Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2024-04-22
23 238694 S45 11 TLAB
Chilver (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 218
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
April 22, 2024
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):
J. CHILVER
Applicant(s):
L. BAJANA
Property Address:
74 Hazelton Ave.
COA File No.:
23 208814 STE 11 MV (A0866/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 238694 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
April 18, 2024
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Owner
Meagan MC Lellan Inc.
Appellant
J. Chilver
M. Mazierski
Applicant
L. Bajana
Party
T. Phillips
K. Gossen
Party
J. Farhadpour
K. Gossen
Party
ABC Residents Association
C. Kapelos
Participant
D. Caplan
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1A hearing date was set for this appeal. At the request of counsel for all of the Parties to the appeal, and with the consent of those Parties, the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) was asked to convert the intended hearing date into a mediation session. The Tribunal acquiesced in that request.
2This Member conducted the mediation session. The appeal concerns the property municipally known as 74 Hazelton Avenue (the “Property”), which accommodates a semi-detached dwelling. The owner wishes to undertake alterations to the Property for the purpose of extending the dwelling to the rear to varying extents on three levels. The owner also wishes to construct a garage in the rear yard. All of these alterations require various heads of zoning variance relief.
3An application for that relief was made to the Committee of Adjustment, which application was refused. At the Committee hearing, the neighbours in the adjoining half of the semi-detached dwelling, T. Phillips and J. Farhadpour (who own and reside at 76 Hazelton Avenue) appeared and made submissions in opposition. As well, the Committee received letters of objection and submissions from a number of other persons in the neighbourhood in opposition.
4The owner appealed the refusal decision.
5A very important background fact at play here is that there is active litigation between the owner of the Property and the neighbours at 76 Hazelton Avenue relating to a right-of-way over the driveway and rear yard of 76 Hazelton Avenue serving the Property.
6Although there was extensive discussion among the Parties for the better part of the day (and it is to be noted here that that includes the ABC Residents Association represented by Ms. Kapelos), there was ultimately no resolution of the various issues among the Parties and the mediation session concluded.
7Mr. Mazierski, on behalf of the owner of the Property, undertook to further take up the issues with his client and to either further engage with the other Parties toward some resolution of the outstanding issues and ultimate settlement of those issues or to advise the Parties and the Tribunal that the appeal should be re-set for a contested hearing.
8If a settlement is achieved, this Member advised that he would be prepared to conduct the settlement hearing, with the consent of all of the Parties, and that in his communication with the Tribunal to set a settlement date, should the Parties so wish, Mr. Mazierski should provide direction to Tribunal staff in that regard.
9If a settlement is not achieved, then Mr. Mazierski, within a reasonable time after this date, should so advise the Tribunal and request the re-setting of a hearing date. For that purpose, a fresh Notice of Hearing will issue with disclosure and witness statement dates in keeping with Tribunal practice as if this were a freshly received appeal.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
10Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
11Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) for the subject area.
12Variance – S. 45(1), Planning Act
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.
13Mediation - Rule 20, Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
14The proceedings in a mediation are confidential.
DECISION AND ORDER
15There is no Order at this time.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member