Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 206686 S45 03 TLAB
Remarkable Building Group (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 173
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: December 13, 2023
PROCEEDINGS 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): Remarkable Building Group
Applicant(s): Drew Laszlo Architect
Property Address: 196 Lake Shore Drive
COA File No.: 22 168515 WET 03 MV (A0366/22EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 206686 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): March 1, 2023, December 5, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Drew Laszlo Architect | |
| Appellant | Remarkable Building Group | A. Stewart |
| Party (TLAB) | S. P. Kearney | K. Marynick |
| Expert Witness | F. Romano | |
| Expert Witness | P. Doherty-Howe |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This appeal concerns an application by Remarkable Building Group (the “Appellant”), the owner of 196 Lake Shore Drive (the “Property”), to the Committee of Adjustment (the “Committee”) for variances from Zoning By-law 596-2013 in order to demolish the existing bungalow dwelling and to erect a new two-story dwelling on the Property.
2The variance relief requested related to an excess in the maximum permitted Floor Space Index (“FSI”), a side yard setback minimum to Thirteenth Avenue not being met and a lot line setback relating to the replacement garage not being met.
3Despite no adverse comment from the City of Toronto Community Planning Division, there was significant concern from the next-door neighbour to the east at 198 Lake Shore Drive (Ms. Kearney) with extensive submissions to the Committee regarding her apprehensions of adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of her property arising from the proposal.
4In addition to Ms. Kearney, the Committee heard adverse comments from many other residents of the neighbourhood.
5As a result of considering the various comments made to it, the Committee decided to deny the application and refuse the variance relief requested.
6The Appellant appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”).
7At the originally scheduled hearing date before the Tribunal on March 1, 2023, the Appellant and Ms. Kearney were each represented by counsel, both of whom had retained land use planning consultants. In addition, many persons had elected Participant status, most of whom were also present for that hearing session.
8At that session, Ms. Stewart advised the Tribunal that discussions between her client and Ms. Kearney had commenced with a view to exploring possible avenues to assuage the concerns of Ms. Kearney. Ms. Stewart suggested that with some further time and the preparation of potential modifications to the building plans, it appeared possible that the issues between these two Parties could be resolved. Accordingly, she requested that the Tribunal adjourn the appeal hearing sine die, with the appeal hearing to be scheduled for resumption upon advice from her that either a settlement had been achieved or not.
9Ms. Stewart did recently advise staff at the Tribunal that, as a result of the discussions between the Parties, modifications had been made to the building plans and that a settlement had been achieved. She thus requested that the matter be scheduled for resumption of the hearing, which occurred on December 5, 2023.
10At the resumed hearing, Ms. Stewart tendered signed Minutes of Settlement between her client and Ms. Kearney along with a set of the modified plans, all of which were taken in as Exhibit “1”. It was agreed between counsel that the Tribunal would hear consent evidence from the Appellant’s planner, Franco Romano.
11It was further advised by Mr. Marynick that the various Participants who were present at the first session had all been advised of the settlement and were not opposed. None were present at this hearing session.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
12Provincial Policy – S. 3, Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan).
13Variance – S. 45(1), [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org