C. Chan

The applicant, Glen Edyth Property Holdings Ltd., requested a review of a TLAB decision that denied its minor variance application for a property backing onto a ravine.

The applicant alleged the Member made errors of law and fact in interpreting Official Plan policies regarding ravine setbacks and prevailing building characteristics, and in assessing privacy impacts.

The reviewing Member dismissed the request, finding that the original Member properly exercised his statutory duty to weigh the evidence and that the review request was largely an attempt to relitigate the issues.

The original decision denying the variances was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a dog daycare and boarding use in an industrial zone.

The City and neighbours opposed the application due to noise complaints from barking dogs.

The TLAB found it had jurisdiction to authorize a variance for a new use.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the TLAB held that the use maintained the intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and was desirable for the area.

Relying on the appellant's acoustical expert, the TLAB found the noise impacts would be minor if an acoustical barrier was constructed.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

During a hearing for a minor variance to permit a doggie daycare, the City brought an oral motion to exclude a newly introduced letter from the appellant's sound engineer detailing a proposed sound barrier.

The panel dismissed the motion to exclude the letter, noting it was requested by the panel and relevant.

However, the panel granted the City's alternative motion for an adjournment to allow the City to retain its own sound engineer to review the letter and prepare for cross-examination.