Jay Baltz

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

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including independent servicing, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and fire separation verification.

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

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

Finding that the proposal fit well in the neighbourhood, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature with no adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased building height and aggregate floor area for a new detached garage.

The City's Planning Report recommended refusal, noting the accessory building would become the predominant feature on the lot and the discrepancy between the principal and proposed accessory structure was not minor.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding the requested variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and were not minor, as they would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced number of parking spaces (309 instead of the required 355) to facilitate the expansion of an existing commercial building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the reduction aligns with City policy directions and will not result in undue adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error discovered during the conversion to Land Titles.

The subject lands were inadvertently omitted from a 1989 Quit Claim transfer, though the owners had continued use of the lots since 1971.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest, granting the certificate.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit zero loading spaces and a reduced parking aisle width for a proposed four-storey, 88-unit hotel.

The Committee of Adjustment applied 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 applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.88 metres for a new two-storey garage addition with a loft, replacing an existing garage.

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 in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to enter into a long-term lease in excess of 21 years for a portion of its property to expand an existing commercial building.

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 determined that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest.

The application for consent was granted, subject to conditions including the approval of an accompanying minor variance application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, lot width, and interior side yard setback to subdivide their property and construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling.

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 was granted subject to conditions, including obtaining minor variance approval and providing necessary servicing and grading plans.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback and a reduced number of parking spaces for the construction of a new 6-storey, 115-room hotel and restaurant.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the four-part test of 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 sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for each unit of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the provision of independent services and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

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

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, though it requested a condition requiring evidence that the party wall met the Ontario Building Code's fire separation requirements.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee declined to impose the requested fire separation condition, noting the dwelling was subject to the building permit process when constructed.

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

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 of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was 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.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act.

The City Planner had no concerns, while a neighbour raised concerns about parking and past short-term rental use.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including a tree planting plan and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a long semi-detached dwelling with secondary dwelling units, and to establish easements for access, parking, and amenity space.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including a joint use and maintenance agreement and a tree planting plan.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a one-storey sunroom addition.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and had no unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent to sever its property into two separate parcels, each containing an existing industrial building.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into four separate parcels to create long semi-detached dwellings with a shared driveway.

The City opposed the application, arguing that a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Condominium were the appropriate mechanisms for the proposed planned unit development.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal would result in constrained lots incapable of functioning independently, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced pole width of 1.45 metres for a flag lot, whereas the zoning by-law required a minimum of 2.2 metres.

The variance was requested to subdivide the property into two parcels to create separate ownerships for each half of an existing long semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from city planning or conservation authorities, and granted the application.