M. Barton

The Applicant requested a review of a TLAB Final Decision that allowed an appeal and refused minor variances for a third-story addition.

The Applicant alleged the presiding Member exhibited bias, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law, particularly by requiring numerical data to establish 'prevailing' density under the Official Plan.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding no procedural unfairness or bias.

The reviewing Member also held that the original Member did not err in law by requiring quantitative evidence of floor space index in the immediate context, and that the decision was reasonable overall.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying minor variances for a proposed three-storey multi-generational home.

The central issue was a variance to permit a third storey.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the proposed dwelling, which features dormers in a sloped roof, presents as a two-storey dwelling and fits the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded that all requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to accommodate minor revisions to the proposal.