Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-06-12
22 234790 S45 02 TLAB
Asghar v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 101
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
June 12, 2023
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
Azhar Asghar
Applicant(s):
Studio Four Inc.
Property Address:
51 Westroyal Rd.
COA File No.:
22 136428 WET 02 MV (A0275/22EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
22 234790 S45 02 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Thursday, May 4, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
Registered Parties:
Owner/Appellant
A. Asghar
Alternate Owner
A. Tanvir- Asghar
Applicant
Studio Four Inc.
Applicant's Legal Rep:
M. Mazierski
Party (TLAB)
City of Toronto
Party's Legal Rep:
M. Lafortune
Party's Legal Rep:
J. Davidson
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This Hearing arises from an Appeal by Azhar Asghar of the decision of the Etobicoke York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) to refuse variances for the property known as 51 Westroyal Road (subject property).
2The purpose of the application is to permit the Applicant to construct a second-storey addition above the existing dwelling and a new rear deck (Application).
3The subject property is located on the east side of Westroyal Road, between Saskatoon Drive and Lethbridge Avenue, in the Toronto neighbourhood known as Kingsview Village – The Westway.
4The subject property is designated Neighbourhoods on Map 14 of the City Official Plan (OP). It is zoned Residential Detached (RD) under city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 and Second Density Residential under the former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code.
5Mr. Asghar, the owner of the subject property, appealed the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) and the Tribunal set a Hearing date for May 4, 2023.
6At the commencement of the Hearing, the owner’s solicitor, Martin Mazierski (Mazierski Law), advised the TLAB that the Owner and the City, the only other Party in the matter, had achieved a settlement of all the matters in dispute as a result of ongoing discussions between the two Parties since the application was initially filed with the COA in 2022.
7The Application was originally scheduled for a COA hearing on September 1, 2022; however, the Applicant requested a deferral to allow the Owner additional time to address concerns identified by City Planning staff in their initial Report to the COA, particularly concerning the variances requested for Floor Space Index (FSI) and front and rear main wall height.
8As a result, the Applicant amended the proposal and submitted a revised application to the COA on September 20, 2022. The revised proposal included the following changes:
The variance for the number of platforms at/above the second storey was eliminated;
The variance for maximum flat roof height was eliminated;
The variance for front and rear exterior main wall height was revised to 7.63 m for both front and rear exterior main walls;
A new variance for platform encroachment of 2.99 m into the rear yard was identified; and,
A new variance for soffit height of 7.47 m was identified.
9Nevertheless, prior to the scheduled COA hearing on November 10, 2022, City Planning staff issued a second report to the COA dated November 1st, 2022, regarding the revised application.
10In that Report, City Planning staff acknowledged that although the revisions made by the Applicant to the proposal had resulted in a slightly improved application, they continued to object to the proposal and recommended that the COA refuse the application, which the Committee did at its meeting on November 10, 2022.
11Following the submission of a Notice of Appeal (Form 1) with the TLAB, discussions between the Owner and the City continued, resulting in further revisions to the proposal.
12These revisions were in response to the concerns previously expressed by City Planning staff and included a reduction in the proposed FSI to 0.58 times the lot area, the elimination of the variance for front and rear main wall heights under By-law 569-2013, and a reduction in the height of the majority of all exterior main walls to 6.9 m.
13The revised proposal also included a revision to the front elevation façade resulting from lowering the second-floor level of the altered dwelling and reducing the height of the front entrance.
14The change in