David Igelman

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of a two-storey garden suite behind a main house.

The proposed variances included reductions in rear and side yard setbacks, separation distance, and an increase in maximum height.

Several neighbours, including residents of an adjacent apartment building, opposed the appeal, citing concerns over loss of sunlight, privacy, and overlook.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the revised design, which included a sloped roof, skylights, and translucent glass, adequately mitigated privacy and massing impacts.

The panel concluded that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and approved the application subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances to construct a warehouse in a Core Employment Area.

The requested variances included reduced side yard setbacks, a reduced driveway width, and permission for a front yard loading space.

The Tribunal found that the side yard and driveway variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they were appropriate for the narrow lot and consistent with the area's character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance for the front yard loading space, finding it contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law's intent to limit vehicular access in front of buildings and protect the public realm.

The appellant was directed to submit a revised site plan eliminating the front yard loading space.

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 to authorize minor variances for a townhouse development.

The variances sought to increase the permitted building height and angular plane penetration, which were originally established through a site-specific zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to consider variances to a site-specific by-law.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence and evolving municipal policy encouraging intensification on main streets, the Tribunal concluded the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a marihuana production facility at 47 Crockford Boulevard.

The variance sought to reduce the required separation distance from an Open Space Zone from 70m to 0m.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the facility resembled a Class I industrial use requiring only a 20m separation under provincial guidelines, and that the actual separation distance exceeded 20m.

The Tribunal concluded the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The proposed lots required variances for minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area, and maximum floor space index.

Relying on expert planning evidence and a detailed visual analysis of the neighbourhood, the Tribunal found that the proposed lots would respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, approved the variances, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances for a property in Toronto.

The proposal sought to divide the existing lot into two and construct a new two-storey single detached dwelling on each, requiring variances for lot frontage and area.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, the variances were approved, and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to legalize a rear deck construction.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the construction's height and length respected the neighbourhood's physical character.

However, the evidence regarding privacy and overlook impacts on the adjacent neighbour was unclear.

The panel issued an interim order requiring the parties to propose mitigation measures and scheduled a further hearing to resolve the privacy and adverse impact issues.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused three variances to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The appellant argued the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons for two of the variances and made errors of law by applying the wrong legal test, misapplying case law, and ignoring expert evidence.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the presiding Member correctly determined the application failed the Official Plan test on the key density variance, which rendered the other variances moot.

The Chair also found no errors of law in the Member's application of the neighbourhood character guidelines or his weighing of the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances to permit a second-storey addition and a new rear deck.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under s. 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 Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to legalize an as-built rear ground-floor deck and basement addition.

The appellant amended the variance requests during the appeal to increase the deck length and add a side-yard setback variance.

The Tribunal found the amendments were not minor and would require new notice if approved.

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's planning evidence, finding the variances did not respect the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and created significant privacy and overlook impacts on the abutting neighbour.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.