Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-02-17
22 175820 S45 08 TLAB
Kondor v. Abramsky, 2023 ONTLAB 16
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
February 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):
Ohad Kondor
Applicant(s):
Izen Architecture Inc
Property Address:
43 Ridge Hill Drive
COA File No.:
22 132505 NNY 08 MV (A0250/22NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
22 175820 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
January 17, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Martin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Owner
J. Abramsky
M. Rutledge
Applicant
Izen Architecture Inc.
Appellant
O. Kondor
M. Mazierski
Party
T. Abramsky
M. Rutledge
Expert Witness
E. Leung
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1Toby and Jay Abramsky are the owners of the property at 43 Ridge Hill Drive. On June 23, 2022, the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto conditionally approved 6 minor variances that would allow the owners to construct a front porch, front steps, an attached carport and, make driveway alterations.
2Ohad Kondor is the owner of the property at 41 Ridge Hill Drive, the property immediately to the east of the property at 43 Ridge Hill Drive. On July 12, 2022, Mr. Kondor appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.
3A hearing of the appeal by TLAB was held on January 17, 2023, at which Ms. Abramsky, Mr. Abramsky and Mr. Kondor reached a settlement regarding the matters at issue, including built form revisions to the improvements proposed.
4Elaine Leung, a land use planning consultant, provided the Tribunal with qualified expert evidence in land use planning in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Provincial Policy – S.3
5A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).
[Planning Act of Ontario](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
6Variance – 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
7Ms. Leung’s expert land use planning opinion with respect to the variances were:
the requested minor variances are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
the minor variances requested individually and cumulatively satisfy all four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act for the approval of a minor variance.
The development represents good planning.
8The proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Properties in Neighbourhood designated areas will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings. The proposed development maintains the existing detached dwelling and proposes a modest exterior addition and modifications to the landscaping. The use and purpose of the existing dwelling remains the same. The proposal preserves and respects the historical characteristics and features of the existing home with respect to the existing neighbourhood. The development represents a continuation of built form and existing landscape features that both improves and contributes to the character of the geographic neighbourhood. The development is also consistent with other homes in the neighbourhood, which have had their front entryway landscaping enhanced, and which have also had attached garage and carport features constructed at the side of the homes. The variances result in a built form that enhances the existing home on the subject property while also remaining consistent with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
9The proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law by maintaining the use, function, and purpose of the existing home on the subject property, while limiting any impacts on adjacent properties.
10The proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of 43 Ridge Hill Drive since the proposed development represents an improvement, modernization and enhancement to the functionality of the home to the home owners, which is consistent to the other homes in the neighbourhood. The development represents a willingness and desire to maintain and preserve the existing built form and will not result in an adverse effect or have unacceptable impacts on the neighbouring houses.
11The proposed variances, collectively and individually, are minor because there is only a small deviation from the quantitative standards of the Zoning By-law and the variances will not result in any undue adverse impacts on nearby properties. Specifically with respect to the car port, the revised design minimizes any potential light impacts on the windows of 41 Ridge Hill Drive by having the portion of the carport canopy near the dining room windows of 41 Ridge Hill Drive set back by 1.20m from the lot line rather than 0.00m. Further, the carport privacy screening will not be located directly in front of any of the windows of 41 Ridge Hill Drive.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
12After considering all the evidence and opinions presented by the expert land use planning witness and the parties, I agree that the 6 minor variances meet the four tests required pursuant to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and are consistent with provincial policy.
CONCLUSION
13A hearing of TLAB was held on January 17, 2023, to consider an appeal by the owner of 41 Ridge Hill Drive to the approval of 6 minor variances by the Committee of Adjustment for the property at 43 Ridge Hill Drive. The Tribunal heard expert evidence from a qualified land use planner that the 6 approved variances were consistent with provincial policy and meet the fours tests pursuant to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Following the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, the minutes of which were executed on January 31, 2023.
DECISION AND ORDER
14The Tribunal dismisses the appeal pursuant to the following conditions:
The proposed improvements to the house at 43 Ridge Hill Drive will be in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement dated January 31, 2023, and specifically the plans and drawings found in Schedule “A” thereto.
The owners of the property at 43 Ridge Hill Drive will submit a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a city-owned tree (s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.
B. Martin
Panel Member