Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-11-15
23 175887 S45 12 TLAB
Stojanovic (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 154
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
November 15, 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):
M. PAISLEY
Applicant(s):
WALKER NOTT DRAGICIEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED WND ASSOCIATES LTD
Property Address:
239 Russell Hill Rd
COA File No.:
23 131627 STE 12 MV (A0363/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 175887 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
November 3, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
Walker Nott Dragicievic Associates Limited WND Associates LTD
Appellant
M. Paisley
Participant
B. Rubin
Expert Witness
S. McGaffey
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by the owner of property from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances respecting front yard landscaping in order to construct a new circular driveway and maintain the front yard parking pad which was previously approved. After the evidence in support of the variances was heard, the neighbour in opposition gave evidence. It became clear that his concerns could be addressed by some modifications to the site plan.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
2The issues related to the whether the reduced landscaping and front yard parking pad met the general intent of the official plan ensure that the variances respected and reinforced the physical character of the area.
3The evidence of the owner’s expert was that the proposal met the requirement of the official plan. It was also appeared that the site plan could be improved and the parking pad removed. The parties agreed to work on a new site plan acceptable to both and to present the site plan to me in three weeks.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
4The only issue was whether the matter should be adjourned and an opportunity provided for a revised site plan, acceptable to both parties, to be presented with revised variances.
CONCLUSION
5The parties agreed to an adjournment so that an attempt could be made to prepare a revised site plan and variances, acceptable to both parties. The hearing should therefore be adjourned to give the parties an opportunity to resolve their concerns.
DECISION AND ORDER
6This matter is adjourned to November 24, 2023, to provide an opportunity for the parties resolve their concerns by the preparation of a revised site plan and variances acceptable to both parties.
S. Makuch
Panel Member