George Barrett

The applicant sought consent to establish a servicing easement over a portion of its property along a proposed shared driveway, in favour of four newly created lots for long semi-detached dwellings.

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

The unopposed application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels for the construction of a high-rise, mixed-use development on each parcel, along with an easement for shared driveway access.

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

The applications for consent and the easement were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels for future development and to establish easements for access and stormwater infrastructure maintenance.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions regarding servicing plans and joint use and maintenance agreements.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct semi-detached dwellings with additional units, and to establish vehicular and pedestrian easements.

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

The applications for consent and easements were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a parking space in the front yard and between the front wall of the residential building and the street, to facilitate converting their carport into living space.

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

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.97 metres, instead of the required 6.8 metres, to construct a one-storey addition containing an additional dwelling unit at the rear of an existing detached dwelling.

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 in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to create an easement for a shared driveway to facilitate the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions, including tree planting and grading requirements.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced lot area for a proposed two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units.

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

Finding no compelling evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts and noting the City's 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 and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to create an easement for a shared driveway to support a proposed semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted the application subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and reduced lot area for the construction of a three-storey mixed-use building.

City staff raised concerns regarding the loss of trees and the lack of a walkway connecting the building to parking spaces, but the Committee noted these could be addressed through the site plan control process.

Finding that the proposal fit well within the area and met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the application and authorized the variances.

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

The City raised initial concerns regarding watermain redundancy and public street frontage, which were addressed through conditions of provisional consent.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels and establish access easements for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings, along with minor variances for reduced setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and met the criteria under the Planning Act.

The consent and minor variance applications were granted subject to conditions, including tree protection and municipal servicing requirements.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased cumulative total gross floor area and reduced parking space rates for specified light industrial uses.

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 Planning Report or the public.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to establish easements and rights-of-way for a shared driveway, and minor variances for reduced lot area and width to construct two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including requirements for stormwater management and tree protection.

The applicants sought minor variances under section 45 of the Planning Act to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling, requiring relief for building height, driveway width, and driveway access location.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under 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.

The applicant, a dairy farm operator, applied for minor variances to permit reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks for a new barn and solid manure pack.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns, but the Committee of Adjustment found that the MDS guidelines allow for setback reductions for expansions of existing operations.

The Committee concluded that the 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.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property containing an existing well to the abutting property owner.

The City requested a condition requiring evidence of independent services.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the proposal satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Committee declined to impose the condition regarding independent services, noting that the survey verified the location of the services which would be consolidated on the recipient parcel.

The applicants sought consent to sever their rural property into three separate parcels for future residential development.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal had adequate regard for provincial interests, the Committee granted the applications subject to several conditions, including geotechnical and environmental studies.

The applicant applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide its property into four separate parcels, creating three new parcels for future development while retaining the existing dwelling on the retained land.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee was satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

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

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 as amended, subject to conditions including proof of independent services for both parcels.