Ottawa Committee of Adjustment

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error that resulted in the current owner not having legal title to the property.

The property had inadvertently merged with an adjacent property in 1965, and a subsequent transfer in 2003 contravened the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest.

The application was granted and a certificate of validation was issued.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 0% of the frontage along the front lot line to be occupied by building walls located within 3.0 metres of the frontage, in order to construct a one-storey commercial medical imaging facility.

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 the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a long semi-detached dwelling.

The City raised concerns regarding the proposal's impact on the urban forest canopy and tree replacement.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, noting it promotes efficient land use and intensification.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including tree protection measures and infrastructure agreements, with one member dissenting.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels for the construction of two new low-rise apartment buildings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act.

The Committee 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 for consent was granted subject to several conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, the provision of a servicing plan, and the preparation of a noise attenuation study.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot area and lot width to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for the construction of two new low-rise apartment buildings.

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 applications.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area and lot width for the construction of a new veterinarian facility.

The City requested an adjournment because anticipated Official Plan amendments had not yet been approved.

The Committee refused the adjournment and heard the application.

Finding that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The existing dwelling was to be demolished.

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

The Committee found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The applications for consent were granted, subject to several conditions including tree protection measures, servicing requirements, and the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicant 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 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 construct a two-storey addition at the rear of an existing one-storey detached dwelling with an attached front-facing garage.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback, a front-facing garage, a reduced interior side yard setback, and a garage located closer to the front lot line than the principal entrance.

Despite some concerns raised by the City Planner regarding the front-facing garage, the Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the area and met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a 6-storey residential 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 found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area and represented appropriate intensification.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property in an agricultural zone into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for two existing detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report recommended refusal, arguing the proposal did not meet the intent of the Official Plan regarding residential lot creation in the agricultural zone.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting efficient land use and intensification, and had adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, including the registration of agreements regarding groundwater and marine clays, and the conveyance of a road widening.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to retain an existing detached dwelling and construct a new detached dwelling.

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 and in the public interest.

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

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and increased porch projection for the construction of a two-storey single-family dwelling.

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 sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for the construction of two new detached dwellings.

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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to allow for separate ownership of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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 application was granted subject to several conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, the establishment of a joint use and maintenance agreement, and the planting of compensation trees.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error that resulted in the current owner not having legal title to the property.

The property had inadvertently merged with an adjacent property in 1965, and a subsequent transfer in 2003 contravened the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest.

The application was granted and a certificate of validation was issued.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced total interior side yard setback and a reduced front yard setback to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their detached dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal represented a recognition of a legal non-complying situation and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties, 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 permit the construction of a three-storey low-rise apartment building with seven dwelling units.

The requested variances included reductions to the minimum lot area, front yard setback, rear yard setback, and rear yard area.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found 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 application was granted, with one member dissenting on the rear yard variances.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into four separate parcels for the construction of two long semi-detached dwellings, and to establish various easements for access, servicing, and parking.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and the execution of a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever its property into two parcels.

The retained parcel would continue to house an existing landscaping company, while the severed parcel would contain temporary greenhouses and be available for future development.

The City Planner raised no concerns, and the Committee 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 a road widening conveyance and independent servicing.