Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2025-01-03
24 186896 S45 03 TLAB
Verma (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 291
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
January 3, 2025
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):
V. VERMA
Applicant(s):
CANADIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNS CONSULTANTS INC
Property Address:
288 VALERMO DRIVE
COA File No.:
23 192981 WET 03 MV (A0346/23EYK
TLAB Case File No.:
24 186896 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
November 27, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
N/A
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member S. MAKUCH
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
V. VERMA
Applicant
CANADIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNS CONSULTANTS INC
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This is an appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing two variances to permit the maintenance of an already constructed rear yard deck. On this appeal, the requested variances were altered for technical reasons.
Variance #1 is being altered from the Notice of Decision to include the site-specific By-law 379-2016 (OMB) and remove By-law 569-2013. Further, variance #2 has been removed and is not being sought as the subject property is not within By-law 569-2013. The variance under appeal relates to the length of the deck into the rear yard.
The deck extends the length of the rear yard and extends approximately half of its width from the rear wall of the dwelling. The variance being sought on this appeal therefore is as follows: Section 4(x)(b), By-law 379-2016 (OMB) & Section 320-40(D)(2) The maximum proposed encroachment into the rear yard for an uncovered deck is 1.6 m. The existing rear deck encroaches 7.3 into the rear yard. As the amendment to the appeal is technical and does not alter the variance as such; no notice is required of the change.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
- Provincial Interest - S. 2
a. 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.
- Provincial Policy – S. 3
a. A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area..
- Variance – S. 45(1)
a. 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:
i. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
ii. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
iii. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
iv. are minor.
v. Section 45(2)
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The evidence in favour of the appeal was presented by a qualified land use planner, Jane McFarland, and was not challenged or contradicted.
There were numerous letters in support of the appeal., including immediate neighbours on all sides of the deck.
The evidence demonstrated that the deck is approximately 50 cm above grade to provide easy access for the elderly people who live in the dwelling. It has no impact on neighbouring property and is similar to raising the grade of the rear yard.
There was no opposition from City staff, including urban design and neighbourhood planning. Several deck variances have been granted in the neighbourhood and there are no issues of privacy or overlook respecting this deck.
Ms. McFarland’s oral and written evidence was that the variance did not contradict any provincial requirements and met all four tests of the Planning Act.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
There were no issues raised at the hearing. It is clear the deck raised the surface of the rear yard by approximately 50 cm and that other yards in the neighbourhood had also been altered. This alteration had no impact on other properties and made the rear yard more accessible and usable, especially for the elderly residents of the dwelling on site. It does not conflict with any provincial policies and meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
CONCLUSION
The appeal should be allowed and the variance, as amended, should be approved as no new notice is necessary.
DECISION AND ORDER
The appeal is allowed and the following variance is hereby approved: Section 4(x)(b), By-law 379-2016 (OMB) and Section 320-40(D)(2) The maximum proposed encroachment into the rear yard for an uncovered deck is 1.6 m. The existing rear deck encroaches 7.3 into the rear yard.
S. Makuch
Panel Member