Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 116837 S45 15 TLAB
Kerr, Civil, Gamble v. Polci, 2023 ONTLAB 13
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 14, 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): Timothy Civil, Michael Kerr, Nancy Gamble
Applicant(s): Step Design Studio Inc.
Property Address: 25 Bessborough Dr
COA File No.: 21 220909 NNY 15 MV (A0798/21NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 116837 S45 15 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 25, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | N. Polci | |
| Applicant | Step Design Studio Inc | |
| Appellant | M. Kerr | |
| Appellant | T. Civil | |
| Appellant | N. Gamble | |
| Party | N. McLaughlin | |
| Party | S. Coish | |
| Party | R. Polci | A. Stewart |
| Expert Witness | F. Romano | |
| Expert Witness | P. Wynnyczuk | |
| Expert Witness | M. Bubulj | |
| Expert Witness | I. Tuncay |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal, by neighbours, of the Committee of Adjustment’s decision granting minor variances to permit alterations to the owners’/applicants’ dwelling. At the commencement of the hearing the solicitor for the owners/applicants appeared and informed TLAB that her clients had sold the property and consented to allow the appeal. The new owners also consented to allow the appeal. Therefore, no evidence was to be brought in support of the variances. 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 AND ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
2Since no evidence was to be brought in support of the variances, and any appeal under s. 45(1) is a “hearing de novo”, the appeal must allowed. TLAB cannot approve variances on appeal in the absence of evidence.
CONCLUSION
3The appeal should be allowed.
DECISION AND ORDER
4The appeal is allowed; the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is reversed; and the minor variances denied.
S. Makuch
Panel Member