Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date: 2023-07-05
23 123932 S45 03 TLAB
Brevetti (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 109
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: July 5, 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): GIUSEPPE R BREVETTI
Applicant(s): KCCL ARCHITECT INC
Property Address: 28 OVIDA AVE
COA File No.: 22 200622 WET 03 MV (A0457/22EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 23 123932 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): Tuesday, June 27, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
G. Brevetti
J. Brevetti
INTRODUCTION AND THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
1This is an appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving a variance for a rear yard setback for an ancillary building and imposing the following condition: “The soft landscaping in the rear yard shall be provided as shown on the site plan submitted and held on file, and any canopies and the wood shed along the side lot line shall be removed.” The owner appealed the condition because the site plan imposed by the condition was inaccurate and would require the relocation of numerous ancillary buildings. A new and accurate site plan was submitted the appeal. The Committee (and thus TLAB) under s.45(9) of the Planning Act may impose “any condition that it considers advisable”.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
2The son of the owner/appellant, Matthew Brevetti provided evidence in support of the appeal. No one appeared in opposition to the appeal. Mr Brevetti’s evidence was that there were a number of ancillary buildings in the rear yard as well as a swimming pool. He showed the rear yard through an excursion using the camera on his computer. There are a number of ancillary buildings in the yard. A rear shed built in 1998, a rear sitting area built approximately 3 years ago, a hot tub enclosure on the east side of the yard, and another shed on the east side built about 20 years ago. The variance was to permit the rear shed built approximately 3 years ago, which was .61m from the rear property line while the bylaw required a setback of 1.56m. His evidence was that no neighbours complained about any of the sheds except the neighbour to the east. Moreover the neighbour to the rear, adjacent to the shed for which the variance was sought, offered assistance on the application.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
3The only issue on the appeal was whether the condition should be imposed. I find that it should not. The visual excursion into the rear yard demonstrated that there was no significant impact from the variance on other sheds that necessitated the condition. The backyard was largely surrounded by a high wooden fence and trees. The removal of canopies would not lessen the visibility of the sheds all of which existed without objection for at least a number of years. The variance itself would not impact in any negative way on the character of the neighbourhood and is not in issue. I therefore find that the condition is not necessary.
DECISION AND ORDER
The appeal is allowed and the variance approved without any condition.
S. Makuch
Panel Member