Arto Keklikian

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment and to establish an easement over the retained land in favour of the abutting property.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the execution of a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three parcels for the construction of three townhouses, along with associated minor variances for lot area, lot width, rear yard setbacks, and driveway width.

The primary issue was the proposed removal of a healthy tree located outside the as-of-right building envelope.

Two committee members found the proposal consistent with intensification policies and the statutory tests, while two members found the loss of the tree avoidable and contrary to Official Plan policies prioritizing tree retention.

Due to the tie vote, the applications for consent and minor variances were deemed refused pursuant to the Committee's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement and right-of-way for servicing across the subject property in favour of an abutting property.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels and minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with reduced front yard and corner side yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee also authorized the minor variances, concluding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they reflected existing legal non-complying setbacks and would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

The applicants requested a change of condition to a provisional consent for a conveyance, seeking to replace the requirement for a noise attenuation study with a noise warning registered on title.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the request, finding that the original condition was reasonable and necessary to conform with the City's Official Plan policies relating to environmental noise control, given the property's proximity to an arterial road and stationary noise sources.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels and minor variances to construct two three-storey apartment buildings, each containing 8 units.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent applications, finding they met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Committee also granted the minor variance applications, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, with one member dissenting on the variances related to front yard parking fixtures.

The applicant sought consent to subdivide a property containing three existing townhouses into three separate parcels and to establish various easements for vehicular and pedestrian access.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland and the registration of joint use and maintenance agreements.

The applicants sought consent to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for existing dwellings, along with associated easements.

They also sought minor variances for reduced lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the applications met the criteria under sections 51(24) and 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections and no concerns from City Planning.

The consent and minor variance applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of a four-storey, six-unit low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included reduced lot frontage, reduced interior side yard setbacks, and reduced lot area.

Several residents and the local community association objected to the proposal.

The majority of the Committee found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the City's Planning Report raised no concerns and no compelling evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts was presented.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a semi-detached dwelling.

The existing dwelling on the property 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 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 consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels, each containing an existing dwelling.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to create a new lot for a three-storey detached dwelling, along with minor variances for lot width, lot area, shared driveway width, and setbacks.

Neighbours opposed the applications, raising concerns regarding the heritage permit process, lot size compatibility, and public notification.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee also found that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Act, as they represented context-sensitive residential infill that respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

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

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

Finding no evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct a three-storey, eight-unit apartment building while retaining an existing three-unit dwelling.

The applicant also sought minor variances for reduced lot area, rear yard setbacks, rear yard area, and soft landscaping for both parcels.

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

The Committee also found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 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 applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a front-facing garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not fit well in the area and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The Committee also found that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as it did not represent orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area of 167.0 square metres for each half of a proposed semi-detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 180 square metres.

The proposed development would include two additional dwelling units in each half, for a total of six units.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding 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 applicant, Lahave Properties Ltd., applied for minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and a reduced corner side yard setback for an enclosed entrance to an existing underground parking garage ramp.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application 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 applicants sought minor variances to permit front yard parking and a covered porch projecting into the corner sight triangle to facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling with an additional basement unit.

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 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into two parcels for future phased development and to grant an easement for servicing and access.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns subject to conditions.

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

The application for provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into four parcels to construct two semi-detached dwellings, along with minor variances for reduced rear yard setbacks.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including tree protection and noise attenuation measures.