Arto Keklikian

The applicants sought minor variances to permit front-facing garages for a proposed semi-detached dwelling, which the Zoning By-law otherwise prohibited based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The City's Planning Department raised concerns about the proposal's impact on the streetscape.

However, the Committee of Adjustment found no compelling evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The Committee concluded that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they 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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a four-storey, eight-unit apartment building.

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

Despite some concerns raised by City Planning staff regarding massing, the Committee found the proposal fit well within the area and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, subject to conditions regarding construction plans and balcony privacy screens.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit 0 residential and 0 visitor parking spaces for a proposed 6-storey, 19-unit mixed-use building.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 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 applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing office building into a mix of residential and commercial units.

The requested variances included reductions to the required commercial ground floor area, driveway width, drive aisle width, parking space dimensions, and vertical clearance.

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 fit well in the area, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming office use in a residential zone to construct a third storey addition with a rooftop terrace.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the two-part test under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act, evaluating the desirability of the development and its impact on the surrounding area.

Despite concerns from residents regarding parking, the Committee found the proposal desirable and concluded it would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard setbacks, reduced soft landscaping, and reduced front facade windows to accommodate three additional dwelling units for a total of six units.

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 granted the application as amended.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit the construction of a low-rise apartment building with 10 dwelling units, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of eight.

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

The Committee found that the variance related to density rather than building size, the lot greatly exceeded the minimum size, and the proposal fit well within the area without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a two-storey addition and a front-facing attached garage, requiring a reduced interior side yard and an increased front yard setback.

The City Planner expressed concerns that the front-facing garage did not reflect the dominant streetscape character, and a neighbour raised concerns about sunlight, privacy, and construction impacts.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the area and that no compelling evidence demonstrated an unacceptable adverse impact.

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

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns after a revised site plan addressed tree protection issues.

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

The Committee was satisfied that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including tree protection and grading requirements.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a 10-unit low-rise apartment building and one tandem parking space on their property.

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

The Committee found that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and achieved intensification.

The requested variances were authorized as they were deemed 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two parcels and the construction of two detached dwellings with reduced setbacks and other zoning deviations.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed design was not compatible with the existing context and would create unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties and the neighbourhood.

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

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a front-facing garage, an increased driveway width, and a reduced landscape buffer between the driveway and walkway for a proposed two-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling.

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

Specifically, the Committee found that the proposal maximized hard surfaces, enhanced the visual dominance of the automobile, and was not compatible with the surrounding streetscape, thereby failing to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought consent to subdivide a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, along with necessary easements for access.

The City's Planning Report 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 Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the provision of a servicing plan and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent to sever land and establish an easement to construct a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling with secondary dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan, grading and drainage plan, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling with two secondary dwelling units per principal unit.

The requested variances included relief from maximum secondary dwelling unit limits, gross floor area restrictions, front wall entrance prohibitions, and minimum lot area and width requirements.

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 neighbourhood character, and represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into two lots and establish an easement, after a previous conditional approval lapsed.

The applicant argued the previous application had not lapsed and objected to a new condition requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The Committee confirmed the previous approval had lapsed.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and a noise attenuation study.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks to construct two three-storey, low-rise apartment buildings on a subdivided property.

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 neighbourhood's character, and creates no 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 applications were granted.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand an existing legal non-complying single detached dwelling by constructing a second-storey addition.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, noting the addition would utilize existing exterior wall locations and create no privacy issues.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal met the two-part test under subsection 45(2), as it was desirable for the appropriate development of the property and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Nilestone Group Ltd., applied for a minor variance to permit front-facing attached garages for a proposed new semi-detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character provisions.

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

The majority found that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood, noting a similar nearby development, and that it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with the Chair dissenting on the grounds that the proposal negatively impacted streetscape continuity.

The applicants sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.