Fabian Poulin

The applicant sought a minor variance to convert the western half of the ground floor of a 22-storey apartment building from commercial space to residential apartments.

The variance requested a reduction in the required ground floor glazing facing a public street from 50% to 27%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it would provide more privacy for ground-floor residents and fit well within the area.

The unopposed application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into four separate parcels to construct four detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into four separate parcels to construct four townhouse dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit, and to establish access easements.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under subsection 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, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the execution of various agreements with the City.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future development.

The retained parcel contains an existing medical building, while the severed parcel will be vacant.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including the provision of servicing plans, grading and drainage plans, and a road widening conveyance.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property and construct a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, requiring relief for reduced lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks.

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

Finding that the proposal respected the character of the neighbourhood, represented orderly development, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two parcels, creating a new undersized lot for future residential development while retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as development plans, to demonstrate that the variances were desirable for the appropriate development of the land or maintained the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought to subdivide a property into four separate parcels to construct four townhouse dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit.

The applicant requested minor variances for reduced lot area, reduced front yard setback, and to permit front balcony projections.

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 respected the character of the neighbourhood and provided gentle intensification.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into four separate parcels for residential development, including the construction of two new long semi-detached dwellings, and to grant associated easements.

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.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, tree planting, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling.

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

The Committee found 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 statutory criteria, including whether the proposal was premature or in the public interest.

The applications for consent were refused.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property at 1451 Woodward Avenue into two separate parcels to construct a two-storey semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the applications under section 53 of the Planning Act.

After hearing submissions from the applicants' agent and neighbours regarding a shared driveway and trees, the Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The applications were granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the execution of a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property containing two existing retirement home buildings into two separate parcels, and to establish reciprocal easements for 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 application was granted subject to conditions, including requirements for servicing plans, grading and drainage plans, and a common element agreement.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for two proposed low-rise apartment buildings.

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

Finding that the proposal promotes efficient land use and intensification within a built-up area, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two parcels for the construction of two three-storey semi-detached dwellings with additional units.

The requested variances included a reduced front yard setback and an increased building height.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting 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 applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.91 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a one-storey sunroom addition.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the public or city departments.

The variance was authorized subject to the submitted site plan and elevations.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey semi-detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units, and to establish reciprocal easements for shared driveway access.

The City had no concerns with the applications.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and that the proposal had adequate regard for 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 the subdivision of a property into two parcels for the construction of a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks, as well as permission for an attached front-facing garage.

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 fits well in the area and represents orderly development compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The applications were granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 reduced lot dimensions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their 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 that the proposal aligned with the low-rise built form of the neighbourhood and maintained amenity space and privacy.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased floor area for an accessory display and sales area of 35% of the total gross floor area of a proposed one-storey warehouse building, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 25%.

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 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 12-unit rooming house with one parking space, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 7 units and required 3 parking spaces.

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

The majority held that the proposal was desirable, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature.

Two members dissented regarding the increase in rooming units, finding it too significant to be considered minor.