Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-08-17
21 137380 S45 02 TLAB
Toronto (City) v. Del Grosso, 2023 ONTLAB 125
REVIEW REQUEST ORDER
Issuance Date:
August 17, 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):
City of Toronto
Applicant(s):
Peter Del Grosso
Property Address:
3 Hartfield Rd
COA File No.:
20 190596 WET 02 MV (A0338/20EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
21 137380 S45 02 TLAB
Review Request date:
July 25, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Member T. Yao
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
Party/Owner and Review requestors
A. Giallonardo, A. Tonietta
P. DeMelo
Respondent
City of Toronto
J. Dexter , D. Abimbola
REVIEW REQUEST DECISION
Background
1Andrea Giallonardo and Alessia Tonietto, owners of 3 Hartfield Rd, request that the TLAB Chair review a TLAB decision issued on June 26, 2023. In 2020, the Giallonardo/ Tonietto family were seeking to tear down 3 Hartfield Road and build a new larger house. They retained an architect, Mr. Del Grosso, whose design required variances from the zoning by-laws. They were successful in obtaining these variances at the Committee of Adjustment, but the City of Toronto appealed to the TLAB. Unlike Court appeals, a TLAB appeal results in a new hearing and is not based on hat happened before the Committee of Adjustment. TLAB Member Makuch refused their application, a contrary result from that given by the Committee.
2Their lawyer1, Mr. DeMelo, then filed a Request for Review of the decision2. As permitted under the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the TLAB Chair has delegated this review to me, as a TLAB member. After reading the Request and the City’s Response, I find no error in Member Makuch’s decision for reasons that I explain below.
3Since the Request was filed within 30 days of the final decision, it is within time. Similarly, the City’s Response to Review Request was filed within 20 days; it also is within time. The Request also meets the minimum administrative threshold requirements of Rule 31.53, that is, it is about a final decision, not an interim decision. As a result, the Review Request can proceed.
4Of the 11 requested variances, Member Makuch identified only four as being “in contention”. I have shaded them in Table 1, below.
[5]
Table 1. Variances sought for 74 Hartfield Rd
Required
Proposed
Variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013
1
Front yard setback
18.34 metres.
8.17 metres
2
Front porch encroachment into front yard setback when close to a side lot line
Can only encroach 1.5 m
Encroaches 10.17 m
3
Lot coverage
33%
39%
4
Max height of sill of main pedestrian entrance
1.2 m above established grade
1.51 metres.
5
Building length
17 m
26.42 m
6
Building height
9.5 m
10.14 m
7
Height of front and rear main walls
7.0 m
8.32 m
8
Sum of side yard setbacks
3.2 metres (aggregated)
2.88 m.
9
Gross Floor Area permitted
358.6 square metres (roughly 0.46 times lot area)
613.2 square metres (roughly 0.79 times lot area)
Variances from Etobicoke Zoning by-law 1992-24.
10
Building height
9.5 m
10.14 m
11
Soffit height
6.5 m
8.32 m
6There were two planning witnesses: Mr. Sasso testified for the owners and Ms. Hikkooei for the