Martin Vervoort

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 95.3 square metre landlocked portion of their property to an abutting owner.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City Planner subject to conditions.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions regarding grading, drainage, private sewage systems, and parcel consolidation.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths to subdivide their property into four separate parcels for future residential development.

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 Planning Report or neighbours.

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 1.22 metres, instead of the required 4.5 metres, to construct an attached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased lot coverage of 43.15% (229.38 square metres) for the construction of a detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 40%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 110 metres from a mineral aggregate reserve zone for a proposed detached dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 150 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City Planner or conservation authority.

The variance was authorized.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development, retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act and the criteria in subsection 51(24).

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, environmental mitigation agreements, and geotechnical reporting.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a vacant property into two separate parcels, one for commercial/industrial use and the other for a future subdivision, and to establish an easement/right of way.

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 granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of a hydrogeological report.

The applicants applied for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development.

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 unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions including cash-in-lieu of parkland and registration of a reference plan.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would contain the existing dwelling and accessory buildings, while the retained parcel would consist of vacant farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the provisional consent, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, including obtaining a zoning by-law amendment to address a lot width and interior side yard setback deficiency.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a vacant property into two parcels, one for commercial/industrial use and the other for a future subdivision.

The requested variances included permitting a lot with 0.0 metres of street frontage, a reduced lot width of 26.0 metres, and designating the southeastern lot line as the front lot line.

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 the City Planning Report and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 21.62% to construct a one-storey addition and attached garage.

The City's initial concerns regarding the well and septic system were addressed.

The Committee found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it 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 application was granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels for residential development, with a new detached dwelling proposed for each parcel.

The proposed lots were in close proximity to lands zoned for mineral extraction.

The City's Planning Department raised concerns regarding the lack of an acceptable Mineral Resource Impact Assessment and the reduced setbacks from existing and future aggregate operations.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not have adequate regard for the criteria specified under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, nor was it in the public interest.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit separate well and septic systems for an existing coach house and a reduced front yard setback of 5 metres.

The City's Planning Department recommended refusal, arguing the proposal did not meet the Official Plan's intent for shared services.

The Committee of Adjustment (majority) granted the application, finding that preserving the existing housing stock was desirable and met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

One member dissented, finding the application did not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to a lot line adjustment under section 53 of the Planning Act.

The proposal involved conveying a portion of vacant agricultural land to an abutting property owner.

The Committee found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, satisfying the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into three separate parcels for residential development, with the existing dwelling to be demolished.

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 cash-in-lieu of parkland, noise attenuation measures, and tree protection.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a two-storey addition on the east side of an existing detached dwelling, encroaching into the required 30-metre watercourse setback.

The City raised concerns that the cantilevered addition would project closer to the surface water feature, but acknowledged it was unlikely to have a significant impact and that the applicant provided a planting plan to enhance the site's ecological function.

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.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced setbacks from lands zoned for mineral extraction (ME2 and ME3) to construct two new detached dwellings on a subdivided property.

The City's Planning Department raised concerns about creating new sensitive receptors near active and potential future pit operations.

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

The Committee concluded the proposal was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, would not represent orderly development compatible with its surroundings, and failed to demonstrate it would not hinder existing or future aggregate operations.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would contain the existing dwelling, while the retained parcel would continue to be used for agricultural purposes.

The City initially raised concerns about the size of the severed lot and potential agricultural value of a rear portion, but these were satisfied by evidence that the soil was rocky and not farmed.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and granted the consent subject to conditions.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new parcel for future residential development, retaining the existing detached dwelling on the other parcel.

The City requested that the owners enter into a development agreement to register notices on title concerning groundwater and soil.

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

The application for provisional consent was granted, subject to several conditions including the execution of a development agreement with the City regarding groundwater and soil conditions.

The applicants sought consent for a lot line adjustment to convey a 4.04-hectare portion of their property to an abutting lot.

The City requested a condition requiring a road widening dedication.

The applicants' agent requested that an existing log fence be permitted to remain within the expanded right of way.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee modified the road widening condition to allow the existing fence to remain.