Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 185128 S45 18 TLAB
Dadashi v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 18
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 21, 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): R. Dadashi
Applicant(s): Cultivate Group
Property Address: 190 Wedgewood Dr.
COA File No.: 22 112067 NNY 18 MV (A0114/22NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 185128 S45 18 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): February 2, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter
REGISTERED PARTIES:
Applicant Cultivate Group
Appellant / Owner R. Dadashi
Appellant’s Legal Rep. M. Mazierski
Appellant’s Legal Rep. L. Buckley
Party City of Toronto
Party’s Legal Rep. R. Ivanov
Party’s Legal Rep. A. Ward
Expert Witness Sold Arch c/o J. Benczowski
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The Appellant is seeking to construct a new single family dwelling with an integral garage at 190 Wedgewood Drive (the "Subject Property").
2By Zoning Notice dated May 17, 2022, Toronto Building wrote that 5 variances would be required to applicable zoning by-laws, including variances to the west side yard setback for a rear deck, and the west side yard setback.
3On July 14, 2002, the Committee of Adjustment refused all of the variances (the "July CoA Decision").
4On August 2, 2022, the Appellant appealed the July CofA Decision.
5On October 6, 2022 the Appellant appeared again at the Committee, and requested different variances for the Subject Property, including a variance for the west side yard setback. It did not request a variance for the west side yard setback for the rear deck. The CofA allowed variances to the Subject Property, including a variance allowing a west side yard setback of 1.22 m (the "October CofA Decision").
6The October CofA Decision became final and binding, since it was not appealed. After it became final and binding, the Appellant had discussions with the City of Toronto about 2 variances which had been refused by the July CofA Decision, for the west side setback for the rear deck and the west side yard setback.
7On December 12, 2022, the Solicitor for the City of Toronto wrote to TLAB advising that that the City reached agreement with the Applicant with respect to modifications to the variances refused in the July CofA Decision and requested that the electronic hearing of the appeal scheduled for February 2, 2023 be converted to a settlement Hearing.
8On February 2, 2023 I conducted a settlement Hearing with respect to the proposed settlement. The Hearing was attended by the Appellant and the City. No other parties or participants took part in the hearing.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
9The applicable legislation governing the approval of minor variances is set out in Section 45 of the Planning Act:
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.
10The applicable provision governing Settlement is set out in Rule 19 of TLAB's Rules of Practice and Proceeding:
19.1 The TLAB is committed to encouraging Parties to settle some or all of the issues by informal discussion, Exchange and Mediation.
19.2 Parties who arrive at a settlement shall Serve the terms of the proposed settlement on all other Parties and Participants and File same with the TLAB at the earliest possible date.
19.3 The TLAB shall give notice to all Parties and Participants of the date, time and location of the settlement Hearing, and shall thereafter conduct an expedited settlement Hearing on the terms of the proposed settlement.
19.4 Where no Person at the Hearing opposes the proposed settlement or where the TLAB rejects an objection the TLAB may issue an order giving effect to the settlement and any necessary amendments.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
11Counsel for the Appellant called a land use planner, Jonathan Benczkowski, to give evidence in support of the appeal, including the proposed settlement.
12I qualified Mr. Benczkowski as an expert in land use planning, able to provide opinion evidence in support of the appeal, including the proposed settlement.
13The land use planner described the Subject Property as rectangular in shape, currently occupied by a one storey brick dwelling.
14The Appellant is seeking the following variances to Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the "ZBL"):
West side yard setback for rear deck – 1.5 m (1.8 m required) and
West side yard setback - .91 m (1.8 m required)
Collectively, (the "Revised Proposal").
15Mr. Benczkowski described the neighbourhood as comprised of detached single family homes. Newer homes typically have an integral garage with reduced side yard setbacks and often feature rear decks.
16The planner opined that the Revised Proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan.
17It maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan since it is materially consistent with the prevailing physical character of properties in the immediate block of the Subject Property and the broader geographic neighbourhood.
18The Revised Proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. The proposed western setback of the dwelling is consistent with the prevailing pattern of setbacks in the neighbourhood. The proposed setback for the rear deck will be .61 m narrower than the side wall of the dwelling proposed for the Subject Property.
19It is minor in nature, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. It will not create unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent neighbours or the neighbourhood.
20The Revised Proposal is desirable for the appropriate use of the building. It will provide additional space for a functional modern family home.
21A City lawyer and planner attended the hearing. They did not question or challenge the planning g evidence of the Appellant's planner.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
22The Appellant's land use planner provided planning evidence in support of the Revised Proposal, opining that it met the tests set out in the Planning Act.
23A City lawyer and planner attended the hearing, but did not oppose the planning evidence in support of the Revised Proposal.
24No neighbours or resident group appeared in opposition to the Revised Proposal.
25I find that the two variances requested in the Revised Proposal, both individually and together, meet the tests set out in the Planning Act, and will not result in any undue adverse impact.
CONCLUSION
26I will allow the Revised Proposal requested by the Appellant.
DECISION AND ORDER
27I will approve the following variances from Zoning By-law 569-2019:
a. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2)
The minimum side yard setback for the non-conforming rear yard platform will be 1.5 m.
b. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD5
The minimum west side yard setback will be .91 m
R. Kanter Panel Member