metres, to construct a sunroom addition.

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

The proposal fit well in the area, 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 applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.45 metres for an attached carport, whereas the zoning by-law requires 1.2 metres.

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 in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The owners applied for consent to sever their agricultural property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling, retaining the agricultural fields.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal 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 road widening, independent sewage systems, and a zoning by-law amendment restricting residential development on the retained lands.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 30% (reduced from an initial request of 40%) for the construction of an addition at the back of an existing greenhouse, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 20%.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the City's Planning Report and other submissions.

The Committee 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 as amended.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownerships for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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 independent servicing and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced corner side yard setback and a reduced front yard setback to expand the second floor of an existing dwelling.

The Committee 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 granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a parking space and two walkways in the front yard, and to regularize the location of an existing accessory structure (shed) in the rear yard.

The property is located in a Heritage Conservation District.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance for the existing shed met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it fit well in the neighbourhood and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

However, the Committee refused the variances for front yard parking and landscaping alterations, finding they were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not fit well in the neighbourhood.

The application was granted in part.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a 2.43-hectare landlocked portion of their property to an abutting property owner.

The City requested conditions including a road widening and a scoped Environmental Impact Statement.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to several conditions including the requested road widening and environmental study.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two lots, retaining an existing detached dwelling and constructing a new one.

The requested variances were for reduced lot area and lot width.

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 owners applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels for future residential development, retaining the existing detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including requirements for grading, servicing, and a noise warning agreement.

The applicant, Bayview Wateridge Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building to be set back an additional 2 metres at and above the fifth storey, rather than the fourth storey as required by the Zoning By-law.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the four-part test of 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 applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 1.07-hectare portion of their property to an abutting property.

The City Planner had no concerns, and the application was unopposed.

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

The application was granted subject to standard conditions, including parcel consolidation and road widening.