Jim Kotsopoulos

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a lot into two and associated minor variances for lot frontage and area to permit the construction of two fourplexes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot sizes and frontages respected the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal approved the severance and variances subject to conditions requiring the planting of an additional street tree and the retention of an arborist to supervise tree protection and replacement during construction.

The applicant appealed the refusal of minor variances to permit changes to an approved development, including an additional storey and increased commercial floor space.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, focusing on whether the variances were minor in nature.

Preferring the Township's holistic approach, the Tribunal found that the requested variances would cause stark differences in building design, disturb the character of the development, and result in a building that feels noticeably out of place.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances.

The applicant sought to create a new lot and retain the existing dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance failed to satisfy the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, primarily because the Official Plan required such severances to proceed via a Zoning By-law Amendment rather than a minor variance application.

Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the requested variances failed the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, and Site Plan approval to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase maximum lot coverage from 35% to 44.39% to permit a covered rear yard porch.

The municipality did not participate in the hearing, though its planning staff had supported the application.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized, subject to a condition requiring solid wood privacy screening.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 103-unit residential development with ground floor commercial space.

The Town opposed the development primarily on the basis of density and height.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and York Region Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed, subject to a holding provision regarding servicing allocation.

The appellant appealed the deferral of a consent application by the Town of Uxbridge Land Division Committee.

The application sought to sever a residential property to create two new lots for single-detached dwellings.

The proposal was revised to include the sale of a 2-metre strip to the Town for a pedestrian walkway, and the required minor variances for reduced lot frontages were subsequently approved by the Committee of Adjustment.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with regional and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of King to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications for a mid-rise residential and commercial development.

Following a prior decision endorsing a settlement, the Tribunal held a written hearing to consider the finalized site plan and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the site plan application consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and granted interim approval of the site plan, withholding the final order until the site plan agreement is executed.

The applicants appealed the City of Markham Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances required to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to building depth, height, and floor area ratio.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the revitalizing neighbourhood and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it exceeded the height and density limits of the North York Centre Secondary Plan.

Adjacent property owners also opposed, requesting a block assessment to ensure their future redevelopment potential.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development optimizes land and infrastructure, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal approved the development in principle, subject to minor architectural modifications to accommodate the adjacent property, and withheld its final order pending the finalization of the amending instruments and a Section 37 Agreement.