Sharon Lécuyer

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into three parcels for the construction of a detached dwelling and a semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reduced lot areas, reduced rear yard setbacks, and increased shared driveway widths.

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

The Committee concluded that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, eliminated opportunities for soft landscaping, and did not respect the character of the neighbourhood.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide a property into two separate parcels for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling and to establish easements for parking and access.

The requested variances included permitting a parking space on a different lot, a parking space in the front yard, and an increased width for a shared driveway.

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 respected the character of the neighbourhood and represented orderly development.

The applications were granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling and establish an easement/right-of-way for parking and access.

The applications were unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, and 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 consent was granted subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the registration of various agreements and easements.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property and construct two long semi-detached dwellings, requiring relief for lot width, lot area, interior side yard setback, and building height.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal represented overdevelopment at the expense of tree planting and parking functionality.

The Committee concluded that the variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan's tree canopy objectives.

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 a reduced lot width and lot area to subdivide the property and construct a six-unit stacked dwelling while retaining the existing detached dwelling.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, and the Committee found that the proposal was consistent with the neighbourhood land pattern.

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

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to grant easements for pedestrian access to facilitate the development of eight townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the registration of a joint use and maintenance agreement and a notice on title regarding the lack of on-site parking.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for residential development, while retaining the existing low-rise apartment building.

The applicant also sought to establish easements for pedestrian and vehicular access and servicing.

The Committee of Adjustment found 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 applications for provisional consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit an increased accessory building height and size for a new two-storey detached garage.

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 a reduced lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setback to convert an existing duplex into a three-unit 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 represented gentle intensification and fit well within the neighbourhood.

The application was granted, subject to the relief applying only to the existing building.

The applicant sought to subdivide their property to create one new lot for residential development while retaining an existing low-rise apartment building.

They requested minor variances for a reduced lot width, a reduced easterly side yard setback, and to permit one residential parking space.

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 the Chair dissenting in part regarding the parking variance.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application 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 application was granted subject to conditions, including independent servicing, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.7 metres, instead of the required 7.5 metres, to construct a three-storey, eight-unit low-rise apartment building.

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 in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

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 sought minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and rear yard setbacks for the construction of eight townhouse dwellings, each with two additional dwelling units.

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

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the neighbourhood character, and will 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 applications were granted.

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 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 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.