George Barrett

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased height and lot coverage for a proposed accessory structure in a rural residential zone.

Neighbours opposed the application, raising concerns about the structure's size, height, and visual impact on the streetscape.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and were not minor due to their unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding area.

The applicant sought consent for lot line adjustments to convey portions of its property to an abutting property owner.

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

Finding no concerns from City planning staff and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions including a reserve conveyance and a groundwater notice agreement.

The applicants sought permission under s. 45(2) of the Planning Act to expand a legally non-conforming use in a DR zone to construct a two-storey addition containing a garage and a secondary dwelling unit.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test for desirability and impact, noting no objections from city staff, conservation authorities, or neighbours.

The application was granted subject to compliance with the filed plans.

The applicant, 1384341 Ontario Ltd., applied for minor variances to permit a reduced total interior side yard setback and an increased projection for a covered porch for a proposed one-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application 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 application.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 4.31-hectare portion of vacant land to an abutting property owner.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, and a requested condition regarding separate services was removed at the hearing.

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

The application was 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.

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 applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced parking space rate and an increased driveway width for a proposed development of four buildings, including warehouse and light industrial uses.

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 the public.

The requested variances were authorized.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 4.92-hectare vacant parcel to an abutting property owner, retaining a 0.81-hectare parcel with an existing dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, with the Committee noting that a condition requiring notice on title regarding groundwater was unnecessary as no new lot was being created.

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 to sever a property into two separate parcels for future residential development, requiring the demolition of the existing 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 applications were granted, and provisional consent was given subject to conditions including stormwater management, noise control, and road widening.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey coach house at the rear of their existing dwelling.

The requested variances included an increased interior side yard setback, increased driveway width, and increased building height.

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 planning staff.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings and to establish reciprocal easements for shared driveway access.

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 Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the provision of a joint use and maintenance agreement and a revised tree information report.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a new two-storey addition on the east side of their existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the four-part test of 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 application was granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to create one new parcel for future residential development, retaining the existing dwelling.

The City requested conditions, including a notice on title warning of environmental noise from a nearby abandoned railway line, and the removal or relocation of accessory structures near the proposed lot line.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the requested noise warning and accessory structure requirements.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 6.25 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a sunroom addition.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey, eight-unit apartment building, requiring reductions in lot area, front yard setback, and rear yard setback.

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

Finding no objections and noting the proposal's compatibility with the surrounding area, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever the property into five separate parcels and establish access easements for the construction of four long semi-detached dwellings, along with associated minor variances for lot width and building height.

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

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

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units, along with minor variances for reduced lot width, lot area, and yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and found the consent application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The Committee also found the requested variances met the four-part test under s. 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.

Both the consent and minor variance applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.46 metres (instead of the required 7 metres) to construct a single-storey addition at the rear of their dwelling.

The application was unopposed and proceeded on the fast-track consent agenda.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it 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 application was granted.