G. Swinkin

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to construct a three-storey, four-unit multiplex and a two-storey garden suite on a property in Toronto.

The proposed development required variances for height, setbacks, soft landscaping, lot frontage, and lot area.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposal aligned with the City's recent policy initiatives to encourage gentle density and housing options in neighbourhoods, and that the built form, while different from the historic character, was compatible with the evolving planned context.

The Appellant requested an adjournment of a Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing on the morning of the scheduled date because their counsel was suffering from a debilitating flu and had lost his voice.

The Tribunal considered Rule 23.3 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Noting that the opposing party present did not object and actually wished counsel a quick recovery, the Tribunal found the grounds for an adjournment were met.

The hearing was rescheduled to a mutually agreeable date.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a temporary variance to permit an Entertainment Place of Assembly at 131 McCormack Street.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing, proposing revised conditions for a two-year temporary approval to allow the owner to seek a zoning by-law amendment.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, set aside the Committee's decision, and approved the variance subject to the agreed-upon conditions, including a requirement to enter into an agreement with the City under s. 45(9.1) of the Planning Act to secure operational controls.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a new Orthodox Jewish synagogue on a residential lot.

The requested variances related to lot area, frontage, setbacks, and parking.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed house-form massing respected the neighbourhood's physical character and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted evidence that the congregation's Orthodox practices would mitigate parking impacts, and approved the variances subject to a condition restricting the property's use to an Orthodox Jewish congregation.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting variance relief to Citoronto Investments Limited.

The parties requested a consent adjournment of the scheduled hearing to pursue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment pursuant to Rule 17.2 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure and rescheduled the hearing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for front and rear yard soft landscaping for a recently constructed dwelling.

The appellant had built extensive hardscaping, including a double-wide circular driveway and a large rear patio with a pool, that did not comply with the Zoning By-law or the site plan approved in a previous variance application.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the heavily landscaped neighbourhood.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, were not desirable, and were not minor.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance application for the property at 36 Glengowan Road.

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

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

The owner of an existing apartment building appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to convert ground-floor storage locker space into two new dwelling units.

The proposal required relief for parking supply, indoor amenity space, and ground-floor residential use.

Several tenants opposed the appeal, citing existing parking shortages, inadequate laundry facilities, and the loss of storage space.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the variances failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land due to the negative impacts on existing tenants.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a new three-storey dwelling.

At the prehearing conference, the appellant presented revised plans that reduced deck sizes, added privacy screening, and altered the driveway design to preserve a significant street tree.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in settlement discussions based on the revisions and issued procedural directions for the filing of revised plans and witness statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved nine variances for a mixed-use development at 2 Tecumseth Street.

The appeal was filed to add a technical condition ensuring that visitor parking continues to be provided at the rate contemplated by the site plan, despite site-specific zoning that required no visitor parking.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed to endorse the Committee's approval subject to three conditions, including the new visitor parking requirement.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting an approval to the applicant.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the City withdrew its appeal by email.

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

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a residential property to create two undersized lots for a semi-detached dwelling.

The City argued the proposal failed to respect the prevailing lot pattern under Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

The owner argued the property was unique and should be evaluated under the infill criteria of Policy 4.1.9.

The Tribunal agreed with the owner, finding the property's size and shape were distinct from the neighbourhood and the proposed development would fit the existing physical character.

The appeal was dismissed and the consent was upheld.

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

Prior to a hearing, the appellant withdrew its appeal by email.

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

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.

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

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and construct a three-storey, four-unit multiplex dwelling.

The requested variances included relief for east yard setback, building height, lot area, and lot frontage.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal represented gentle intensification consistent with Official Plan policies for missing middle housing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding they met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal determine that the servicing conditions imposed on a previously granted provisional consent had been fulfilled, allowing for the issuance of a certificate of consent.

The conditions required a Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the City's engineering department.

The City refused to clear the conditions, citing deficiencies in the proposed lateral connections and separation widths in the narrow public lane.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicant's engineering evidence on feasibility was credible, the City had not approved the servicing arrangements, and the Tribunal lacked the authority to deem the conditions satisfied or to determine the City's statutory duty regarding servicing.

The Applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a consent to sever and minor variances.

The adjournment was requested due to the late discovery of an explanatory memorandum prepared by the City's Urban Forestry Division, which the City intended to rely upon at the hearing.

The City consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the criteria under Rule 23.3 were satisfied and granted the motion, ordering a new hearing date and fresh disclosure deadlines.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize a rear basement addition and convert an existing detached garage into a two-storey garden suite.

The proposal required relief for building length, depth, setbacks, height, and angular planes.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the revised proposal conformed with Official Plan policies and that strict application of the 45-degree angular plane was unnecessary given the site context.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a residential property into three lots and construct three detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the proposal to divide the property into two lots and reduce the requested variance relief.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal fits the physical character of the neighbourhood, satisfies the criteria for consent under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and meets the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1).

The appeals were allowed and the revised consent and variances were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a Phase II townhouse development.

The requested variances included an increase in the number of dwelling units, reduced minimum unit widths, and reduced setbacks.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.