George Barrett

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels for future residential development, along with associated easements for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

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

The application was granted subject to standard conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and grading and servicing requirements.

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

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 application was granted subject to standard conditions of provisional consent, with the exception of a noise attenuation study condition which was removed.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduction in resident and visitor parking spaces to construct a seven-unit low-rise apartment building.

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

Specifically, the Committee found that the proposed reduction to zero visitor parking spaces was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor, as no parking demand study was provided to demonstrate the absence of adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The applicants applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced total interior side yard setback to construct an addition expanding their existing single attached garage into a two-car garage.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns that the reduced setback, combined with an existing air conditioner and deck, would restrict access to the rear yard from the front yard.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as it failed to ensure adequate space between the dwelling and the lot line.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 8.51 metres for a detached dwelling under construction, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 8 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance 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 in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a one-storey addition containing living space and an attached garage, requiring reductions in corner side yard setback, rear yard setback, rear yard area, and accessory structure setbacks, as well as increased garage projections.

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 represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, increased cumulative floor area for accessory buildings, an altered garage entrance setback, and an increased driveway width for a detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found 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, with one member dissenting on the driveway width variance.

The applicant sought permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to lease a portion of an existing legal non-conforming industrial/commercial building for use as an automobile service station.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed use was not desirable for the appropriate development of the property and that the applicant failed to establish that the impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding traffic and parking, would be similar to the existing warehouse use.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and reduced interior side yard setbacks to construct a three-storey, 17-unit stacked dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal supported intensification, respected the neighbourhood character, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

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

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a coach house on each of two newly created parcels at 882 and 884 Smyth Road, with an interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres instead of the required 1.0 metres.

The City's Forestry and Planning departments raised concerns regarding the removal of distinctive trees.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the location of the coach houses was constrained by a hydro easement and that the trees would be impacted regardless of the location.

The majority of the Committee authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width of 14.45 metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum of 18 metres, to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

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

The variances 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 applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into three separate parcels for residential development, along with reciprocal easements for vehicular and pedestrian access.

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 and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan, grading and drainage plans, and a potential road widening conveyance.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 4.75 metres.

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

Finding that the variance was minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for an end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.75 metres.

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

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

The Committee found the variance to be minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.75 metres.

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

Finding no objections and noting the City Planning Report raised no concerns, 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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a one-storey gazebo in the rear yard, requiring an increased cumulative floor area for accessory buildings and allowing three accessory buildings instead of the permitted two.

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

The proposal was deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature with no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and a reduced rear yard setback for the construction of two six-storey mid-rise apartment buildings.

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 general intent of the zone and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of independent municipal services.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, with plans to construct a coach house on each newly created parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, noting concerns from the City's Forestry department regarding tree removal and from neighbours regarding privacy and parking.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting intensification and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including tree protection and servicing requirements.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of its property to an abutting property as part of a mutual land exchange.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The unopposed application was granted subject to conditions, including grading, servicing, and parcel consolidation requirements.