William Hunter

The applicant requested a change of condition to a provisional consent previously granted by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The condition required a hydrogeological study, and the applicant sought to amend it to recognize that sodium levels marginally exceeding Ministry guidelines could be treated with a reverse osmosis unit.

The City opposed the request, citing adherence to Ministry guidelines and precedent concerns.

The Committee of Adjustment found the requested change reasonable and appropriate based on the engineering evidence that the exceedance was marginal and posed no health risk.

The request to change the condition was granted.

The applicant applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback of 68 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 138 metres between a 0.5-hectare building area on a newly created vacant parcel and an existing unoccupied livestock facility.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Committee noted that the actual setback would be at least 103 metres as recommended by an Environmental Impact Statement, and that the variance would not result in any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their rural property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for residential development.

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 applications were granted subject to several conditions, including requirements for independent private sewage systems, well water adequacy reports, and a zoning by-law amendment to prohibit residential development on the retained lands.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their agricultural property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling and to establish an easement for access.

The application was unopposed and supported by City planning staff.

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

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including road widening conveyances and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased building footprint for a coach house, converting an existing garage.

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 a minor variance to permit an accessory building with a gross floor area of 59.5 square metres within a flood plain overlay, exceeding the permitted 50 square metres.

The Committee of Adjustment found the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or conservation authority.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement/right of way in favour of an abutting property for vehicular and pedestrian access.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application against the criteria in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Finding no concerns from city staff or conservation authorities, the Committee determined the proposal was in the public interest and granted the provisional consent subject to standard conditions regarding the registration of a reference plan and easement documents.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into three separate parcels.

The existing dwelling and unoccupied livestock facility would remain on one parcel, while the other two newly created parcels would be vacant.

The City Planner raised concerns regarding the Minimum Distance Separation setback.

The applicant's agent clarified that the Environmental Impact Statement recommended a smaller building envelope, which would be implemented through a Development Agreement.

The Committee granted the provisional consent, subject to several conditions, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including requirements for independent private sewage systems, a noise attenuation study, and a report demonstrating the adequacy of the aquifer.

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 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 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 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 applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 29.1 square metre portion of their property to the abutting property owners to the south.

The adjustment was required because a pool belonging to the abutting property was partially located on the applicants' property.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the provisional consent, finding 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 consent was subject to conditions, including the submission of a grading and drainage plan and a site plan showing the exact location of the sewage system relative to the pool.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement/right-of-way for servicing a property.

The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent for a lot line adjustment, which required this additional consent application to establish the servicing easement.

The Committee found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, and granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

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 minor variances to permit a covered porch and balcony to project closer to the interior side lot line than permitted by the Zoning By-law for a townhouse unit under construction.

The application was unopposed.

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 Committee authorized the requested variances.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a covered porch and a covered balcony to project closer to the interior side lot line than permitted by the Zoning By-law for a townhouse unit under construction.

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 area and respected the character of the neighbourhood.

The application was granted, legalizing the already-built structures.

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 applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to the abutting property owners.

The application was brought to resolve an issue where the applicants' pool was partially located on the abutting property, as part of a mutual land exchange.

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

The application for provisional consent was granted, subject to conditions including a grading and drainage plan and parcel consolidation.