Jay Baltz

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback and a reduced rear yard setback to construct a second-storey addition onto an existing dwelling.

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

The proposal regularized an existing legal non-complying front yard setback and slightly reduced the existing legal non-conforming rear yard setback.

Finding no adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and that the proposal respected the neighbourhood's character, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant, Richcraft Properties Ltd., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to create a drainage easement over its property in favour of an adjacent property.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, noting the size of the stormwater drainage easement was appropriate.

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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a four-storey mixed-use development with reduced front yard setbacks, a reduced landscape buffer, front yard parking, and a reduced drive aisle width.

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

Finding no adverse impacts and noting the City's lack of concern, 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 minor variances to permit a reduced lot area and secondary dwelling units on undersized lots for the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create 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 applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a portion of their property for a lot line adjustment, conveying it to the abutting property owner.

The City Planning Report raised no concerns.

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 regarding the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a semi-detached dwelling with an above-grade secondary dwelling unit at the rear of each half.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback, an increased gross floor area for the secondary dwelling units, and a reduced rear yard area.

Neighbours raised concerns regarding tree protection, drainage, and parking.

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 neighbourhood.

The applications were granted subject to the submitted site plan and elevations.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, requiring the demolition of the existing detached dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal promoted efficient land use and development within a built-up area, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the approval of accompanying minor variances and tree protection measures.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a seniors' retirement community, including an eight-storey long-term care home and a fifteen-storey retirement home.

The requested variances included reductions to front yard setbacks, landscaped areas, drive aisle widths, parking space dimensions, and loading space requirements.

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 provided adequate parking and fit well within the area.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting on the drive aisle width variance.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 14.35 metres for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 8.5 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the increased height was due to the significant slope of the site and would have minimal visual impact on the streetscape.

The application was granted, subject to conditions requiring the submission of an Environmental Impact Study and a slope stability report prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant, Nemorin Group Limited, applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into four separate parcels to construct four long semi-detached dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit.

The existing dwelling and detached garage were to be demolished.

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

The Committee granted the provisional consent, subject to several conditions including the provision of easements, tree protection, and infrastructure agreements.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 8.18 metres for a new two-storey detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 8 metres.

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

Finding that the proposed flat-roof dwelling respects interior side yard setbacks, fits well within the neighbourhood, and raises no concerns from City planning staff or other agencies, 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 applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two lots for a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, requesting reduced lot width and area, and permission for front-facing attached garages.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the lot width and area variances, finding they met the four-part test under the Planning Act and fit well within the neighbourhood.

However, the Committee denied the variances for front-facing garages, as they were inconsistent with the dominant streetscape character and lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.77 metres, instead of the required 9 metres, to construct a sunroom addition.

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

The proposal fit well in the area, 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 sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels, each containing one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the establishment of a new driveway, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the registration of a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property and create a new vacant parcel for future development.

The proposed parcel required variances for reduced lot width and lot area.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application 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 variances were authorized.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels, creating one new vacant parcel for future development while retaining the existing detached dwelling on the other.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, having adequate regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applications for provisional consent were granted subject to standard conditions regarding parkland dedication, servicing, grading, and registration.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.45 metres for an attached carport, whereas the zoning by-law requires 1.2 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance 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 sought a minor variance to permit 0% of the frontage along the front lot line to be occupied by building walls located within 3.0 metres of the frontage, in order to construct a one-storey commercial medical imaging facility.

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 the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two lots, retaining an existing detached dwelling and constructing a new one.

The requested variances were for reduced lot area and lot width.

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 applications were granted.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Validation under section 57 of the Planning Act to correct a title error that resulted in the current owner not having legal title to the property.

The property had inadvertently merged with an adjacent property in 1965, and a subsequent transfer in 2003 contravened the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application had adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and was in the public interest.

The application was granted and a certificate of validation was issued.