M. Goldberg

The owners appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to construct a new single detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to front yard setback, building length, building height, number of storeys, balcony area, and front stair projection.

The Tribunal found that the proposed dwelling would respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

The Requestors sought a review of a TLAB decision that approved a revised minor variance application for a reduced front yard setback.

The Requestors argued the presiding Member made several errors of law and jurisdiction, including failing to apply the minor variance test regarding the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, requiring a documented rationale for the by-law, and disregarding expert evidence.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding that the original Member properly considered the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, appropriately weighed the competing expert planning evidence, and did not make any reviewable errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The original decision approving the variances was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent to sever and multiple variances for a residential property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the requested variances to address the appellant's concerns regarding tree retention and health.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body approved the settlement, finding that the consent to sever met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1).

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

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a rear addition to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant modified the application, reducing the building length variance and abandoning two other variances.

The City supported the modified proposal subject to conditions protecting a combined sewer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the modified variances, finding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.