B. Mullock

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a residential property into two lots and associated minor variances for lot area and frontage.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lots would be significantly undersized compared to the prevailing neighbourhood character.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's planner, concluding that the consent failed to meet the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances failed the four tests under s. 45(1).

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a variance to permit a used vehicle dealership in an Employment Heavy Industrial Zone.

The appellant sought to operate the dealership as an ancillary use to an existing vehicle repair shop.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, finding that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, provided conditions were imposed to limit the scale of the dealership.

The tribunal authorized the variance subject to conditions restricting the number of outdoor display vehicles to six and requiring showings by appointment only.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two three-storey, four-unit multiplex dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the consent to sever met the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the requested variances for lot area, lot frontage, and parking space width met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposal represented modest intensification consistent with the Official Plan and would not create undue adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances to expand the seating capacity and operating hours of a legal non-conforming restaurant use on a section of Scollard Street where restaurants are prohibited.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed intensification would bring increased adverse impacts to neighbours.

The tribunal held that the proposal failed to maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and did not satisfy the tests of being desirable and minor.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to create two residential lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed undersized lots did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's expert planner, concluding that the proposal failed to meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a front yard parking space.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The proposed parking space had substandard dimensions, which would result in poor functionality, and the appellant had not responded to requests from Transportation Services for additional information and revisions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

The proposal required variances for a floor space index of 0.74 (where 0.35 is permitted) and a building height of 9.79m (where 9.5m is permitted).

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed massing and density would create an undue visual impact and fail to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's planner and local residents, concluding that the application failed all four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and associated minor variances for properties at 52-54 Indian Trail.

The proposal sought a lot addition to facilitate the construction of a detached rear garage and required variances for setbacks, roof eaves, and soft landscaping.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, approving the consent and the setback and roof eave variances, finding they met the statutory criteria and the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, the tribunal refused the soft landscaping variance, which proposed 2% coverage where 50% is required due to existing artificial turf, finding it failed to meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and the four tests.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing four minor variances required to construct a two-storey south side addition and a rear partial second-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances for building length, depth, floor space index, and side yard setbacks met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances were consistent with the neighbourhood character and would not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three variances required to construct a four-storey, 10-unit residential building on the existing footprint of a two-storey apartment building.

The requested variances related to floor space index and side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal provided appropriate transition to the adjacent neighbourhood, minimized shadow impacts, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to a condition that construction be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans.