Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-12-08
23 176535 S53 19 TLAB,
23 176536 S45 19 TLAB,
23 176537 S45 19 TLAB
Ghafoori (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 170
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
December 8, 2023
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
H. GHAFOORI
Applicant(s):
LEMCAD CONSULTANTS
Property Address:
688 COSBURN AVE
COA File No.:
23 108739 STE 19 CO (B0012/23TEY), 23 108743 STE 19 MV (A0102/23TEY), 23 108744 STE 19 MV (A0101/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 176535 S53 19 TLAB, 23 176536 S45 19 TLAB, 23 176537 S45 19 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
December 4, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
APPLICANT
LEMCAD CONSULTANTS
APPELLANT
H. GHAFOORI
A. STEWART
PARTICIPANT
D. CALDWELL
PARTICIPANT
C. PERRICONE
EXPERT WITNESS
F. ROMANO
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On June 28, 2023, the Toronto and East York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused applications submitted by LEMCAD Consultants, on behalf of H. Ghafoori (Owner), to sever the property at 688 Cosburn Avenue (subject property) into two (2) undersized lots, and to construct a new, three-storey semi-detached dwelling with rear first, second, and third storey terraces with a front yard parking space on each newly created lot, and a rear basement walkout on the retained lot.
2The Applicant appealed the COA decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) and the TLAB set a Hearing date for December 4, 2023, to hear the matter ‘virtually’.
3At the Hearing on December 4th, the Applicant was represented by Amber Stewart (Amber Stewart Law) and expert land use planner Franco Romano. D. Caldwell and C. Perricone, two immediate neighbours who elected Participant status also attended.
4At the commencement of the Hearing, Ms. Stewart provided an opening statement to the TLAB confirming that the Applicant had revised the proposal after the COA hearing to incorporate road widening requirements requested by City Transportation staff, as well as reductions in built form and dwelling size, and rear platform mitigation measures.
5As a result, she advised that the Applicant will put forward two proposed development options for the TLAB’s consideration which accommodate the City’s requested road widening and results in a smaller residential dwelling than what was before the COA, on each of the newly created lot.
6Option A, which maintains a 7.04 m front yard setback from the future front lot line, and Alternative Option B, which maintains a 7.04 m front yard setback from the existing front lot line.
7In summary, Option A has the effect of placing the proposed residential dwellings deeper into the property, whereas Option B increases the rear yard setback and separation distances to the adjacent properties to the rear.
8Ms. Stewart submitted that the revisions to the original applications reflected the Applicant’s attempts to address City Staff comments and some of the concerns regarding the proposed Applications expressed by both Messrs. Caldwell and Perricone.
9The two options were offered as an opportunity to provide alternatives to the TLAB for consideration.
10In response to her opening statement, I advised Ms. Stewart that I had several comments to share regarding the Applicant’s submissions and the proposed alternatives.
11I, first, advised her that it was not my intention to choose between the two alternative Options proffered by the Applicant and that I preferred that the Applicant finalize and present the proposal/Applications he wanted the TLAB to consider. That decision is Mr. Ghafoori’s to make.
12Second, I queried Mr. Romano regarding some of the information contained in his October 30, 2023, Witness Statement (EWS), specifically the detail, or lack thereof, in the Property Context Map (Context Map) found on page 30 of that document.
13I informed Mr. Romano that I found it difficult to review the map with any clarity and distinguish amongst the various lot frontages in both his Broader and Immediate Neighbourhood Contexts, with the gray gradient colouring he employed in the map.
14Although he agreed that planners typically utilize coloured gradients other than grey to illustrate lot frontage ranges for example in context mapping, he also submitted that the gradient colouring he had employed was a more recent and acceptable approach to offering the information he was attempting to convey.
15Given the lack of clarity in his Context Map, I requested that he resubmit the mapping using a colour gradient approach that better clarifies the differences in the lot frontages both in the Broader and Immediate Contexts. He agreed to do so
16Additionally, I noted that there was no mapping information illustrating lot areas within his Neighbourhood Study Area (NSA) which I advised would be of value and assistance in comparing the lot areas in the context of what is being proposed.
17The subject property has a lot area of 392.36 m2. The Applicant is proposing to create two undersized lots with a lot area of 164.68 m2 for both newly created lots, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot area of 280 m2.
18Therefore, I directed Mr. Romano to include lot area mapping as well as zoning categories within the NSA for comparison purposes.
19Third, and finally, I requested that he provide an additional subset of data recognizing the neighbourhoods north and south of Cosburn Avenue, which Ms. Stewart acknowledged included some distinct lot size differences.
20I also addressed the Participants, Messrs. Caldwell and Perricone. Both elected Participant status in this Appeal and filed their Notice of Intention to be a Participant form (Form 4) by the requisite due date identified in the Notice of Hearing.
21However, I advised each that I could not find a Participant Witness Statement (Form 13) on the TLAB’s AIC website filed by either participant, as required by Rule 16.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
22Both Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Perricone responded by stating that they, indeed, had filed Form 13 as required by the Rules and had, in fact, completed Section 4 of that Form by outlining the issues in opposition to the Applications.
23I can confirm that I found no record of such filings on the AIC website for this Appeal matter but advise that I would investigate this matter further by contacting TLAB staff to determine if an issue had occurred in uploading those Forms.
24Nevertheless, I informed both Messrs. Caldwell and Perricone that under the circumstances, I was prepared to allow each to submit a Participant Witness Statement, with the one caveat that no new issues be raised in those documents.
25In view of the direction given to the Applicant’s expert planner and the Participants, I advised the Parties and Participants that I was prepared to adjourn the Hearing and reconvene at a later date to hear the evidence in this Appeal matter to accommodate the additional materials being sought.
26I find it disadvantageous for the TLAB and the Parties and Participants to proceed to hear evidence and testimony in this Appeal matter without the benefit of the additional submissions I’ve cited above in this Order.
27Ms. Stewart, Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Perricoen concurred with this position and to the adjournment.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
28Under the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), especially Rules 2.2, 17, and 23, the TLAB may liberally interpret and exercise any powers under these Rules, on its own initiative to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of the proceedings on its merits.
29The Rules also provide me with the authority to adjourn the matter on consent without a Motion.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE, ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
30There was no evidence presented at the Hearing on December 4, 2023, and there are no issues.
31The Parties and Participants consented to the presiding Member’s recommendation to adjourn the Hearing to accommodate the submission of the documents recited, above, in this Adjournment Order.
ORDER
32The Hearing on December 4, 2023, in this appeal matter is adjourned and TLAB staff are directed to canvas the Parties and Participants for a ‘return-to’ date to recommence the Hearing to be scheduled no later than January 31, 2024.
33Once a new Hearing date has been confirmed, TLAB staff will issue a new Notice of Hearing to reflect this date, but all of the previously established filing due dates will remain unchanged.
34The Applicant/Appellant and the Participants are directed to file with the TLAB and serve each other the additional documents, above highlighted in this Decision and Order, by no later than December 29, 2023.
35The TLAB may be spoken to if difficulties arise in implementing this Order.
D. Lombardi
TLAB Chair, Panel Member```