Jay Baltz

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of independent municipal services.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width of 14.45 metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum of 18 metres, to subdivide their property into two separate parcels for residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variances were 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 applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, with plans to construct a coach house on each newly created parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, noting concerns from the City's Forestry department regarding tree removal and from neighbours regarding privacy and parking.

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting intensification and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including tree protection and servicing requirements.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a coach house on each of two newly created parcels at 882 and 884 Smyth Road, with an interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres instead of the required 1.0 metres.

The City's Forestry and Planning departments raised concerns regarding the removal of distinctive trees.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the location of the coach houses was constrained by a hydro easement and that the trees would be impacted regardless of the location.

The majority of the Committee authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into three separate parcels for residential development, along with reciprocal easements for vehicular and pedestrian access.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented orderly development, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan, grading and drainage plans, and a potential road widening conveyance.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a one-storey gazebo in the rear yard, requiring an increased cumulative floor area for accessory buildings and allowing three accessory buildings instead of the permitted two.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The proposal was deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature with no unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Glenview Homes Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.4 metres for a proposed end unit townhouse dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 4.75 metres.

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

Finding that the variance 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 Committee granted the application.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.