George Barrett

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two parcels to create one new lot for future residential development.

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

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions including noise attenuation and tree planting.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width, reduced lot area, and an increased projection for a covered lanai, to facilitate a boundary adjustment and the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee considered the four-part test 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 applications.

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 minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and increased building heights to subdivide their property into four separate parcels for detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment authorized the variances for reduced lot area, finding they met the four-part test under the Planning Act and maintained the character of the neighbourhood.

However, the Committee denied the variances for increased building height, finding insufficient evidence that the proposed height would be desirable or compatible with the surrounding area.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a rooftop terrace with a 0-metre setback from the exterior walls of the building, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 1.5-metre setback.

The Committee 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 on abutting properties, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 24.5 square metre portion of their property to an abutting property for the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

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 application was granted subject to conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and lot widths for two proposed single-family detached dwellings.

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 and desirable.

The applications were 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 minor variances to permit the construction of two semi-detached dwellings with three units per dwelling, requiring reductions in lot width, lot area, rear yard setback, and rear yard area.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the desirability of the proposal, particularly regarding the functionality of parking spaces and egress from the rear yard for refuse containers.

The Committee also found that the requested variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as insufficient evidence was presented to show the proposal represented orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.