John Blatherwick

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act 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 found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant applied for consent to sever their property at 255 Marier Avenue into two separate parcels to create a new lot for a six-unit stacked dwelling, while retaining the existing two-storey detached dwelling.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of a concurrent minor variance application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased driveway gradient of 14.2% and a front-facing attached garage for a residential property.

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 neighbourhood, had no unacceptable adverse impacts, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 8.5 metres to 9.75 metres to allow for an accessible third-floor addition.

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 proposal respected the neighbourhood's character and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit zero parking spaces for a proposed restaurant, whereas the Zoning By-law required 18 spaces.

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

The majority of the Committee found that insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate how the site would function regarding garbage, food delivery pick-ups, and supply deliveries without on-site parking.

The Committee concluded the variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and was not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.

The application was refused.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into three separate parcels to create a new lot for future development and establish separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit amplified sound on an existing outdoor, rooftop commercial patio and to allow a lower privacy screen than required by the Zoning By-law.

The Committee of Adjustment heard evidence from the applicant's agents and numerous area residents who expressed concerns about excessive noise and violations of previous conditions.

The Committee found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an up-to-date noise study, to demonstrate that the patio could function without creating an undesirable condition for residents.

The Committee concluded that the requested variances did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were not desirable, did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and were not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The application was refused.

The applicant sought minor variances under section 45 of the Planning Act to establish a shared driveway and a parking space partially located on the abutting property.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the four-part test for minor variances.

Finding that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties, 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 sought a minor variance to permit a one-storey pedestrian bridge connecting two proposed 40-storey mixed-use residential towers at the second storey, whereas the zoning by-law required a four-storey feature above the second storey.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal respected the intent of the by-law to limit massing and impact.

The application was unopposed and granted.

The applicant sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement/right-of-way for parking in favour of the abutting property at 22 Concord Street North.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City Planning Report.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and having adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, including filing a registered Reference Plan and electronic registration documents within two years.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased gross floor area for the seventh storey of two mixed-use buildings and an increased driveway width for a parking lot.

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 and support from city planning.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit 62 residential dwelling units in an existing building, whereas the Zoning By-law permitted a maximum of 58.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it aligned with the intent of the Residential zone and contributed to sustainable urban growth without adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with reduced lot area, front yard setback, and corner side yard setback.

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 applications.

The applicant sought a minor variance to construct a two-storey detached dwelling containing a studio space on a consolidated lot, requiring relief from the rear yard area and setback provisions for a through lot under the Zoning By-law.

The majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it fit well in the area and would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with two members dissenting.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a front yard parking space, reduced parking space length, reduced rear yard setback, reduced interior side yard setback, and a front-facing carport setback to accommodate accessibility needs.

The City raised concerns regarding the loss of soft landscaping.

The majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the proposal fits well in the area and contributes to inclusive housing.

The application was granted.

Two members dissented in part, finding the front yard parking space would be significantly undersized and violate Official Plan policies prioritizing soft landscaping.

The applicants sought consent to sever a property into four separate parcels and establish easements/rights-of-way to construct four townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment 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 were granted subject to numerous conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the execution of various agreements with the City.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and increased building heights to construct four townhouse dwellings on newly created parcels.

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 consent to subdivide a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment buildings.

The proposal required easements for walkway access and minor variances from the Zoning By-law.

The Committee of Adjustment heard concerns from area residents and the Westboro Community Association regarding scale, density, tree retention, and neighborhood compatibility.

The Committee refused the applications, finding the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property and construct two three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment buildings.

The requested variances included reduced setbacks, lot width, and lot area, as well as increased building height and number of dwelling units.

Area residents and the local community association opposed the application, raising concerns about overdevelopment, compatibility, and traffic.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variances did not meet the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the Committee found that the proposal did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the recently amended Zoning By-law, which prohibits apartment buildings with more than six units on the lot, and that the variances would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling, requiring relief for lot width, building height, front yard setback, and lot area.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed building height significantly exceeded surrounding development and would not fit well in the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not minor, were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.