John Blatherwick

The applicant, Hybrid Urban Development Inc., applied for a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced lot width of 10.9 metres (minimum required is 15 metres) to construct a 3-storey low-rise apartment building containing 10 units at 53 Willow Street.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application, which was unopposed, and found that it met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, rear yard setback, and rear yard area to construct a three-storey, long semi-detached dwelling with additional units.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the revised site plan and elevations filed.

The applicant sought permission under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge or extend a legal non-conforming building to reconstruct a semi-detached dwelling.

The existing building had been vacant for many years.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding insufficient evidence that the non-conforming use had been continuous.

The majority also found that the proposed extension into the rear and corner side yards was not desirable and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties and the neighbourhood.

Two members dissented, finding the use continuous and the redevelopment desirable.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to construct a two-storey addition on the east side of an existing dwelling, replacing a one-storey portion.

The property was a legal non-conforming use.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed addition met the two-part test for desirability and impact, noting it would reinstate a formal primary entrance and formalize rear yard parking without creating unacceptable 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.

An owner had mortgaged the subject property while owning abutting land, contravening the Planning Act.

The mortgagee sought to transfer the property under power of sale.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and granted the application.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownerships for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

The Committee 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, including compliance with the Ontario Building Code for the party wall and the registration of a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling, including an expanded first storey, a partial third storey, and a rooftop terrace, on a property subject to a Heritage Overlay.

The requested variances related to building height, side yard setback, and rear yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment, by a majority, granted the application, finding that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The majority concluded that the proposal preserved the integrity of the Heritage Conservation District and represented orderly development.

Two members dissented in part, finding that certain variances did not satisfy the statutory test.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a front-facing garage for a proposed detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

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

Specifically, the variance was not minor, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as it would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the streetscape and neighbourhood character.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, low-rise apartment dwelling, requiring relief for bicycle parking space width, front yard walkway width, and front façade recess.

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 City or the public.

The application was granted, subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed site plan and elevations.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming mixed-use building to construct an accessible three-storey addition containing new entrances, stairs, and an elevator.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test for desirability and impact, noting that the addition would introduce barrier-free access and have a smaller footprint than permitted for a low-rise apartment on the lot.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a five-unit, three-storey stacked dwelling on an undersized lot.

The requested variances included reductions in lot area, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and rear yard soft landscaping.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal represented overdevelopment, was not compatible with the surrounding area, and failed to meet the statutory requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.8 metres for the construction of a carport, whereas the zoning by-law required 12.0 metres.

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 maintained the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, low-rise apartment dwelling, requiring relief for bicycle parking space width, front yard walkway width, building height, and front façade setback.

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 City or the public.

The application was granted as it represented orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into three separate parcels for the construction of three detached dwellings, requiring relief for lot width, lot area, building height, and front-facing attached garages.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal would improve the existing condition by removing front yard parking and adding greenspace.

The applications were granted.

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 applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting efficient land use and intensification.

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

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a joint-use and maintenance agreement and a grading and drainage plan.

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 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 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 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.