R. Kanter

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consents and minor variances to create four lots from two existing lots and construct a two-storey detached dwelling on each.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the amended plans, which reduced the requested variances, met the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the reduced lot frontages and areas were consistent with the neighbourhood's character and would not cause undue adverse impacts.

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

The main issue was whether the proposed height variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the proposed development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

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

The Applicant requested a review of a TLAB Final Decision that allowed an appeal and refused minor variances for a third-story addition.

The Applicant alleged the presiding Member exhibited bias, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law, particularly by requiring numerical data to establish 'prevailing' density under the Official Plan.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding no procedural unfairness or bias.

The reviewing Member also held that the original Member did not err in law by requiring quantitative evidence of floor space index in the immediate context, and that the decision was reasonable overall.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the required parking spaces for a new industrial warehouse building from 350 to 219 spaces.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting uncontradicted expert planning and traffic engineering evidence that the reduced parking supply was adequate due to technological advances and automation in warehouse operations.

The variance was found to meet the four tests under the Planning Act and was approved subject to standard tree protection conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing an application for minor variances to construct a rear three-storey addition and a new integral garage on a heritage property.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the opposing parties, resulting in revised plans that reduced the building height and addressed privacy concerns.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the revised plans met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part, approving the variances subject to conditions.

The owner appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications for consent to sever a residential lot into two lots and for minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling on each lot.

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

The Tribunal preferred the expert planning evidence of the applicant over the concerns raised by neighbouring participants, concluding that the proposed development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a rear deck addition at a residential property.

The variances related to soft landscaping, deck encroachment into the rear yard setback, and deck height.

A neighbouring property owner also opposed the variances due to privacy and sightline concerns.

During the hearing, the applicant proposed modifications to the deck design, including privacy screens and a reduction in the deck's length.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, approving the variances subject to conditions requiring the deck to be built in accordance with the modified plans, finding that the reduced encroachment and added landscaping met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing minor variances for a property.

Prior to the hearing, the City and the applicant reached a settlement based on revised plans that reduced the lot coverage, building length, and building depth.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to authorize the revised variances subject to conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consents to sever two existing residential lots into three, along with associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, side yard setbacks, and coverage.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) considered competing expert planning evidence regarding whether the proposed lots respected and reinforced the physical character of the Don Mills neighbourhood.

The TLAB preferred the qualitative analysis of the owners' planner, finding that the proposed lots represented gradual change that fit the existing neighbourhood character.

The appeal was allowed in part only to approve revised applications submitted by the owners, and the consents and variances were approved subject to conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a retail bridal salon in an Employment Industrial zone.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on revised plans showing the retail use would occupy approximately 27% of the area and be associated with the primary industrial use of manufacturing bridal gowns.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the variance subject to a new condition requiring construction substantially in accordance with the revised plans.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a west side yard setback and a rear deck setback for a new single-family dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the City of Toronto reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

At the settlement hearing, the appellant's land use planner provided uncontested expert evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal approved the variances, finding they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor, and were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a residential addition at the subject property.

The applicant sought an additional variance for floor space index at the hearing, which the tribunal deemed minor.

The tribunal considered concerns regarding privacy, side-yard setbacks, and main wall heights.

Relying on the applicant's expert planning evidence, the tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they were consistent with neighbourhood characteristics and would not cause undue adverse impacts.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were approved, subject to conditions including frosting the east-facing windows.