Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-07-27
23 127347 S45 19 TLAB
Sam Salis Architect v. Pittendreigh, 2023 ONTLAB 116
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
July 27, 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):
SAM SALIS ARCHITECT
Applicant(s):
SAM SALIS ARCHITECT
Property Address:
101 ENDERBY RD
COA File No.:
22 239394 STE 19 MV (A1358/22TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 127347 S45 19 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Thursday, July 13, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
SAM SALIS ARCHITECT
Party
C. PITTENDREIGH
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by Sam Salis Architect (the "Applicant/Appellant") from a decision of the Toronto and East York Panel of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment denying five variances to construct a two-storey rear addition and construct five additional dwelling rooms for a rooming house.
2The subject property is located on the east side of Enderby Road, south of North Terrace, which is north of Gerrard Street East and west of Main Street. The subject property is zoned R (d0.6) – Residential Zone in the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law 569-2013, as amended.
3I conducted a site visit of the property on July 7, 2023. I attended the scheduled hearing on July 13, 2023. In addition, a neighbour who elected party status was also in attendance at the hearing.
4The Applicant/Appellant failed to show up to the hearing. A Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal") staff member contacted the Applicant/Appellant approximately a half hour after the hearing was scheduled to begin. The Applicant/Appellant indicated that they were not proceeding with the appeal.
5The Applicant/Appellant's behaviour is unacceptable. It is an abuse of the Tribunal's time and resources for an Applicant/Appellant to ignore a scheduled hearing. A Notice of Hearing was issued on April 11, 2023. The Tribunal should have been informed as soon as the Applicant/Appellant was aware that they were not proceeding with the matter.
6After Tribunal staff contacted the Applicant/Appellant on July 13, 2023, the Applicant/Appellant attempted to withdraw their appeal by email approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled hearing time. At this point it was too late for a withdrawal, as the matter was dismissed in the hearing itself.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
7Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area.
8Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
9The Applicant/Appellant did not attend the Tribunal hearing. As such, no evidence was received at the hearing.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
10The Applicant/Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested variances meet the four statutory tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The Applicant/Appellant has failed to meet its burden.
CONCLUSION
11I orally dismissed the appeal in the hearing, and this written decision confirms that decision.
DECISION AND ORDER
12The matter is dismissed as the Applicant/Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the requested variances meet the four statutory tests for a minor variance.
T. Kezwer
Panel Member