Franco D. Romano

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application and two minor variance applications to sever an existing parcel and build a detached duplex dwelling on each new lot.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance required to construct a front yard parking pad and remove an existing rear yard parking space.

The Tribunal found that the amended variance application was minor and did not require further notice.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the variance met the four statutory tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions regarding a front yard parking permit and tree removal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying 11 minor variances for a proposed residential development on a property in Toronto.

The proposed development involved constructing a new detached dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the uncontradicted expert planning evidence and found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions regarding site plan compliance and tree protection.