Steven Qi

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance for a floor space index increase to 1.02 times the lot area.

The variance was sought to allow the conversion of non-habitable attic space into habitable space in a dwelling under construction.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it would not change the building's massing or scale and would not create undue adverse impacts.

The appeal was granted and the variance approved.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing minor variances for lot coverage, side yard setback, and garage face setback to facilitate the construction of a new dwelling.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence and accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance for reduced rear and side yard setbacks to facilitate the installation of a pool.

A neighbour opposed the application, citing drainage and privacy concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no clear evidence of an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbouring property, as drainage issues would be addressed through the City's pool permitting process.

The Tribunal concluded that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to a condition requiring low-impact development measures for stormwater runoff.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and construct a two-storey detached house.

The requested variances related to rear yard setback, gross floor area coverage, and building height.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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