Sharon Lécuyer

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a 10-unit low-rise apartment building and one tandem parking space on their property.

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

The Committee found that the proposal fit well within the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and achieved intensification.

The requested variances were authorized as they were deemed 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 applicant sought minor variances to permit the subdivision of a property into two parcels and the construction of two detached dwellings with reduced setbacks and other zoning deviations.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposed design was not compatible with the existing context and would create unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties and the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the variances failed three of the four statutory tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, three-unit townhouse dwelling with two secondary dwelling units per principal unit.

The requested variances included relief from maximum secondary dwelling unit limits, gross floor area restrictions, front wall entrance prohibitions, and minimum lot area and width requirements.

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 represents orderly development without unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the applications.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey, low-rise apartment buildings.

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

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented appropriate infill development, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, tree planting, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks to construct two three-storey, low-rise apartment buildings on a subdivided property.

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's character, and creates no 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 applicant, the Estate of Sherri Watson, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a landlocked portion of its property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

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 the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant sought a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit office and research and development centre uses on the ground floor within six metres of the front wall of an existing commercial building and addition.

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 concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant, Nilestone Group Ltd., applied for a minor variance to permit front-facing attached garages for a proposed new semi-detached dwelling, contrary to the Zoning By-law's streetscape character provisions.

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

The majority found that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood, noting a similar nearby development, and that it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law without causing unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted, with the Chair dissenting on the grounds that the proposal negatively impacted streetscape continuity.

The applicants sought consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

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

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant, the Estate of Sherri Watson, sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, interior side yard setback, and accessory building rear yard setback to facilitate a lot line adjustment with an abutting property.

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 application.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal 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 parkland dedication, tree protection, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into three separate parcels to construct three new two-storey townhouse dwellings.

The requested variances included reductions in soft landscaping, lot width, and garage setbacks.

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 and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted, subject to the revised site plan.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand an existing legal non-complying single detached dwelling by constructing a second-storey addition.

The City's Planning Report raised no concerns, noting the addition would utilize existing exterior wall locations and create no privacy issues.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal met the two-part test under subsection 45(2), as it was desirable for the appropriate development of the property and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties or the neighbourhood.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a projection of a porch and balcony into the front yard within a heritage overlay, which is generally prohibited by the Zoning By-law.

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

Finding that the proposal was compatible with the neighbourhood, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not cause adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit the construction of a one-storey addition at the rear of their existing dwelling, requiring reductions in the rear yard setback, interior side yard setback, and rear yard area.

The City's Planning Department and other agencies raised no concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and found 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 application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 352.9 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres, to construct a three-storey, 8-unit apartment building.

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 was consistent with intensification objectives and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduced distance between the principal building and a proposed detached garage.

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 application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a porch at the rear of the existing dwelling.

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 applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 352.9 square metres (whereas 360 square metres is required) to construct a three-storey, 8-unit apartment building.

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 was consistent with intensification objectives, fit well within the neighbourhood, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with additional dwelling units, requiring reduced setbacks, front-facing garages, and a new doorway entrance on the front wall.

The City's Planning Department expressed concerns regarding the front-facing garages and tree retention.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting the applicant's efforts to retain a mature tree and the presence of similar garages in the neighbourhood.

The application was granted, with two members dissenting on the variance permitting a front wall entrance for the secondary dwelling unit.