S. Qi

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that dismissed an appeal regarding applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances.

The applicant argued the presiding Member made errors of law and fact by preferring the non-expert evidence of a lay witness over that of a qualified land use planner regarding the delineation of the geographic neighbourhood and the assessment of Floor Space Index.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the presiding Member properly exercised his discretion in weighing the evidence and that no compelling reasons were provided to demonstrate an error of law or fact that would have resulted in a different decision.

The appellant sought to sever a property to build two semi-detached dwellings, requiring variances for lot area, frontage, side yard setbacks, and building height.

The Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the owner appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Tribunal found that the proposed built form and lot dimensions respected and reinforced the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, which included nearby semi-detached dwellings on similarly sized lots.

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

The appellant sought to sever a lot into two and requested associated minor variances to construct two detached homes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the immediate neighbourhood, which predominantly featured larger lots and lower densities.

Furthermore, the tribunal found that the development would result in the loss of mature trees and a decrease in tree canopy coverage, failing to maintain the tree preservation policies of the Official Plan.

The applicant sought variances to legalize and maintain a new dwelling with a detached rear garage currently under construction.

The Committee of Adjustment had previously refused the variances, which were required after construction deviated from a previously approved addition, resulting in a 'new house by renovation' classification.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that while the proposal met the general intent of the Official Plan, the requested front and side yard setbacks did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Specifically, the tribunal noted unresolved encroachments into the City's right-of-way and undue adverse privacy impacts on the abutting neighbour from the proposed rear deck.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential property into two lots and for associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The City opposed the applications, arguing the proposed lot frontages and areas were too small and out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the neighbourhood was evolving toward smaller lots and that the proposal was consistent with provincial intensification policies and fit the emerging physical character of the area.

Provisional consent and the requested variances were granted subject to conditions.