Julianne Wright

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into four separate parcels to construct four townhouse dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit, and to establish access easements.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the execution of various agreements with the City.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property at 1451 Woodward Avenue into two separate parcels to construct a two-storey semi-detached dwelling.

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

After hearing submissions from the applicants' agent and neighbours regarding a shared driveway and trees, the Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The applications were granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications, payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland, and the execution of a joint-use and maintenance agreement.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 12-unit rooming house with one parking space, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 7 units and required 3 parking spaces.

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

The majority held that the proposal was desirable, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor in nature.

Two members dissented regarding the increase in rooming units, finding it too significant to be considered minor.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased floor area for an accessory display and sales area of 35% of the total gross floor area of a proposed one-storey warehouse building, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 25%.

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 the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

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 applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to establish separate ownership for two proposed low-rise apartment buildings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Finding that the proposal promotes efficient land use and intensification within a built-up area, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two detached dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that 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, including the reduced lot dimensions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two parcels for the construction of a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks, as well as permission for an attached front-facing garage.

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 surrounding neighbourhood.

The applications were granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and a reduced rear yard area to construct a two-storey addition containing two additional dwelling units at the rear of their existing detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested 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, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, which is not permitted under the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal would maximize the visual dominance of the automobile on the streetscape and was not compatible with the surrounding area.

The majority of the Committee concluded that the variance failed three of the four statutory tests, as it was not desirable, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor.

The application was refused, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit two parking spaces with a reduced length of 4.8 metres for a proposed 25-storey residential building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the reduced length aligns with zoning requirements for compact car parking spaces and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into nine separate parcels to create eight new lots for three-storey townhomes, while retaining the existing school on the remaining parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the provision of independent services, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and the construction of a sidewalk.

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.