J. Tassiopoulos

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to convert a semi-detached dwelling into three units with a rear third-storey addition and a new detached garage.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the variances generally met the four tests under the Planning Act, but determined that the proposed third-floor depth would cause an undue adverse impact on the adjacent property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the variances subject to conditions, including a requirement to reduce the third-floor depth to match the neighbouring property and to widen the garage door.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances required to construct a new three-storey detached dwelling.

The proposal was revised to reduce the number and extent of the variances.

The City opposed the variances for height and number of storeys, arguing they did not fit the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the contemporary design, stepbacks, and articulation adequately mitigated the massing and height impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, authorizing the revised variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for a new detached dwelling.

At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the appellant requested an adjournment due to a scheduling conflict with another tribunal matter, and requested that the hearing be scheduled for two days instead of one.

All parties consented to the request.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment, finding it would not prejudice the parties and that two days were necessary given the number of parties and expert witnesses.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new three-storey residential dwelling with an integral garage.

The requested variances included increased lot coverage, floor area, building height, number of storeys, and a large third-floor deck.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, preferring the City's expert planning evidence that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site.

The tribunal found that the proposed density and large rooftop platform did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, and therefore the variances did not meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever and associated minor variances for a residential property.

The owner proposed to sever the existing lot into two and construct two new two-storey detached dwellings.

The City argued the resulting lots and dwellings would not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood based on a numerical analysis of prevailing lot sizes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body preferred the owner's planning evidence, finding that the property's unique location at the edge of the neighbourhood and proximity to a subway station warranted a qualitative assessment.

The appeal was dismissed, the consent was granted, and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to construct a new residential dwelling with an integral garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included revised plans with reduced variances for building height and lot coverage.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment refusing applications for consent to sever and minor variances for a property on Bellman Avenue.

The proposal sought to sever the existing lot into two, demolish the existing house, and construct a new two-storey residential dwelling on each lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontroverted land use planning evidence that the proposed lots and dwellings would respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal found that the consent met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1).

The appeal was allowed in part, the consent was granted, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new two-storey residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the requested lot coverage variance to 32 percent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances for lot coverage, setbacks, driveway access, and building height met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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