Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-04-08
24 250752 S45 12 TLAB
Gharavi (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 321
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
April 8, 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):
JAMALEDIN GHARAVI
Applicant(s):
HOSSEINI HOMES CORPORATION
Property Address:
221 CHAPLIN CRES
COA File No.:
24 204115 STE 12 MV (A0785/24TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
24 250752 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
April 4, 2025
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
HOSSEINI HOMES CORPORATION
Appellant
J. GHARAVI
M. GHARAVI
Party (TLAB)
J. ABBRASI
Party (TLAB)
C. RUDKA
Participant
J. MATTHEWS
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This session of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal") proceeded as a Prehearing Conference, which is authorized and regulated by Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The property under appeal is 221 Chaplin Crescent (the "Property"), which was the subject of an application to the Committee of Adjustment seeking nine heads of variance relief. The application was refused by the Committee, which decision was appealed to the Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
- Provincial Interest - S. 2 Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
- Provincial Policy – S. 3 Planning Act
A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
- Variance – S. 45(1) Planning Act
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal 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
Prehearing Conferences - Rule 21.6 - Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure
Rule 21.7 -The Member conducting a prehearing conference may make any orders necessary to give effect to those matters provided for in Rule 21.6.
Rule 21.8.1 - A Member who conducts a prehearing will generally remain seized of the Proceeding.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Various representatives of the appellant appeared at this session, a principal of the owner interest, an architect retained by the owner and a Registered Professional Planner retained by the owner, Connor Rudka.
Also present was the next door neighbour to the east, John Matthews, who holds an ownership interest at 219 Chaplin Crescent. Mr. Matthews is concerned about the requested variances and their potential impact on the use and enjoyment of his property, especially regarding the enlargement of the proposed decks and the possibility of invasion of privacy on his property.
The Property is presently improved with a detached Tudor style dwelling and a freestanding accessory garage. The proposal is to demolish these structures and construct a new three storey dwelling with integral garage.
Mr. Rudka came with a prepared presentation detailing the requested variances and the revisions which are now being proposed in response to concerns which were expressed at the Committee of Adjustment hearing.
Focussing on the key changes, it is now being proposed to reduce the area and extent of the decks. They are proposed to be set further back from the east property line. It is also being proposed that the decks will be outfitted with privacy screening so as to minimize overlook into the neighbouring properties. This would, in fact, allow for withdrawal of one head of variance relief.
The design of the driveway serving the property is to be altered from that on the site plan which was originally tendered. The original plan had a double wide driveway from the street which would have necessitated removal of a large honey locust tree in the municipal boulevard in front of the Property. That is now being reduced to a single wide driveway essentially as presently exists (the entrance to use the existing curb cut), which will then enlarge on the Property to become double wide but will ensure a tree preservation zone around the honey locust. The Tribunal expressed its view that this was a critical revision as this is a significant streetscape tree.
Mr. Rudka explained the rationale of the other variance requests, much of which had to do with the grade changes on the lot and measurements from established grade.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Tribunal perceived that as there had not been any substantial communication between the appellant and Mr. Matthews up to this point, that with these revisions there may be a basis for fruitful discussion between the parties in order to find a resolution of the appeal.
While the session was taking place, Mr. Rudka transmitted to Mr. Matthews the revised plan and his presentation material and there was an undertaking by the parties that they would connect in order to further discuss the matter. The possibility of further revision or adjustment to these revisions was left open.
If the parties have come to a resolution, the Tribunal requests that they so inform the Tribunal, in which case the April 24th hearing would become a settlement hearing (the Tribunal nonetheless expecting to hear evidence from Mr. Rudka in support of the variances and their compliance with Section 45 of the Planning Act). Similarly, if there is no resolution, the Tribunal would appreciate being so advised in advance of the formal hearing date.
CONCLUSION
The hearing of this appeal remains fixed for Thursday, April 24, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.
As the proposal, and the requested variances, are being revised, in order to clarify the final proposal for the hearing, the Tribunal directs the appellant to file the revised plan drawings and advise on the final quantification of the requested variances by no later than the close of business on Friday, April 18, 2025. This should take the form of filed disclosure documents supported by an expert witness statement of Mr. Rudka laying out the details of the proposal as revised, and the conformity of those revised requests with the four tests under Section 45 of the Planning Act. It is expected that Mr. Rudka will give oral evidence at the hearing to address these matters.
Mr. Matthews is also directed to file a Participant Witness Statement by no later than the close of business on April 18, 2025 if he wishes to maintain a position at the hearing and to give oral evidence.
In keeping with the Rules, these filings shall be electronically delivered to the Tribunal and electronically copied to the other parties.
To the extent that a party/participant wishes to file a response to any of these filings, they shall do so by no later than Tuesday, April 22, 2025.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the Parties/Participant shall comply with the directions contained within this hearing disposition.
This Member shall remain seized of the hearing of this appeal.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member