Jonathan Benczkowski

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 three-storey, four-unit multiplex dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the consent to sever met the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the requested variances for lot area, lot frontage, and parking space width met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposal represented modest intensification consistent with the Official Plan and would not create undue adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for a residential property.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the opposing neighbour, resulting in a reduction of the requested variances from nine to six.

The Tribunal found the amendments to the application were minor and did not require further notice.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for front and rear yard soft landscaping for a recently constructed dwelling.

The appellant had built extensive hardscaping, including a double-wide circular driveway and a large rear patio with a pool, that did not comply with the Zoning By-law or the site plan approved in a previous variance application.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the heavily landscaped neighbourhood.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, were not desirable, and were not minor.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of a second-storey addition above an existing detached garage to convert it into a garden suite.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the uncontested planning evidence and found that the proposal, which included variances for setbacks, angular planes, and landscaping, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal authorized the variances, noting that the garden suite would provide an appropriate and compatible built form that expands housing options in the neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for a property in Toronto.

The applicant sought to convert an existing detached house into a triplex, requiring variances for building length and stairway width to accommodate below-grade excavation for a furnace room and basement units.

The Tribunal found that the amended variances were minor and did not require further notice.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considering the specific policies for multiplexes under SASP 826, the Tribunal concluded the variances maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor in nature.

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

The Leaside Residents Association brought a motion requesting that the Applicant be ordered to file a new Zoning Notice or Waiver to include additional variances from a previous Committee of Adjustment decision not under appeal, and to determine the building type.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the motion, holding that it only has jurisdiction over the specific Committee of Adjustment decision under appeal and cannot dictate which variances an applicant must seek.

The Tribunal did order the Applicant to file an amended Applicant's Disclosure outlining the two specific minor variances currently being requested prior to the hearing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize a rear basement addition and convert an existing detached garage into a two-storey garden suite.

The proposal required relief for building length, depth, setbacks, height, and angular planes.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the revised proposal conformed with Official Plan policies and that strict application of the 45-degree angular plane was unnecessary given the site context.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new three-storey residential dwelling with an integral garage.

The requested variances included increased lot coverage, floor area, building height, number of storeys, and a large third-floor deck.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, preferring the City's expert planning evidence that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site.

The tribunal found that the proposed density and large rooftop platform did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, and therefore the variances did not meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision to approve a consent to sever and associated minor variances to create two undersized lots and construct a dwelling on each.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body previously issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to submit revised plans.

At the continuation of the hearing, the panel found that the proposed development could potentially be approved based on the planning evidence, as it was in keeping with the character of the area.

However, the panel noted that the required revised plans had not been filed.

Consequently, the panel adjourned the hearing sine die, providing the applicant a final opportunity to clarify the status of the plans before dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application and two minor variance applications to sever an existing parcel and build a detached dwelling on each new lot.

The Tribunal reviewed the uncontradicted expert planning evidence and found that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also found that the requested variances for lot frontage and side yard setbacks met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

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

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consents and minor variances to create four lots from two existing lots and construct a two-storey detached dwelling on each.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the amended plans, which reduced the requested variances, met the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the reduced lot frontages and areas were consistent with the neighbourhood's character and would not cause undue adverse impacts.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances required to replace a single-family dwelling with a new, larger dwelling.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the proposed dwelling from three storeys to two and modified the requested variances for floor area, height, and platforms.

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

The applicant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances to construct a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of the subject property.

On appeal, the applicant revised the proposal to address neighbours' concerns by increasing setbacks and soft landscaping.

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, finding that it maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

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

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for lot area and frontage to permit the construction of two detached dwellings.

After multiple adjournments and a failure to file document disclosure and witness statements until the night before the scheduled hearing, the applicant brought a motion to admit the late-filed materials.

The City of Toronto brought a cross-motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body refused to admit the late materials, finding that the delay was prejudicial to the other parties and not in good faith.

The tribunal granted the City's motion and dismissed the appeal without a hearing on the merits, concluding that the applicant's conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included revisions to the proposal, eliminating some variances and reducing others.

The tribunal 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 to authorize the revised variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for building length and side yard setbacks to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a partial setback of the proposed north side wall.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act, finding it consistent with provincial policy and compatible with the neighbourhood's physical character.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a west side yard setback and a rear deck setback for a new single-family dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the City of Toronto reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

At the settlement hearing, the appellant's land use planner provided uncontested expert evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal approved the variances, finding they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor, and were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.