Sharon Lécuyer

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement for maintenance and access over its property in favour of an abutting property.

The easement was required as a condition of Site Plan Control Approval for the construction of an eight-storey hotel.

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

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions.

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 applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area and lot width for the construction of a three-storey low-rise apartment building.

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 character of the neighbourhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee authorized the variances subject to a condition limiting the building to a maximum of eight units.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to change the legal non-conforming use of the property from an automobile service station to a retail, leasing, and repair facility for light construction equipment.

The City and area residents opposed the application, arguing that the previous use had been abandoned and that the new use caused significant adverse impacts, including noise, odours, and traffic issues.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding insufficient evidence that the legal non-conforming use had continued until the date of the application.

Furthermore, the Committee concluded that the proposed use was not desirable, created unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood, and was less compatible than the former use.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of a semi-detached dwelling currently under construction.

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

The application for provisional consent was granted, subject to conditions including cash-in-lieu of parkland, independent municipal services, conveyance of a corner sight triangle, and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from two to zero for a property located near a transit station.

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 area, respected the neighbourhood character, and eliminated parking where active transportation is encouraged, the Committee concluded the variance was minor and desirable.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to construct two 8-unit low-rise apartment buildings, along with associated easements for access.

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 for consent were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 4.816 metres for a coach house, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 3.6 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the structure already exists as a detached garage and the envelope will not change.

The application was granted, subject to the variance being restricted to the life of the existing structure.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit front-facing garages for a proposed two-storey semi-detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character rules.

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 concluded that the proposal fit the immediate context, minimized impacts on mature trees, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

One member dissented.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced front yard setback of 0 metres and to allow the principal entrance to face the corner lot line, in order to legalize an already-enclosed porch.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the existing construction fit well in the area and respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and granted the application subject to conditions.

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

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

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the establishment of independent services, a joint-use and maintenance agreement, and a tree planting plan.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey semi-detached dwelling with secondary dwelling units, including variances for front yard parking, walkways, basement entrances, and reduced rear yard setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed front yard parking did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into two parcels to construct two 8-unit low-rise apartment buildings.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, interior side yard setbacks, and front yard soft landscaping requirements.

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, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and provides missing-middle housing without creating unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling with an additional dwelling unit.

The requested variances included reductions in lot area, lot width, and interior side yard setback, as well as permission for an individual driveway.

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 application was granted.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling with reduced lot area, front yard setback, rear yard setback, and rear yard area.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning and no evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

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 a semi-detached dwelling, each with a secondary unit.

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.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including compliance with the Ontario Building Code for party walls, implementation of a tree planting plan, and entering into a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant, Mattamy Rockcliffe Inc., applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 0 metres from the exterior wall for 86 rooftop terraces in a planned unit development of stacked dwellings.

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

Finding that the variance 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 Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a front-facing attached garage, a driveway, a reduced garage setback, and an increased front yard setback for a proposed three-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the increased front yard setback met the four-part test under the Planning Act as it respected the neighbourhood's character.

However, the majority of the Committee found that the variances for the garage and driveway did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

The application was granted in part, authorizing only the front yard setback variance.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and reduced soft landscaping area to subdivide a property and construct two three-storey low-rise apartment buildings.

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 fit well in the neighbourhood and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced tower separation distance of 13.6 metres between two areas of a proposed 35-floor mixed-use high-rise building, whereas the zoning by-law required 15 metres.

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

Finding no concerns from city planning or adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.