Heather MacLean

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, rear yard area, and interior side yard setback to expand an existing detached garage.

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 as amended.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 1.82 square metre portion of their property to the abutting property owner.

The conveyance would resolve an existing garage eave encroachment.

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 consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for the construction of two detached dwellings, each containing an additional dwelling unit.

The requested variances were to permit reduced lot areas of 399.6 and 492.7 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 555 square metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the applications met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the public or city planning staff.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area and an increased driveway slope to construct two semi-detached dwellings, each containing two additional units, for a total of 12 units.

Neighbourhood residents objected, raising concerns about parking, stormwater runoff, snow removal, and density.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the requested variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and were not minor, as they would create unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties and the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced setback for a detached garage and a reduced landscaped strip between a driveway and interior side lot line.

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 as amended.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 0.04 square metre portion of her property to the abutting property owners at 1 Second Avenue, and to expand an existing detached garage.

The application was part of a mutual land exchange to eliminate an existing eave encroachment.

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 for provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, including the requirement that the severed land merge with the abutting property.

The applicant, Maplered Property Management, applied to the Committee of Adjustment for permission under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming automotive repair garage.

The proposal involved constructing an addition on the north side and an enclosed exterior storage area at the rear of the existing building.

The Committee found that the requested permission met the two-fold test relating to desirability and impact, noting no objections from the City or the public.

The application was granted, subject to the proposed construction being in accordance with the filed site plan and elevations.

The applicant, 16123970 Ontario Inc., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to grant easements/rights of way to facilitate the construction of two semi-detached dwellings with additional units.

The proposed development required reciprocal easements for a shared driveway.

Several residents opposed the application, raising concerns about parking, density, snow removal, and stormwater management.

The Committee refused the applications, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not have adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and did not satisfy the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, each containing an additional dwelling unit.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicant, Costco Wholesale Canada LTD, sought minor variances to permit an addition to an existing office building with reduced transparent glazing and no active customer entrances facing public streets.

The application was amended during the hearing to remove a variance for landscaped area.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the amended proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood character, and represented orderly development without creating adverse impacts.

The application was granted as amended.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a residential property into two separate parcels to allow for the construction of a new detached dwelling, while retaining an existing dwelling currently under construction.

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

Finding that the proposal promoted efficient land use and development within a built-up area, and noting no objections from the City or public, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to standard conditions regarding servicing, grading, noise attenuation, and tree protection.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced total side yard setbacks for two proposed detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 as amended.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a commercial property into two parcels to create a new lot for future development, while retaining the existing medical office building and surface parking.

The application was unopposed and supported by City Planning.

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 section 51(24) of the Planning Act, subject to standard conditions including cash-in-lieu of parkland and servicing requirements.

The applicant constructed a semi-detached dwelling that exceeded the maximum permitted building height by 0.12 metres and sought a minor variance to legalize the structure.

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

The Committee 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 relief being restricted to the life of the building.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a commercial property into two parcels, creating one new vacant lot for future development while retaining the existing commercial building and parking.

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 for consent was granted subject to conditions, including a road widening conveyance and cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 912.7 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 1,390 square metres, to bring an existing lot into compliance for future residential development.

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 and no compelling evidence of adverse impacts.

The application was granted subject to conditions regarding the amendment of the Plan of Subdivision and the lifting of a 30-centimetre reserve.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas for the construction of two 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, the Committee concluded the variances were minor and desirable.

The applications were granted subject to the submission of a Stormwater Management Brief.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit increased driveway widths for an existing dwelling and a proposed new dwelling on a subdivided lot.

The City's Planning Department raised concerns that the double driveways were not in keeping with the intent of the zoning designation.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well in the area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The majority of the Committee concluded that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and granted the application, with one member dissenting.

The applicant, Ashcroft Leasing Inc., applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for two existing townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had adequate 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 the provision of independent water and sanitary connections, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and a grading and drainage plan.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit reduced side yard setbacks for an addition to their existing garage.

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 the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.