Dr. Gary Davidson

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as a site plan application and a heritage alteration permit, to permit a 28-storey mixed-use building in the Church Street Village Character Area (CSVCA).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed tall building form was incompatible with the planned mid-rise context of the CSVCA under the North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 382).

The Tribunal held that the proposal failed to conform to angular plane policies, would cast unacceptable new net shadows on Barbara Hall Park, and did not represent good planning or urban design despite its location in a Major Transit Station Area.

The appellant sought four variances to permit a two-storey rear addition and platform, which would significantly encroach into the required rear yard setback.

Several neighbours opposed the application, citing loss of privacy, sunlight, and open space.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed encroachment was too large for the small lot and inconsistent with the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the variances failed to meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying four minor variances for a proposed five-storey addition to an approved 29-storey mixed-use development.

The variances sought increases in total and residential gross floor area, increased building height, and a reduction in the minimum amenity space per unit.

Opposing parties argued that the developer should have pursued a rezoning application rather than a minor variance, given the extensive community consultation that led to the site-specific zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal conformed to the Official Plan, maintained the intent of the zoning by-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its residual power to deny the application and allowed the appeal, subject to a condition requiring a cash contribution for community benefits.

The appellant sought minor variances to legalize the conversion of a semi-detached dwelling into a 19-room rooming house with a separate rear dwelling unit, which had been constructed without building permits.

The City supported the application on affordable housing grounds, while local residents opposed it due to illegal construction, safety concerns, and overdevelopment.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had engaged in an intentional subversion of the planning process and failed to provide a truthful factual foundation.

The Tribunal held that a proposal of this magnitude should be addressed through a zoning by-law amendment rather than a minor variance.

The owners of a designated heritage property requested that the Town of Goderich repeal the designating by-law.

The Town Council agreed and issued a notice of intention to repeal.

Two residents objected, and the matter was referred to the Conservation Review Board.

The Board found that the property retained its heritage attributes and that the Town Council erred in failing to consider the heritage designation criteria when deciding to repeal the by-law.

The Board recommended that the designating by-law not be repealed.