Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-06-26
22 188516 S45 25 TLAB
Parzanese v. Sarma, 2023 ONTLAB 108
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
June 26, 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):
ROCCANTONIO PARZANESE
Applicant(s):
BAGHERI HAMZEH
Property Address:
5 SHALLICE COURT
COA File No.:
22 150978 ESC 25 MV (A0122/22SC)
TLAB Case File No.:
22 188516 S45 25 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
December 5, 2022
Decision Delivered By:
Panel Member T. Yao
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
B. Hamzeh
Appellant
R. Parzanese
Owner
S. Nithiyananthan
1A prior TLAB decision (issued December 7, 2022) with respect to 5 Shallice Court granted three variances to Mr. Hamzeh, who then applied for a building permit at the City of Toronto. The plan examiner advised Mr. Hamzeh that he needed two further variances.
2On May 26, 2023, Mr. Hamzeh wrote to the TLAB as follows:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Regarding project located at 5 Shallice Crt after approval of Committee of Adjustment and TLAB we have come to realize that despite the fact that we have indicated it on our drawings, we were under the impression of the fact that we can start the construction but the zoning examiner is telling us that the eave and the eavestrough set backs are exceeding the side setback from (0.04m) to (0.34m). My understanding is it might be because it was not mentioned as a part of the items of Minor Variances. I was wondering if you could kindly reconsider the eave and the eavestrough setbacks as well, since it will negate our initial design to waive the building side setback but not waive the eave and the eavestrough side setbacks.
In other words, I was wondering if you could kindly consider the side setback for both roof eave and eavestrough to be both minor in nature.
I appreciate it if you could kindly let me know when is the best time to call you and explain in further detail if needed.
3Instead of amending the previous order, I think it clearer to issue a supplementary order. Based on the previous evidence and settlement, I find the two new matters minor and therefore no further notice is required under the relevant provision of the Planning Act. I also find they meet the statutory tests for a variance under s 45 of the Planning Act. The new requests for a variance are in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Variances sought for 5 Shallice Court
Required
Proposed
Variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013
1
Roof projections
May project 0.9 m if no closer than 0.3 m to a lot line
Only 0.10 m from south side lot line
2
Exterior stairs,, access ramp and elevating device
Stairs can be only 2 m wide m
Stairs are 2.16 m wide
Decision and Order
4I make an order pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required.
5I further order that the variances in Table 2 are authorized subject to the same conditions as set out in the Order of December 7, 2022, namely:
The entrance canopy between 5 and 7 Shallice is to be drained so that water does not enter onto 7 Shallice Court.
The roof tiles will be a neutral colour.
The second-floor balcony at the rear is eliminated.
Construction is in substantial compliance with the plans filed with the Building Department.
T. Yao
Panel Member