Franco Romano

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an expanded A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce a landscape buffer.

The City argued the restaurant's size and operational independence made it a principal use requiring zoning amendments.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the restaurant remained subordinate in scale and function to the gas bar.

The Tribunal held the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting the necessary variances without conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce landscape buffers.

The City argued the restaurant was a principal use due to its size and operational independence.

The Tribunal found the restaurant remained an accessory use, noting it occupied only 25% of the kiosk area and did not dominate the primary gas bar function.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning without the need for conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Town opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the small-scale Main Street character and failed to conform to the Urban Structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development conforms to the Regional and Town Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and achieves compatibility with the surrounding area through appropriate urban design, setbacks, and stepbacks.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its Final Order pending the finalization of the zoning instruments.

The appellant requested a review of a Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) decision that refused a consent to sever and associated minor variances for a property to permit two duplexes.

The appellant argued the presiding member erred in law by applying the wrong Official Plan policies, specifically by relying on Neighbourhoods policies rather than the Multiplex policies in OPA 649.

The reviewing member found no error of law, concluding that the original member properly considered both policies and reasonably preferred the evidence of the City's planner regarding prevailing lot size and configuration.

The request for review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two duplexes on a single property.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create lots with frontages and areas significantly smaller than the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal concluded that the severance did not conform to the Official Plan policies requiring new development to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood, and therefore failed the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to garage floor area, garage projection, dwelling depth, front yard setback, and main wall proportionality.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to legalize a constructed front porch at a semi-detached dwelling.

The variance requested a reduced side yard setback of 1.428m instead of the required 1.5m.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it respected the prevailing pattern of side yard setbacks in the neighbourhood and provided sufficient access to the rear yard.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances to permit the construction of a duplex on each new lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal was consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and the City's new Multiplex Official Plan Amendment, which encourages additional housing supply.

The panel held that the proposed lot sizes and configurations, while smaller than the zoning requirement, were compatible with the neighbourhood's low-rise character and met the statutory tests for consent and minor variances.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances to construct two new two-storey detached duplexes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance and variances met the statutory criteria.

The Tribunal found that the proposal conformed to the Official Plan's gentle intensification policies, maintained the general intent of the Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a residential property to create two undersized lots for a semi-detached dwelling.

The City argued the proposal failed to respect the prevailing lot pattern under Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

The owner argued the property was unique and should be evaluated under the infill criteria of Policy 4.1.9.

The Tribunal agreed with the owner, finding the property's size and shape were distinct from the neighbourhood and the proposed development would fit the existing physical character.

The appeal was dismissed and the consent was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three variances required to construct a four-storey, 10-unit residential building on the existing footprint of a two-storey apartment building.

The requested variances related to floor space index and side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal provided appropriate transition to the adjacent neighbourhood, minimized shadow impacts, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to a condition that construction be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the proposal to divide the property into two lots and reduce the requested variance relief.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal fits the physical character of the neighbourhood, satisfies the criteria for consent under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and meets the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1).

The appeals were allowed and the revised consent and variances were approved subject to conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a severance and minor variances to create two new residential lots at 84 North Drive.

The proponents sought to subdivide the property, requiring variances primarily for lot frontage.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, refusing the consent and variances.

The panel found that the proposed development did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, noting a distinctive lotting pattern on the south side of the street that would not be maintained by the reduced frontages.

The appellant appealed the Township of Tiny's new comprehensive zoning by-law, arguing that an additional 15-metre setback from the Regulatory Flood Line for boathouses did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Official Plan prohibited structures adjacent to Georgian Bay unless they were 'essential for boating purposes'.

The Tribunal preferred the municipality's expert evidence, finding that while boathouses are useful for storing boats, they are not 'essential' for boating purposes.

The Tribunal concluded the zoning by-law conformed to the Official Plan and dismissed the appeal.

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 appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property into two undersized lots and associated variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey semi-detached dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and that the variances met the four tests.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and complied with the City's new multiplex policies.

A prehearing conference was held regarding an appeal from the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit alterations to an existing dwelling and the construction of a garden suite.

The Tribunal identified the parties and participants, clarified representation, and directed participants who had not yet filed or served their Participant Witness Statements to do so by a specified date without introducing new issues.

The Tribunal also determined that mediation would not be pursued and directed staff to schedule two additional hearing days.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new single-family dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed expert planning and arboricultural evidence, noting the proposal's compatibility with the evolving neighbourhood character and the adjustments made to preserve existing trees.

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

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

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.