Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 131736 S45 12 TLAB
Cortellucci (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 253
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: August 27, 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): JONATHAN FIUZA CORTELLUCCI
Applicant(s): FRANCO COLALILLO
Property Address: 83 LYNWOOD AVE
COA File No.: 23 216723 STE 12 MV (A0915/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 131736 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): August 9, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member G. SWINKIN
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Owner/ Appellant | J. F. CORTELLUCCI | M. MAZIERSKI |
| Applicant | F. COLALILLO | |
| Party (TLAB) | T. V. MILROY | D. WOOD |
| Party (TLAB) | J. DEJEAN | D. WOOD |
| Party (TLAB) | G. HELMAN | |
| Participant | E. S. PERITZ | |
| Participant | J. FRALEIGH | |
| Participant | M. ELLIOT | |
| Participant | J. J. KALCEVICH | |
| Participant | C. ATTIE | |
| Expert Witness | E. BRATHWAITE | |
| Expert Witness | N. SOBTI | |
| Expert Witness | B. SZOKE | |
| Expert Witness | J. BENCZKOWSKI |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
83 Lynwood Avenue (the “Property”) is the subject of this appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”). The Property is situated on the south side of Lynwood Avenue between Poplar Plains Road and Warren Road, one block south of St. Clair Avenue West. The Property is zoned Residential Detached (RD) (f12; d0.6)(x1424).
The Property is currently improved with a 3-storey brick dwelling. There is a two car garage located to the rear of the house in the southeast corner of the property. The garage is effectively built to the east and south lot lines.
The dwelling is presently being renovated and expanded, the building permit authorizing interior alterations as well as rear additions to the second and third floor and a rear concrete covered patio accessed from the first floor.
During construction, the owner (the “Appellant”) decided to excavate under the patio in order to create a storage area entirely below grade. As this area is structurally connected to the dwelling, it is now considered a part of the building (whereas the patio had not been) and this engages both the maximum building length and depth provisions, which have now been exceeded. This alteration has triggered an Order to Comply.
The owner sought to cure this problem by way of an application to the Committee of Adjustment for variance relief related to both the building length and