Simon Coakeley

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit two parking spaces with a reduced length of 4.8 metres for a proposed 25-storey residential building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the reduced length aligns with zoning requirements for compact car parking spaces and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing two-story, three-unit dwelling into a four-unit, low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included reduced front and rear yard setbacks and permission for two rear yard parking spaces on a lot smaller than normally required.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the changes were primarily internal and would not create adverse impacts on the surrounding area.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage, which was not permitted by the Zoning By-law based on a Streetscape Character Analysis.

The proposal also required the removal of a mature bur oak tree in the rear yard.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the variance did not meet the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee concluded that the loss of the significant tree was avoidable, the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and the proposed garage and tree removal would cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.