Heather MacLean

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The application was unopposed.

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.

The consent was granted subject to standard conditions regarding grading, servicing, and common elements agreements.

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.

The applicant, 2140 Baseline Ltd., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to convey a portion of its property to an abutting property as a lot line adjustment.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including grading and drainage plans, servicing plans, tree protection, and the legal consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an already-built deck to project 4.6 metres into the rear yard, exceeding the maximum permitted projection of 2.0 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the four-part statutory test and 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 unopposed and supported by City planning staff.

The Committee granted the application.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 4.5 metres to 3.5 metres to enclose an existing porch.

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

Finding no objections and noting the proposal's compatibility with the neighbourhood, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a landlocked portion of their property to an abutting property.

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

The application was unopposed and supported by the City Planner.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including compliance with the Ontario Building Code and consolidation of the severed land with the abutting property.

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 applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas to construct two new two-storey detached dwellings, each containing three dwelling units, on the subject property.

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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications were granted subject to conditions regarding stormwater management.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels for financing purposes, with an existing retirement home remaining on one parcel.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions regarding servicing, grading, and registration.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a front-facing garage for a new one-storey detached dwelling, which was not permitted under the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the existing dwelling already had an attached front-facing garage and there were no objections.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced setbacks and an increased building height for a proposed nine-storey mixed-use apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that the increased height was desirable for the appropriate development of the land or that the proposal maintained the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law regarding height transitions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths and areas to construct two new two-storey detached dwellings, each containing three units.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under s. 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 subject to conditions regarding stormwater management.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.