Ann M. Tremblay

The applicant sought a minor variance to expand an existing front porch by adding a deck above the driveway, projecting 2.3 metres into the required front yard where the maximum permitted is 2 metres.

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

Finding no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and noting the City's lack of concerns, 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 as amended.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height of 38.3 metres and an enclosed rooftop space for a 12-storey residential building under construction.

The application was amended at the hearing to remove a third variance.

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 represents orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The application was granted as amended.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot width of 10.06 metres, whereas the zoning by-law required 12.0 metres, to facilitate the construction of a three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment building.

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

The applicants sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two semi-detached dwellings, along with minor variances for increased building height and reduced lot width.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including requirements for stormwater management, noise control, and tree protection.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to construct a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling, along with minor variances for reduced interior side yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the applications met the criteria under the Planning Act, including the four-part test for minor variances, and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought permission under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act to expand an existing legal non-conforming gas bar use to permit a take-out restaurant inside the existing convenience store.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test for desirability and impact, noting that a traffic study supported the application and City Planning had no concerns.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks, as well as a reduced rear yard area, to facilitate the conversion of an existing 4-unit dwelling into an 8-unit low-rise apartment building.

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 neighbourhood character, and represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

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

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including building code compliance, separate servicing, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property containing half of a detached garage to an abutting property, and a minor variance for a reduced lot area resulting from the conveyance.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act and that the requested variance met the four-part test for a minor variance.

Both the consent application and minor variance application were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a front-facing garage, a driveway located between the front wall and the street, and an increased driveway width of 3.35 metres for a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns that front-facing attached garages were not permitted in Character Group A. However, the Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no compelling evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted without being tied to the submitted plans to allow for minor modifications to accommodate an existing large tree and fire hydrant.

The applicants requested a change of conditions to a provisional consent previously granted for the severance of land to construct four apartment buildings.

They sought to separate the conditions into three phases to enable phased development and occupancy.

The City Planner had no concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment (with one member dissenting) found the requested change, while not minor, was reasonable and necessary as it would facilitate housing development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The application was granted and the conditions were replaced accordingly.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing eight-unit low-rise apartment building into a ten-unit building, requiring relief for front yard projection, rear yard setback, maximum dwelling units, 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 compelling evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted, subject to compliance with the submitted site plan and elevations.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to create a new lot for a low-rise apartment building, along with associated easements.

They also requested minor variances for reduced lot area and rear yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two semi-detached dwellings, with the existing dwelling to be demolished.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including requirements for servicing, stormwater management, and noise control.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a semi-detached 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 objections from the City or neighbours.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, and submissions from the public and city departments.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property containing a hotel and residential tower into separate parcels with reciprocal easements.

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

The applications for consent to sever and grant easements were granted subject to conditions.

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

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning 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 applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each of the existing duplex dwellings.

The application was unopposed and proceeded on the fast-track consent agenda.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning 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 a minor variance to permit an increased gross floor area for a second-storey addition to their dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, 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.