Ann M. Tremblay

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a one-storey addition in the rear and westerly side yard of an existing four-unit dwelling, requiring reductions in the interior side yard and rear yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the addition was subordinate to the existing house and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, and to establish associated easements for pedestrian access, vehicle access, and parking.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a tree planting plan, independent servicing, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced front yard setback of 1.99 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.93 metres, to construct a second storey addition above an existing one-storey addition.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part statutory test, 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 application was granted.

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

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

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification within built-up areas.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including an amended condition regarding Bell Canada easements.

The applicant, Riverain Developments Inc., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to establish access easements and rights-of-way over portions of its property as part of a 3-phase, mixed-use development.

The proposed easements would allow for all three lots to have access over the driveways and drive aisles to access parking.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 1.14 metres (instead of the required 3 metres) to construct a second storey addition over an existing one-storey portion at the rear of their dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test and 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 unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to change a legally non-conforming use from a three-unit dwelling containing oversized units to a seven-unit low-rise apartment dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-fold test of desirability and lack of adverse impact, noting that the conversion would bring the building closer to conformity with the zoning by-law.

The application was granted subject to site plan and elevation conditions.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to create an easement over their property for storm water and sanitary servicing in favour of an adjacent property.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 conditions, including a tree planting plan and the conveyance of a corner sight triangle to the City.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 5.1 metres to 4.35 metres to construct a second storey addition over an existing sunroom.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the addition would not expand the footprint closer to the front lot line and would not cause adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The owner applied for a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character requirements.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Chair dissented, finding insufficient evidence that the proposal was in keeping with the neighbourhood's character.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced rear and interior side yard setbacks and front-facing garages for two new two-storey detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns about the front-facing garages breaking the street's character.

However, the majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the grade of the property reduced the impact of the garages and that the proposal fit well within a neighbourhood that already included several examples of front-facing garages.

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

One member dissented, finding that front-facing attached garages did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought permission to expand a legal non-conforming office use in an R4UD zone to construct an entrance vestibule at the front of an existing office building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act, as it was desirable for the appropriate use of the land and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding area.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement for maintenance and access over its property in favour of an abutting property.

The easement was required as a condition of Site Plan Control Approval for the construction of an eight-storey hotel.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced parking space length and width to accommodate a residential addition.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed undersized parking space would likely result in non-compliant front yard parking and could encroach on the neighbouring property.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, failing the statutory four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, reduced rear yard area, and reduced distance from an accessory structure to the dwelling to construct a single-storey addition at the rear of the existing dwelling.

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.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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 for provisional consent was granted, subject to conditions including cash-in-lieu of parkland, independent municipal services, conveyance of a corner sight triangle, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to change the legal non-conforming use of the property from an automobile service station to a retail, leasing, and repair facility for light construction equipment.

The City and area residents opposed the application, arguing that the previous use had been abandoned and that the new use caused significant adverse impacts, including noise, odours, and traffic issues.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding insufficient evidence that the legal non-conforming use had continued until the date of the application.

Furthermore, the Committee concluded that the proposed use was not desirable, created unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood, and was less compatible than the former use.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area and lot width for the construction of a three-storey low-rise apartment building.

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 authorized the variances subject to a condition limiting the building to a maximum of eight units.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from two to zero for a property located near a transit station.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the neighbourhood character, and eliminated parking where active transportation is encouraged, the Committee concluded the variance was minor and desirable.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling with reduced lot area, front yard setback, rear yard setback, and rear yard area.

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 no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.