William Hunter

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 a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage of 9.3% (maximum permitted is 8%) to construct a two-storey detached dwelling and a one-storey pool house.

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

The variance was authorized.

The applicants applied for minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling with reduced setbacks from a watercourse.

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

Finding that the watercourse functioned similarly to a swale and that the proposal fit well within the neighbourhood without adverse impacts, the Committee concluded the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into four separate parcels for future residential development, retaining two existing dwellings.

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 applications were granted subject to conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit an increased gross floor area for a new second-storey addition and a reduced setback from the normal high-water mark of the Jock River.

The property is subject to a floodplain overlay.

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 proposed addition was within the existing footprint and would not significantly change the drainage pattern.

The application was unopposed and granted.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased building height of 5.9 metres for a coach house, whereas the Zoning By-law restricts the height to that of the principal dwelling (4.3 metres).

The application was unopposed.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit reduced lot widths to subdivide their property into four separate parcels for future residential development.

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 Planning Report or neighbours.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling, retaining the remaining land for farming operations.

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

Finding that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit an increased lot coverage of 43.15% (229.38 square metres) for the construction of a detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 40%.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the neighbourhood's character, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted subject to the construction being in accordance with the filed plans.

The applicant applied for consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create a new lot for residential development.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The application was granted subject to several conditions, including tree protection, grading and servicing plans, and the demolition or relocation of an existing structure straddling the proposed severance line.

The applicant, VIKA Land Development, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling on the other lot.

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 for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and that the proposal was in the public interest, the Committee granted the application subject to several conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a 16-unit low-rise apartment building with zero parking spaces and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

The City expressed concerns regarding an external access ramp and the proximity of balconies to a waste storage area, suggesting the inability to internalize these elements was tied to the proposed number of units.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment, did not represent orderly development, and failed to demonstrate no adverse impact on accessibility.

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

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a one-storey addition containing an additional dwelling unit to the rear of an existing duplex dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to side and rear yard setbacks, rear yard area, and relief from heritage overlay provisions.

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

The application was granted.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to facilitate the subdivision of a property into two separate parcels, creating one new lot for future residential development while retaining 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, noting no concerns from City Planning and community support subject to certain conditions.

The application was granted, with the variances restricted to the life of the existing dwelling.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced setback of 110 metres from a mineral aggregate reserve zone for a proposed detached dwelling, whereas the zoning by-law required 150 metres.

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

The variance was authorized.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a vacant property into two separate parcels, one for commercial/industrial use and the other for a future subdivision, and to establish an easement/right of way.

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 provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the approval of concurrent minor variance applications and the provision of a hydrogeological report.

The applicant sought minor variances to subdivide a vacant property into two parcels, one for commercial/industrial use and the other for a future subdivision.

The requested variances included permitting a lot with 0.0 metres of street frontage, a reduced lot width of 26.0 metres, and designating the southeastern lot line as the front lot line.

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

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create a new lot for a surplus farm dwelling.

The severed parcel would contain the existing dwelling and accessory buildings, while the retained parcel would consist of vacant farmland.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the provisional consent, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, including obtaining a zoning by-law amendment to address a lot width and interior side yard setback deficiency.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to subdivide a property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development, retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee considered the application under section 53 of the Planning Act and the criteria in subsection 51(24).

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, environmental mitigation agreements, and geotechnical reporting.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit separate well and septic systems for an existing coach house and a reduced front yard setback of 5 metres.

The City's Planning Department recommended refusal, arguing the proposal did not meet the Official Plan's intent for shared services.

The Committee of Adjustment (majority) granted the application, finding that preserving the existing housing stock was desirable and met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

One member dissented, finding the application did not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.