Michael Barton

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a rear deck addition at a residential property.

The variances related to soft landscaping, deck encroachment into the rear yard setback, and deck height.

A neighbouring property owner also opposed the variances due to privacy and sightline concerns.

During the hearing, the applicant proposed modifications to the deck design, including privacy screens and a reduction in the deck's length.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, approving the variances subject to conditions requiring the deck to be built in accordance with the modified plans, finding that the reduced encroachment and added landscaping met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a medical office as a home occupation and to allow one non-resident employee.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal authorized the variance for the medical office, finding it met the four tests under the Planning Act as it would operate within the policies of a home occupation without altering the physical character of the neighbourhood.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the variance for the non-resident employee, concluding that it did not meet the intent of the zoning by-law and would inappropriately commercialize the residential area.

The applicant proposed to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new three-storey single-detached dwelling, requiring variances for building length and floor space index.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the adjacent neighbour appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The TLAB allowed the appeal and refused the variances, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood, particularly regarding density and massing, and therefore did not meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit an existing widened driveway.

The City supported the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the widened driveway was compatible with the neighbourhood character and met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision and order adjusting the deadlines for written submissions and argument in a minor variance appeal.

The adjustment was made to accommodate a statutory holiday and to allow the appellant to review the applicant's submissions before filing their own argument.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a variance to reduce the required front yard soft landscaping.

The owner retained a planning expert who identified a calculation error in the original application.

The expert testified that the revised variance, proposing 40% of the required front yard landscaping as soft landscaping, respects the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the expert evidence, found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal.

The owner's newly retained expert planning witness brought a motion to admit a late-filed expert witness statement in an appeal regarding a front yard landscaping variance.

The late filing was necessitated by the need to correct calculation errors made by the former representative, who had recently withdrawn.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion, finding it procedurally fair and necessary to ensure a complete written record given the unique circumstances of the former representative's disengagement.

The Owner requested a review of a TLAB decision that allowed a neighbour's appeal and refused minor variances for a residential rebuild.

The Owner argued the original presiding member failed to consider all evidence, misinterpreted Official Plan policies regarding neighbourhood character, and was deprived of new evidence because a zoning by-law amendment permitting the proposed side wall height was enacted shortly after the hearing.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision's qualitative and quantitative analysis.

The member also held that legislative changes enacted after a hearing concludes do not constitute 'new evidence' under the tribunal's review rules.

The applicant appealed the city council's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit multiple dwelling units within an existing building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit five dwelling units and four surface parking spaces.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised zoning by-law amendment consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with the official plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Stratford's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments that would permit the development of two 3.5-storey stacked townhouse buildings comprising 30 units.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with the low-density character of the stable residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant and the City, finding that the proposed development promotes efficient intensification of underutilized lands, utilizes existing infrastructure, and features a design sympathetic to the area's heritage character.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for a new dwelling.

Following mediation, the parties reached a last-minute settlement.

The applicant requested an adjournment to finalize minor revisions to the site plan drawings and obtain a new zoning notice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent to preserve procedural fairness and directed that an expedited settlement hearing be scheduled.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision regarding an appeal of a minor variance application.

Following an initial hearing day, the TLAB directed the applicants to provide updated sun and shadow studies and further planning justification.

The TLAB acknowledged receipt of these materials and directed the parties to provide their availability to schedule up to two additional hearing days to complete the evidentiary phase of the proceeding.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use building at 4101 Rutherford Road.

The proposal sought to increase the maximum permitted building height from 4 storeys to 6 storeys and the floor space index from 1.5 to 2.75.

The City opposed the applications, arguing the development was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the unique locational characteristics of the site and the proposal's design allowed for better planning outcomes while respecting the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in principle, and adjourned the Site Plan appeal.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize floor area ratio variances for three proposed two-storey detached dwellings on irregular, smaller lots in the St. Luke's Precinct.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing de novo for all requested variances, including setbacks and lot coverage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed developments disregarded the newly introduced floor area ratio standard intended to prevent overbuilding.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances would result in overdevelopment, lacked appropriate spatial separation, and were incompatible with the neighbourhood character.

The appeals were dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellants appealed a minor variance authorization for a proposed retirement home, arguing that a cost sharing condition should have been imposed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the minor variance satisfied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal held that cost sharing was not immediately relevant to whether the minor variance was desirable, and that the requested condition did not relate to the minor variance as it did not trigger any additional servicing requirements.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to an industrial property to reduce setbacks and separation distances.

The applicant sought the variances to relocate sea containers and establish a defined parking area for heavy vehicles associated with its legal non-conforming contracting business.

The appellant argued the variances would intensify the use and exacerbate existing noise, odor, and traffic impacts.

The Tribunal found the variances would optimize the site's use, improve safety, and mitigate existing impacts, satisfying the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to a three-year temporary condition.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a contractor's yard for an excavation business on prime agricultural lands.

The applicants argued the use qualified as an 'on-farm diversified use' or 'home industry'.

The Tribunal found the excavation business was a full-scale industrial operation that was not secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property.

The Tribunal held the applications were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Growth Plan or the County and Township Official Plans, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant sought a minor variance to permit a 3.0-metre balcony projection for a townhouse unit, double the 1.5-metre maximum permitted by the zoning by-law.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the enlarged balcony would create unacceptable adverse visual, noise, privacy, and overlook impacts on the abutting single-detached properties.

The Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.