F. Romano

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever two existing lots into three and construct new detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, preferring the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed lots and variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, which was in transition.

The applications were found to meet the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property containing a semi-detached building with two duplexes.

The participants raised concerns regarding the potential loss of rental housing units under Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.6.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and granted the consent, finding that the severance itself does not propose any new development or demolition, and therefore OP Policy 3.2.1.6 does not apply.

The tribunal concluded that the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a Phase II townhouse development.

The requested variances included an increase in the number of dwelling units, reduced minimum unit widths, and reduced setbacks.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a second-storey addition to an existing dwelling and the conversion of a detached rear garage into a garden suite.

The applicant revised the proposal before the tribunal, reducing the height and eliminating some variances.

The tribunal found that the revised proposal, including the garden suite, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planner, finding that the garden suite represented a compatible infill development that would not create unacceptable adverse impacts on privacy or overlook.

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

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving variances to permit the conversion of an existing duplex into a fourplex.

The parties reached a settlement with a revised set of variances for driveway width and building height.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, treated as an addition and renovation, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the revised variances subject to conditions, including a landscaping plan and tree protection.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and build a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the resumed hearing, the appellant and the adjacent neighbour reached a settlement, resulting in modifications to the building plans and the requested variances.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, approving the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances, primarily concerning reduced lot frontage and area.

The adjacent neighbours opposed the application, arguing the proposed lots would be significantly smaller than the prevailing neighbourhood character.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body agreed with the neighbours, finding that the neighbourhood predominantly featured larger lots and that the proposed severances did not respect or reinforce the physical character of the area.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications to sever a property and construct two semi-detached dwellings.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant presented revised development options.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in the applicant's expert planner's context mapping and noted that the participants' witness statements were missing from the record.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow for the submission of revised mapping and the participants' witness statements.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the City reached an agreement, reducing the requested variances to a single variance for floor space index (FSI).

The Tribunal evaluated the revised proposal against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed FSI respected the massing, scale, and density of the neighbourhood, and that the variance maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variance was authorized.

The requestor sought a review of a TLAB decision that allowed an appeal and set aside a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever and minor variances for two new detached dwellings.

The requestor alleged the Chair made errors of law and fact, including rejecting uncontroverted expert planning evidence, substituting her own opinion, and violating procedural fairness.

The reviewing member found no compelling reasons demonstrating errors of law or fact, concluding the Chair properly evaluated and weighed the evidence against statutory tests.

The review request was denied and the original decision confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing consent to sever a residential lot into two undersized lots and associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, and setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas were significantly smaller than those in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the City's planning evidence, concluding that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the area, and therefore failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a new, larger dwelling, which were granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

The neighbouring property owner appealed the decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Prior to the hearing's conclusion, the parties reached a settlement that involved shifting the proposed building's placement to increase the side yard setback.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for minor variances to permit the construction of second and third storey additions, balconies, and a rear deck to an existing dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the requested variances, including those for floor space index, building height, and platforms, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal respected and reinforced the physical character of the neighbourhood and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision setting deadlines for the parties to submit an updated list of variances, plans, elevations, and recommendations for conditions of approval following a hearing on a minor variance appeal.

The parties were given until May 1, 2023, to complete discussions and submit joint recommendations, with a final deadline of June 1, 2023, for separate submissions if an agreement could not be reached.

The owners appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the demolition and replacement of a two-storey house.

The requested variances included increases to the permitted floor space index and building height.

The tribunal found that the proposed design, which included step-backs to minimize impact on adjacent properties, was sensitive to the neighbourhood character and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

In an appeal concerning minor variances, the appellants sought to introduce two expert documents regarding front yard setbacks and the Ontario Building Code one day before the hearing.

The applicant objected to the Building Code document on the basis of prejudice due to late disclosure.

The Tribunal noted that both parties had failed to adhere to the prior procedural order's disclosure deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the documents onto the record to ensure a fulsome discussion and scheduled an additional hearing day to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination on the new evidence.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a consent to sever a property into two lots and associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, coverage, height, and side yard setbacks.

The City opposed the appeal, arguing the reduced lot frontage and side yard setbacks did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed lot frontage would fit within the existing mixture of frontages on the street and that the revised side yard setbacks would have no negative impact.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications to sever a residential property into two lots and construct a new two-storey detached dwelling on each lot, requiring multiple variances.

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

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposed lot sizes and massing respected and reinforced the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The presiding Panel Member of the Toronto Local Appeal Body convened a teleconference to address new information discovered during a file review prior to a scheduled hearing.

To maintain the integrity and transparency of the tribunal process, the Member concluded it was necessary to immediately recuse himself from the proceeding.

The Member ordered that the file be reassigned to a different panel member and that the scheduled hearing date be retained if possible.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling on two new lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence supporting the applications.

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

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