Sharon Lécuyer

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 minor variances to reduce the required motor vehicle parking spaces from four to three, and visitor parking spaces from one to zero, to construct a four-storey, 20-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The proposal aligned with the City's intent to prioritize active transportation and urban greening in the Downtown Core Transect.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey structure with a coach house on the second floor and a garage on the first floor.

The requested variances included increased interior side yard and rear yard setbacks, increased driveway width, permission for a shed style roof, and increased building height.

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 fits well in the area and respects the character of the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances for reduced lot width and lot area to construct an eight-unit, low-rise apartment building and demolish an existing detached dwelling.

Area residents raised concerns regarding density, parking, and neighbourhood character.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposed development 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 application was granted.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a four-unit low-rise apartment building.

The existing dwelling and accessory structures would be demolished.

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

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and represents orderly development without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee authorized the requested variances.