Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 234806 S45 20 TLAB
Chang (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 82
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: May 1, 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): XIAOZHI CHANG
Applicant(s): TAES ARCHITECTS INC
Property Address: 32 Markham Rd
COA File No.: 22 106008 ESC 20 MV (A0016/22SC)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 234806 S45 20 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): April 28, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member B. Martin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
TAES ARCHITECTS INC
Appellant
X. CHANG
W. LIU
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This was a hearing of an appeal by Xiaozhi Chang (“Appellant”) from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto to refuse a minor variance from Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 for the property at 32 Markham Road.
2The variance sought was:
- Chapter 10.20.40.20(1), By-law 569-2013
A maximum permitted building length is 17 m.
The proposed building length is 22.06 m.
3The Appellant was represented by Wen Liu of WL Paralegal Services.
4Mr. Lorne Atkinson, a resident and owner of the property at 15 Parkcrest Drive was an observer to the hearing.
5A Party Disclosure by way of a Document Book was submitted to TLAB.
6Ms. Liu did not call a land use planner to give expert opinion evidence.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
7Variance – 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 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
8Ms. Liu prepared and presented an Appeal Hearing Submission in support of the minor variance. The submission included her opinions regarding the application of the four tests. In her opinion the four tests have been satisfied.
9To support her submission, Ms. Liu identified the property at 44 Markham Road as a detached dwelling with a building length more than 17 m (26.32 m). Ms. Liu could not tell TLAB when the building at 44 Markham Road was constructed, or if a minor variance was needed to allow the increased building length.
10Google Earth images provided by Ms. Liu show the property at 44 Markham Road has a lot frontage of 30 m and a lot depth of 100 m.
11The property at 32 Markham Road has a lot frontage of 30 m and a lot depth of 50 m.
12Ms. Liu also provided TLAB with a 2023-02-13 decision of TLAB (Case No. 22 135862 - 150 Dunblaine Ave) that granted a minor variance appeal for a building length of 21.02 m.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
13The opinions and evidence presented by the Appellant with respect to the minor variance has not satisfied the four tests.
CONCLUSION
14A hearing of TLAB to consider an appeal by Xiaozhi Chang was conducted on April 28, 2023. Opinion evidence from paralegal Wen Liu was presented during the hearing. After consideration of the opinion evidence, TLAB was not convinced the four statutory tests for approval of a minor variance had been satisfied.
DECISION AND ORDER
15TLAB orders that the appeal be dismissed, and the minor variance refused.
B. Martin
Panel Member