Ann M. Tremblay

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, along with an easement and joint-use agreement.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Certificate of Cancellation under section 53(45) of the Planning Act regarding a previously granted provisional consent for a conveyance.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, and no objections were received from other agencies.

The Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to issue the certificate and granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, landing and step projections, and front-facing garages to facilitate the subdivision of a lot and construction of a three-storey semi-detached dwelling.

Neighbours raised concerns regarding the removal of a shared boundary tree and other mature trees.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposed rear yard setback exceeded that of the existing building and the proposal respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The applications were granted.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into two parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings with a shared driveway, and to establish associated easements and rights-of-way.

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

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, independent servicing, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for existing commercial and residential buildings, and to grant easements for shared underground parking access, a commercial garbage room, and balcony projections.

The Committee of Adjustment found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, satisfying the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications for consent were granted subject to conditions regarding servicing and registration.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create two new parcels of land for the construction of a three-storey, semi-detached dwelling.

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

The Committee found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and that the proposal was in the public interest.

The applications for consent were granted subject to several conditions, including tree protection measures, grading and drainage plans, and the execution of a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent to sever land and for a lot line adjustment to create two new lots for the construction of two three-storey, long semi-detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding efficient land use and intensification, and did not have adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including the suitability of the land for the proposed subdivision.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two long semi-detached dwellings, each containing two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment heard concerns regarding tree canopy preservation, parking, and water runoff.

The Committee refused the applications, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including the suitability of the land for the proposed subdivision.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property and construct two long semi-detached dwellings, requiring relief for lot width, lot area, interior side yard setback, and building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal represented overdevelopment at the expense of tree planting and parking functionality.

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 Official Plan's tree canopy objectives.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into three separate parcels to construct a detached dwelling and a semi-detached dwelling, requiring the demolition of the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment heard objections from residents and the local community association regarding the scale, density, and incompatibility with the neighbourhood character.

The Committee refused the applications, finding they were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two lots for the construction of two three-storey, long semi-detached dwellings.

The requested variances included reductions in minimum lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setback, as well as an increase in maximum building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal represented overdevelopment at the expense of tree planting and parking functionality.

The Committee concluded that the variances did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan regarding the maintenance of the urban forest canopy.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling and establish an easement/right-of-way for parking and access.

The applications were unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the registration of various agreements and easements.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling with an attached garage.

The requested variances included a reduced interior side yard setback and an increased interior rear yard area.

The Committee considered 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 concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into three parcels for the construction of a detached dwelling and a semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reduced lot areas, reduced rear yard setbacks, and increased shared driveway widths.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the variances did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, eliminated opportunities for soft landscaping, and did not respect the character of the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling and to establish easements for parking and access.

The requested variances included permitting a parking space on a different lot, a parking space in the front yard, and an increased width for a shared driveway.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal respected the character of the neighbourhood and represented orderly development.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to grant easements for pedestrian access to facilitate the development of eight 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, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the registration of a joint use and maintenance agreement and a notice on title regarding the lack of on-site parking.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for residential development, while retaining the existing low-rise apartment building.

The applicant also sought to establish easements for pedestrian and vehicular access and servicing.

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

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setback to convert an existing duplex into a three-unit dwelling.

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 represented gentle intensification and fit well within the neighbourhood.

The application was granted, subject to the relief applying only to the existing building.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.7 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to subdivide the property and construct a six-unit stacked dwelling while retaining the existing detached dwelling.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, and the Committee found that the proposal was consistent with the neighbourhood land pattern.

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