Arto Keklikian

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased lot coverage of 43.15% (229.38 square metres) for the construction of a detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 40%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required resident parking from 25 to 15 spaces for a proposed six-storey, 62-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found the variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor, as insufficient technical evidence was provided to demonstrate the proposal would not create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicant, VIKA Land Development, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling on the other lot.

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

Finding 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 Committee granted the application subject to several conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two separate parcels, creating one new lot for future residential development while retaining the existing 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 concerns from City Planning and community support subject to certain conditions.

The application was granted, with the variances restricted to the life of the existing dwelling.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for residential development.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including tree protection, grading and servicing plans, and the demolition or relocation of an existing structure straddling the proposed severance line.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a 16-unit low-rise apartment building with zero parking spaces and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

The City expressed concerns regarding an external access ramp and the proximity of balconies to a waste storage area, suggesting the inability to internalize these elements was tied to the proposed number of units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, did not represent orderly development, and failed to demonstrate no adverse impact on accessibility.

The requested variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres, instead of the required 4.5 metres, to construct an attached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, along with reciprocal easements for a shared laneway.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a Heritage Impact Assessment, and a Joint Use, Maintenance and Operating Agreement.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage, which was not permitted by the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The proposal also required the removal of a mature bur oak tree in the rear yard.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the variance did not meet the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded that the loss of the significant tree was avoidable, the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and the proposed garage and tree removal would cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought permission under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act to construct a three-storey addition containing seven apartment dwellings at the rear of an existing building, resulting in a 10-unit low-rise apartment dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested permission met the two-fold test relating to desirability and impact.

The application was granted, as the proposal fits well in the area and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey structure with a coach house on the second floor and a garage on the first floor.

The requested variances included increased interior side yard and rear yard setbacks, increased driveway width, permission for a shed style roof, and increased building height.

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 and respects the character of the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to reduce the required motor vehicle parking spaces from four to three, and visitor parking spaces from one to zero, to construct a four-storey, 20-unit apartment building.

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

The proposal aligned with the City's intent to prioritize active transportation and urban greening in the Downtown Core Transect.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances for reduced lot width and lot area to construct an eight-unit, low-rise apartment building and demolish an existing detached dwelling.

Area residents raised concerns regarding density, parking, and neighbourhood character.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed development 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 application was granted.

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

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under sections 53 and 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and met the statutory criteria, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit front yard parking and reduced landscaping widths for three existing multi-unit dwellings.

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

Despite City Planning staff having no concerns, the Committee found that the proposed front yard parking would negatively affect the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded the variances were not desirable, did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and were not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts.

The applications were refused.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a four-unit low-rise apartment building.

The existing dwelling and accessory structures would be demolished.

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 authorized the requested variances.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 27.8% of the lot depth (9.35 metres) to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit front-facing attached garages for a proposed semi-detached dwelling, which the Zoning By-law did not permit based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

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

The Committee concluded that the proposal would maximize the visual dominance of the automobile, fail to respect the character of the neighbourhood, and create an unacceptable adverse impact on the streetscape.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for a semi-detached dwelling and one lot for a detached dwelling.

The City requested conditions relating to tree retention, grading, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications for consent were granted subject to conditions, including tree planting, grading plans, and a joint use and maintenance agreement for the semi-detached dwelling.

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.