Simon Coakeley

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 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 minor variances to construct a three-storey, low-rise apartment dwelling, requiring relief for bicycle parking space width, front yard walkway width, building height, and front façade setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or the public.

The application was granted as it represented orderly development compatible with the surrounding area.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming mixed-use building to construct an accessible three-storey addition containing new entrances, stairs, and an elevator.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal met the two-part test for desirability and impact, noting that the addition would introduce barrier-free access and have a smaller footprint than permitted for a low-rise apartment on the lot.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey, low-rise apartment dwelling, requiring relief for bicycle parking space width, front yard walkway width, and front façade recess.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or the public.

The application was granted, subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed site plan and elevations.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.8 metres for the construction of a carport, whereas the zoning by-law required 12.0 metres.

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 maintained the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent 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 under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including a joint-use and maintenance agreement and a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a double width driveway, a double width attached garage, and a balcony with no opaque screening for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variance for the balcony, finding it met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

However, the majority of the Committee refused the variances for the driveway and garage, concluding they did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law and would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood's streetscape character.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a property into three separate parcels for the construction of three detached dwellings, requiring relief for lot width, lot area, building height, and front-facing attached garages.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal would improve the existing condition by removing front yard parking and adding greenspace.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to expand a legal non-conforming "Business and Personal Services" use within an R4UD zone to construct a one-storey addition for a boardroom.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the two-part test under subsection 45(2) regarding desirability and impact.

Finding no objections from city staff or the public, and determining that the addition would not adversely impact abutting properties, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area for an addition to their semi-detached dwellings.

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 within the area and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted as amended.

The applicant sought a minor variance to increase the permitted building height for a proposed two-storey coach house.

The City's Planning Forester and residents raised concerns regarding the impact on mature trees on the subject and adjacent properties.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the removal of the trees was avoidable and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

The Committee concluded that the requested variance failed to meet the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it was not minor and did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a front-facing attached garage for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling, which is not permitted under the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal would maximize the visual dominance of the automobile on the streetscape and was not compatible with the surrounding area.

The majority of the Committee concluded that the variance failed three of the four statutory tests, as it was not desirable, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and was not minor.

The application was refused, with one member dissenting.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into nine separate parcels to create eight new lots for three-storey townhomes, while retaining the existing school on the remaining parcel.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, promoting efficient land use and intensification.

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including the provision of independent services, a joint use and maintenance agreement, and the construction of a sidewalk.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area for the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

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 will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded that the variances are minor, desirable, and maintain the general intent 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 parcels to facilitate the construction of a new low-rise apartment building, while retaining an existing low-rise apartment building under construction.

The application was unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement promoting urban intensification.

The consent was granted subject to standard conditions regarding parkland dedication, municipal services, and grading.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit a reduced lot width and lot area to construct a new semi-detached 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 applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and a reduced rear yard area to construct a two-storey addition containing two additional dwelling units at the rear of their existing detached 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, with one member dissenting.