Sharon Lécuyer

The applicant sought minor variances to permit front yard parking and reduced landscaping widths for three existing multi-unit dwellings.

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

Despite City Planning staff having no concerns, the Committee found that the proposed front yard parking would negatively affect the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded the variances were not desirable, did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and were not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts.

The applications were refused.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit front-facing attached garages for a proposed semi-detached dwelling, which the Zoning By-law did not permit based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

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

The Committee concluded that the proposal would maximize the visual dominance of the automobile, fail to respect the character of the neighbourhood, and create an unacceptable adverse impact on the streetscape.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for a semi-detached dwelling and one lot for a detached dwelling.

The City requested conditions relating to tree retention, grading, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

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

The applications for consent were granted subject to conditions, including tree planting, grading plans, and a joint use and maintenance agreement for the semi-detached dwelling.

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.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks to convert an existing two-storey semi-detached dwelling into an eight-unit low-rise apartment building.

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 applications were granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 27.8% of the lot depth (9.35 metres) to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of their dwelling.

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 permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to change a legally non-conforming use from a three-unit dwelling containing oversized units to a seven-unit low-rise apartment dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-fold test of desirability and lack of adverse impact, noting that the conversion would bring the building closer to conformity with the zoning by-law.

The application was granted subject to site plan and elevation conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 1.14 metres (instead of the required 3 metres) to construct a second storey addition over an existing one-storey portion at the rear of their dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test and found the variance to be 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 unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee granted the application.

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 a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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

The Committee found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification within built-up areas.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including an amended condition regarding Bell Canada easements.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels to create separate ownership for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, and to establish associated easements for pedestrian access, vehicle access, and parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, a tree planting plan, independent servicing, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of an eight-unit, low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in minimum lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks.

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

Finding that the proposal fit well within the area, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a reduced front yard setback of 1.99 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.93 metres, to construct a second storey addition above an existing one-storey addition.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part statutory test, noting that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Riverain Developments Inc., applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to establish access easements and rights-of-way over portions of its property as part of a 3-phase, mixed-use development.

The proposed easements would allow for all three lots to have access over the driveways and drive aisles to access parking.

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

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a one-storey addition in the rear and westerly side yard of an existing four-unit dwelling, requiring reductions in the interior side yard and rear yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the addition was subordinate to the existing house and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The owner applied for a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character requirements.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Chair dissented, finding insufficient evidence that the proposal was in keeping with the neighbourhood's character.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 5.1 metres to 4.35 metres to construct a second storey addition over an existing sunroom.

The Committee of Adjustment found the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the addition would not expand the footprint closer to the front lot line and would not cause adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, reduced rear yard area, and reduced distance from an accessory structure to the dwelling to construct a single-storey addition at the rear of the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment considered 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 application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced rear and interior side yard setbacks and front-facing garages for two new two-storey detached dwellings.

The City's Planning Report raised concerns about the front-facing garages breaking the street's character.

However, the majority of the Committee of Adjustment found that the grade of the property reduced the impact of the garages and that the proposal fit well within a neighbourhood that already included several examples of front-facing garages.

The majority concluded that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and granted the applications.

One member dissented, finding that front-facing attached garages did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced parking space length and width to accommodate a residential addition.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposed undersized parking space would likely result in non-compliant front yard parking and could encroach on the neighbouring property.

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 Zoning By-law, failing the statutory four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought permission to expand a legal non-conforming office use in an R4UD zone to construct an entrance vestibule at the front of an existing office building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test under subsection 45(2) of the Planning Act, as it was desirable for the appropriate use of the land and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding area.

The application was granted.