Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
21 251843 S45 25 TLAB
Islam v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 84
MEDIATION SUMMARY
Issuance Date: May 4, 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): MOMOTA ISLAM
Applicant(s): FAYSAL AHMED
Property Address: 197 GREYABBEY TRL
COA File No.: 21 104281 ESC 25 MV (A0021/21SC)
TLAB Case File No.: 21 251843 S45 25 TLAB
Mediation Date(s): May 1, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member T. Yao
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | F. AHMED | |
| Appellant | M. ISLAM | A. STEWART |
| Party (TLAB) | CITY OF TORONTO | C. DOUGHERTY |
| Party (TLAB) | P. DU PERRON | |
| Party (TLAB) | C. PENNEY | |
| Participant | M. APOSTOLI | |
| Expert Witness | J. BENZKOWSKI |
Report on a mediation
1Mr. Islam wished to tear down the two-storey house at 197 Greyabbey Trail and build a new three storey dwelling. To do so he initially sought the variances in Table 1.
[2]
Table 1. Variances sought for 197 Greyabbey Trail (Dec 2021)
| # | Table 1. Variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013 | Required | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FSI | 0.50 | 0.57 |
| 2 | Flat roof building height | 7.5 m | 10.97 m |
| 3 | Number of Storeys | 2 | 3 |
| 4 | No. of front balconies | 1 | 2 |
3The Committee refused these variances on December 9, 2021; Mr. Islam appealed, and this matter came to the TLAB. The appeal first came on for a hearing in July 2022 and has been adjourned four times., for reasons of settlement discussions.
4The latest Plan Examination notice is dated January 18, 2023, and was filed at the TLAB in March 2023. Mr. Islam now proposes a new design, which has been shared with the three neighbours. The present variance requests are set out in Table 2.
[5]
Table 2. Variances sought for 197 Greyabbey Trail (May 2023)
| # | Table 1. Variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013 | Required | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FSI | 0.50 | 0.541 (reduced from 0.57) |
| 2 | Flat roof building height | 7.5 m | 8.38 m (reduced from 10.97 m) |
| 3 | Number of Storeys (no longer required) | 2 | 2 (reduced from 3) |
| 4 | No. of front balconies | 1 | 2 |
6On May 1, 2023, the parties agreed to convene a mediation with the seized TLAB member (myself) to preside. The mediation lasted until about 3:30 PM and was partly successful.
7Prior to the end of the mediation, the City lawyer, Mr. Dougherty, asked to be excused, as the main issue driving the City’s attendance, (the third storey) was “off the table”, as Mr. Islam no longer proposes a three -storey design.
8Some of the remaining issues in the appeal are now also not the subject of dispute.
9Mr. Islam is willing to move the footprint to the rear about 1 metre; that is “slide” the existing proposal to the rear, without alteration to the present footprint shape or additional variances.
10The parties agreed that Mr. Islam may be granted a variance of FSI of 0.541 (0.50 permitted), which is equivalent to 362.92 sq m of GFA.
11It was further agreed that the main wall heights shown in the present plans, namely 7.88 m, (where 7.00 m is permitted), are also not in dispute.
12It was further agreed that the “wrap around” part of the front porch (facing Mr. Du Perron) will be made of tempered glass or similar.
13It is further agreed that either two front balconies or one wider front balcony will be permitted. Each would require a variance and a wider front balcony would also require an order under 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act (regarding additional notice). If there is no agreement, this is an issue for the presiding member.
14Finally, Mr. Islam is willing to enter into private contractual assurances as desired by relevant neighbours. The enforcement of such assurances is outside the scope of the TLAB’s decision to grant or not grant variances and this is understood by the parties.
15This leaves the following major items in dispute:
16The first issue is whether the roof should be flat or pitched.
17The second is the building height. Mr. Islam seeks a flat roof 8.23 m high; the neighbours prefer a pitched roof, which can be 9.00 m high without needing a variance. If the presiding member finds a flat roof of some height meets the four tests under the Planning Act, the neighbours would like it no more than 7.9 m high (7.5 m permitted). In connection with this, the parties may explore designs under clause 10.20.40.10 (B) as follows:
10.20.40.10
Height
(4) Maximum Height of Main Walls of a Detached House with a Flat or Shallow Roof Subject to regulation 10.20.40.10(1), if a detached house in the RD zone has a roof with a slope of less than 1.0 vertical units for every 10.0 horizontal units for more than 50 percent of the total horizontal roof area:
(A)
despite regulation 10.20.40.10(2), the permitted maximum height of all main walls is the higher of 7.2 metres above established grade or 2.5 metres less than the permitted maximum height in regulation 10.20.40.10(1); and
(B)
despite (A) above, additional main walls are permitted to be located above the maximum height of all main walls permitted in (A) above, provided all the additional front main walls and rear main walls located above the main walls permitted in (A) above are set back a minimum of 1.4 metres from the front main walls and rear main walls permitted in (A). [ By-law: 1277-2022(OLT) ]
18The May 1, 2023, meeting did not reach a definitive end point, owing to the need for new plans. If a settlement can be reached by May 8, 2023, I will retain jurisdiction to conclude what has become a complete settlement. A settlement means unanimity, not just a consensus or majority of the parties (that is, a single dissenter can preclude settlement).
19If a settlement cannot be reached, then this matter is scheduled for a hearing on either June 22 or July 4, 2023, depending on whether the TLAB can find an available Member. In the event that another Member cannot be found, I am willing to take the hearing, but only if all parties consent. Finally, in the event of a hearing, parties should disclose their evidence in accordance with the TLAB Rules no later than two weeks before the scheduled hearing date.
20If I have made errors or omitted anything would the parties please contact me at tlab@toronto.ca.
T. Yao Panel Member