A. Brown

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to demolish a single-family dwelling and garage and replace them with a new dwelling and a two-storey garage.

The appellant amended the application to reduce the requested variances.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and respected the physical character of the neighbourhood, particularly given the unique context of the adjacent laneway.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to convert a commercial space into a third residential unit within an existing building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents gentle intensification, fits the physical character of the neighbourhood, and meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a proposed warehouse development in an employment area.

Following an interim decision that approved side yard and driveway variances but required the removal of a front yard loading space, the appellant sought an additional variance to reduce the access width to a rear loading space from 6.0m to 3.65m.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the amendment minor, requiring no further notice.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence and a swept path analysis accepted by the City, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variance.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing three variances required to permit the conversion of an existing detached garage into a garden suite.

The requested variances related to soft landscaping, east side yard setback, and the separation distance between the residential building and the ancillary building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the uncontroverted expert planning evidence and found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances, although numerically significant in some respects, were minor in nature and desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as they represented gentle intensification without adverse planning impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a duplex and laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the appellant submitted revised variances that reduced the overall number of requests and eliminated an extended basement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and arboriculture evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies, maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is minor.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a dwelling and laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and proposed revised variances along with a list of privately negotiated conditions.

In this interim decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body indicated it would approve the revised variances but refused to attach the privately negotiated conditions to its order, noting that such conditions should be enshrined in a private agreement rather than enforced by the tribunal.

The parties were directed to confirm their private settlement agreement in writing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant consent to sever a residential property into two lots and to authorize associated minor variances for the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The proposed development required variances for lot frontage, front yard setback, exterior stair width, and second-storey platform area.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1).

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposal represented gentle intensification that would respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood context, despite objections from neighbours regarding the preservation of large lots.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances to construct a warehouse in a Core Employment Area.

The requested variances included reduced side yard setbacks, a reduced driveway width, and permission for a front yard loading space.

The Tribunal found that the side yard and driveway variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they were appropriate for the narrow lot and consistent with the area's character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance for the front yard loading space, finding it contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law's intent to limit vehicular access in front of buildings and protect the public realm.

The appellant was directed to submit a revised site plan eliminating the front yard loading space.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a proposed duplex and laneway suite.

At a prehearing conference, the appellant requested a consent adjournment of the first hearing date to allow the parties more time to finalize a settlement.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment and extended the deadlines for filing reply witness and expert statements, finding no prejudice to the parties.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance application.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal through their authorized representative.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances to construct two new two-storey detached duplexes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance and variances met the statutory criteria.

The Tribunal found that the proposal conformed to the Official Plan's gentle intensification policies, maintained the general intent of the Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a warehouse.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant amended the application to include a new variance for a front yard loading space.

At a prehearing conference, the appellant requested an adjournment and argued that the amendment was minor, exempting it from further notice requirements under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the addition of a front yard loading space variance was not minor.

The hearing was adjourned sine die and a new notice of hearing was ordered to be issued.

The appellant sought four variances to permit a two-storey rear addition and platform, which would significantly encroach into the required rear yard setback.

Several neighbours opposed the application, citing loss of privacy, sunlight, and open space.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed encroachment was too large for the small lot and inconsistent with the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the variances failed to meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a proposed residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant revised the application to seek only one variance for an increase in maximum lot coverage from 30 percent to 32 percent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variance maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, or was minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was not authorized.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing an application for minor variances.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, confirming the Committee of Adjustment's decision as final and binding, and vacated the scheduled hearing.