Heather MacLean

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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced parking space rate, a reduced landscape buffer, and zero vehicle loading spaces for a proposed one-storey medical imaging facility.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed medical facility did not fit well in the area due to deficient parking and distance to public transit.

The majority concluded that the variances were not desirable, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and were not minor, as they would create an unacceptable adverse impact on clients and visitors.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit parking in a corner side yard and a reduced lot area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two parcels for semi-detached dwellings with additional units.

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 public or city planning staff.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a 12-unit rooming house with one parking space, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 7 units and required 3 parking spaces.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The majority held that the proposal was desirable, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature.

Two members dissented regarding the increase in rooming units, finding it too significant to be considered minor.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased floor area for an accessory display and sales area of 35% of the total gross floor area of a proposed one-storey warehouse building, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 25%.

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 maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

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 applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into two lots for the construction of two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

The requested variances included reduced lot widths and a reduction in required parking spaces to zero for one of the lots.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed elimination of the required parking space did not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law, which anticipates higher vehicle ownership for detached dwellings.

The Committee concluded that the proposal did not represent orderly development compatible with surrounding uses and failed to satisfy the statutory four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit two parking spaces with a reduced length of 4.8 metres for a proposed 25-storey residential building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the reduced length aligns with zoning requirements for compact car parking spaces and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, which is not permitted under the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal would maximize the visual dominance of the automobile on the streetscape and was not compatible with the surrounding area.

The majority of the Committee concluded that the variance failed three of the four statutory tests, as it was not desirable, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor.

The application was refused, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and floor area for an accessory structure (workshop) on their residential property.

A neighbour expressed concerns regarding the size, visual impact, noise, and water drainage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed structure was compatible with the surrounding area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

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

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area for the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee 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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and a reduced rear yard area to construct a two-storey addition containing two additional dwelling units at the rear of their existing detached dwelling.

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, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into nine separate parcels to create eight new lots for three-storey townhomes, while retaining the existing school on the remaining parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the provision of independent services, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and the construction of a sidewalk.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a new semi-detached dwelling.

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 application.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and a reduced corner side yard setback to facilitate the subdivision of a property into nine parcels for the construction of eight three-storey townhomes.

The reduced setback was requested to preserve the protected heritage view of the existing Vinci School building.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels to facilitate the construction of a new low-rise apartment building, while retaining an existing low-rise apartment building under construction.

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 promoting urban intensification.

The consent was granted subject to standard conditions regarding parkland dedication, municipal services, and grading.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of the dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding no objections and noting that the proposal fits well within the area without adverse impacts, the Committee concluded that the variances met the statutory four-part test.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of four two-storey detached dwellings, requiring reductions in minimum lot area, lot width, rear yard setback, and street frontage.

At the hearing, the City Planner requested an adjournment to provide notice of additional variances related to street frontage.

The Committee, by majority, denied the adjournment, finding the additional variances closely related to the original requests.

Applying the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Committee found the variances to be 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 applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including requirements for independent services, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and a road widening conveyance.

The applicant, 1332710 Ontario Inc., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever land and grant easements/rights of way at 1598 Prince of Wales Drive to construct four two-storey detached dwellings.

The City Planner initially requested an adjournment due to additional variances required for reduced street frontage, but the Committee proceeded with the hearing as the issues were closely related.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, satisfying the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to several conditions, including stormwater management, grading, and noise warnings.