Jay Baltz

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 a double width driveway, a double width attached garage, and a balcony with no opaque screening for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variance for the balcony, finding it met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

However, the majority of the Committee refused the variances for the driveway and garage, concluding they did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law and would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood's streetscape character.

The applicant, Urbanworx Developments Ltd., applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct semi-detached dwellings with additional dwelling units, and to establish an easement for access.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under sections 53 and 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including noise attenuation, grading plans, and a joint use agreement.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming "Business and Personal Services" use within an R4UD zone to construct a one-storey addition for a boardroom.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the two-part test under subsection 45(2) regarding desirability and impact.

Finding no objections from city staff or the public, and determining that the addition would not adversely impact abutting properties, the Committee granted the application.

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

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal aligned with the low-rise built form of the neighbourhood and maintained amenity space and privacy.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two parcels for the construction of two three-storey semi-detached dwellings with additional units.

The requested variances included a reduced front yard setback and an increased building height.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting 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 applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.91 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a one-storey sunroom addition.

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 departments.

The variance was authorized subject to the submitted site plan and elevations.

The applicant sought a minor variance to increase the permitted building height for a proposed two-storey coach house.

The City's Planning Forester and residents raised concerns regarding the impact on mature trees on the subject and adjacent properties.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the removal of the trees was avoidable and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the requested variance failed to meet the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it was not minor and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

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 applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into three separate parcels to construct three detached dwellings, requiring the demolition of the existing dwelling.

The application also sought to establish easements and rights-of-way for access and maintenance.

The Committee considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest, and was in the public interest.

The Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the submission of a grading and drainage plan.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area for an addition to their semi-detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well within the area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted as amended.

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 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, 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.

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 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 applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, along with reciprocal easements for a shared laneway.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a Heritage Impact Assessment, and a Joint Use, Maintenance and Operating Agreement.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit stacked dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, rear yard landscape area, and parking spaces.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the 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.