Jane McFarlane

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying three minor variances required to construct a seasonal pool enclosure in the rear yard of a residential property.

A neighbour opposed the application, citing concerns about lot coverage, loss of light, and views.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the temporary structure would not create undue adverse impacts and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variances were approved subject to a condition requiring the planting of a continuous hedge for privacy.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to facilitate a three-storey rear extension to an existing dwelling.

The requested relief included variances for building length, Floor Space Index (FSI), canopy encroachment, eaves projection, and front yard parking.

The appellant argued the proposed FSI represented overdevelopment out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the owners' planner, finding the proposed built form would be compatible with the evolving neighbourhood, particularly given a similar recent approval on the adjacent property.

The appeal was allowed only to approve the modified variances subject to a condition tying development to the revised plans.