George Barrett

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a nine-storey mixed-use building with 92 residential units and at-grade commercial retail.

The requested variances included increased building height, rooftop amenity space projections, increased density, and reduced interior side and rear yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from city planning staff and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted, subject to the variances being tied to the submitted plans.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three separate parcels for future residential development, retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland and compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling at 1240 Anoka Street.

Neighbours raised concerns about the potential for a rooming house and overdevelopment.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed 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 the proposal respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The applications were granted.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 3 metres for a new warehouse building.

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

The Committee applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was 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 consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two semi-detached dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit, and requested minor variances for reduced front and rear yard setbacks and rear yard area.

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

The applications were granted, subject to conditions.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to expand their existing driveway to 9 metres to accommodate a triple-wide garage, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum width of 6 metres.

The City Planner and various agencies raised no concerns with the application.

The Committee applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was 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 subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed site plan and elevations.

The applicant sought a minor variance to convert an existing single-lane drive-thru into a two-lane configuration, reducing the required number of queuing spaces from 11 to 9.

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 City or other agencies.

The variance was authorized as it 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit a double-wide driveway on a lot with a width of 13.8 metres and to allow an ornamental feature to project into the required interior yard.

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

The majority of the Committee found 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 application was granted, with one member dissenting on the ornamental projection variance.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.20 metres (16.77% of lot depth) to construct a sunroom at the rear of their dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 7.5 metres (25%).

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections and no concerns from City Planning.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased driveway width of 11.58 metres, exceeding the maximum permitted width of 6 metres under the Zoning By-law.

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

The majority found that the variance was 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, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced front and corner side yard setbacks for the construction of a detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections and no concerns from the City's Planning Report.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of its property at 412 Legget Drive to the abutting property at 3000 Solandt Road.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions regarding servicing, grading, and parcel consolidation.

The applicant sought permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to expand the footprint of a legally non-complying detached dwelling that was destroyed by fire.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test for desirability and impact, noting no concerns from the City and no evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new attached garage and second-storey addition, including variances for garage setback and increased driveway width.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or neighbours.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two 3-storey, 8-unit apartment buildings, along with associated easements.

The applicant also requested minor variances for reduced rear yard setbacks, parking on undersized lots, and increased building height.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act and that the variances met the four-part test.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, with two members dissenting on the parking variances.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a 10-unit low-rise apartment building with reduced interior side, front, and rear yard setbacks.

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, represents mild intensification, and will not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a residential property into three separate parcels for future development.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland and servicing requirements.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to enter into two long-term leases, each for a period of more than 21 years, for portions of a commercial property containing a shopping mall and free-standing buildings.

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

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future development.

The retained land contains a U-Haul facility.

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.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased building height of 29.5 metres for a light industrial building, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 22 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test, noting no objections and no concerns raised in the City's Planning Report.

The Committee concluded the variance was 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.