Chen (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 368

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-10-23

25155162 S53 18 TLAB

25155161 S45 18 TLAB

25155159 S45 18 TLAB

Chen (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 368

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

October 23, 2025

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

L. CHEN

Applicant:

M. BEHAR PLANNING AND DESIGN INC.

Property Address:

100 ALFRED AVENUE

COA File No.:

24 213421 NNY 18 MV (A0478/24NY)

24 213403 NNY 18 MV (A0477/24NY)

24 213427 NNY 18 CO (B0038/24NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25155161 S45 18 TLAB

25155159 S45 18 TLAB

25155162 S53 18 TLAB

Hearing Date:

September 30, 2025

Decision Delivered By:

Y. Herscher

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name.

Representative

Appellant

LI CHEN

M. NEMANIC

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1. The owner/Appellant of 100 Alfred Avenue applied to the City of Toronto’s Committee of Adjustment for a consent-to-sever the subject property into two equal parts. The severance application was accompanied by a number of identical minor variances requested for each of the two lots, in order to construct two new dwellings.

2. The application was refused by the Committee of Adjustment on April 17, 2025. The Appellant filed an appeal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) on May 6, 2025.

3. The TLAB issued a Notice of Hearing in respect of the appeal and scheduled a hearing of this matter for September 30, 2025. The TLAB heard testimony from one witness, an expert in land use planning retained by the Appellant.

4. Aside from the Appellant, there were no other parties or participants. A number of individuals, primarily neighbours, observed the hearing, but had not filed any forms or materials in advance of the hearing to indicate that they wished to be involved as either participants or parties.

5. I advised those present at the TLAB hearing that I had attended at the site of the subject property, and had reviewed the pre-filed materials.

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6. Provincial Interest – Section 2 of the Planning Act

A decision of the TLAB shall have regard to matters of provincial interest, as enumerated in clauses 2(a) through (s) of the Planning Act.

7. Policy Statements – Section 3 of the Planning Act

A decision of the TLAB must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

8. Variance – Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act

In considering an application for variance from the zoning by-law, the TLAB must be satisfied that an application meets the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variance,

• is minor,

• is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land,

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan, and

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

9. Consent to Sever – Sections 51 and 53 of the Planning Act

The TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Planning Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that regard shall be had to the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to, among other things,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

10. The subject property is located at 100 Alfred Avenue, near the intersection of Alfred Avenue and Dudley Avenue and near Willowdale Park in the Willowdale neighbourhood. Generally speaking, the property is located in the area north of Highway 401 and the east side of Yonge Street.

11. The subject property has a frontage of 18.29m and a lot area of 621.12m². It currently contains a 1950’s constructed one-storey dwelling with an oversized carport.

12. The purpose of the applications before the TLAB are to obtain a consent-to-sever the property into two residential lots, along with associated variances.

13. The proposed lot frontage of the lot to be conveyed is 9.14m. The proposed lot area is 310.53m². The property is intended to be redeveloped as the site of a new dwelling, requiring variances to the zoning by-law.

14. The proposed lot frontage of the lot to be retained is 9.14m. The proposed lot area is 310.53m². The property is intended to be redeveloped as the site of a new dwelling, requiring variances to the zoning by-law.

MINOR VARIANCES SOUGHT

15. As there have been changes to the application from the time it was submitted to the Committee of Adjustment, the list of variances sought by the Appellant at the TLAB hearing are described below.

16. The requested minor variances for Part 1 are as follows:

17. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 30.00% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 31.65% of the lot area.

18. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013 A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone; in this case 1.8m. The proposed east side setback to the front and rear platforms is 1.21m.

19. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(4)(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 The level of the floor of a platform, such as a deck or balcony, permitted in accordance with (2) above and located at or below the first storey of a residential building other than an apartment building, may be no higher than 1.2m above the ground at any point below the platform, except where the platform is attached to or within 0.3m of: (A) a front wall, the floor of the platform may be no higher than 1.2m above established grade. The proposed front platform is 1.34m.

20. Chapter 900.3.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80m. The proposed west side yard setback is 1.22m.

21. Chapter 900.3.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80m. The proposed east side yard setback is 1.21m.

22. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 15.00m. The proposed lot frontage is 9.14m.

23. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 550.00m². The proposed lot area is 310.53m².

24. The requested minor variances for Part 2 are as follows:

25. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 30.00% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 31.65% of the lot area.

26. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013 A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone; in this case 1.8m. The proposed east side setback to the front and rear platforms is 1.21m.

27. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(4)(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 The level of the floor of a platform, such as a deck or balcony, permitted in accordance with (2) above and located at or below the first storey of a residential building other than an apartment building, may be no higher than 1.2m above the ground at any point below the platform, except where the platform is attached to or within 0.3m of: (A) a front wall, the floor of the platform may be no higher than 1.2m above established grade. The proposed front platform is 1.34m.

28. Chapter 900.3.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80m. The proposed west side yard setback is 1.22m.

29. Chapter 900.3.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80m. The proposed east side yard setback is 1.21m.

30. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 15.00m. The proposed lot frontage is 9.14m.

31. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 550.00m². The proposed lot area is 310.53m².

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

18. The only expert evidence proffered at the hearing was by the Appellant’s planner, Kathy Kakish. I accepted Ms. Kakish’s qualifications as an expert in land use planning. Her evidence is described below.

Land Use Planning Context

19. Ms. Kakish indicated that the subject property is located in the Willowdale Park neighbourhood, which is characterized by a mix of original 1950’s one-storey dwellings and newer developments featuring modern two- and three-storey homes. Willowdale is considered to be a desirable community due to its proximity to restaurant and commercial uses, offices, institutional facilities and community parks. The Sheppard-Yonge subway station located approximately a ten-minute walk away.

20. Ms. Kakish prepared a comprehensive neighbourhood study that described the proposed lots within the immediate and broader neighbourhood context.

Provincial Policy

21. Ms. Kakish testified that with respect to matters of Provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, the application contributes towards increasing the provision of family-sized housing through modest infill development.

22. Ms. Kakish testified that the proposed creation of the two lots in lieu of a one large lot will provide the opportunity to create neighbourhood housing that respects the nature of the neighbourhood and that the proposed two-storey buildings are compatible with the existing form of development in the neighbourhood.

23. Ms. Kakish’s testimony was that, consistent with the high-level direction of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, the application would allow for the gentle intensification of the Willowdale neighbourhood, for a site that is proximate to parkland and transit, through the provision of family-sized housing.

Official Plan

24. Ms. Kakish reviewed the City’s official plan (OP) policies. The subject property is located with the “Neighbourhoods” designation. Section 2.3.1 of the OP speaks to the diversity of Toronto neighbourhoods and explains that neighbourhoods will not stay frozen in time.

25. Ms. Kakish discussed how the Willowdale neighbourhood is an example in North York of a neighbourhood that benefits from the amenities such as transit, housing choices and shopping areas and, as such, appropriate enhancements, additions, and infill housing should be encouraged, so long as the form is gentle and contextually appropriate.

26. Section 2.3 of the OP requires that new development in neighbourhoods respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the area. It was Ms. Kakish’s opinion that the severed and retained lots will maintain the prevailing pattern of residential lots and built form, consistent with surrounding properties, and that the resulting homes will contribute positively to the neighbourhood fabric.

27. Policy 3.1.3.1 of the OP states that development will be located and organized to fit within its existing and planned context, supporting adjacent streets, parks and open spaces in a manner that promotes civic life and encourages the use of the public realm. Ms. Kakish testified that the building placement aligns with this policy direction by locating the proposed development along the edge of Willowdale Park, as Alfred Avenue terminates in a cul-de-sac with a pedestrian pathway connection to the park.

28. Policy 4.1 “Neighbourhoods” and, in particular, Policy 4.1.5 of the official plan is the most relevant policy in connection with the application. Policy 4.1.5 of the OP requires new development in Neighbourhoods to respect and reinforce the prevailing size and configuration of lots.

29. When discussing policy 4.1.5, Ms. Kakish spoke about the built form and prevailing building types in the area. On the premise that that there is no single prevailing building type in the neighbourhood, Ms. Kakish divided the building types in the neighbourhood into three broad categories:

• smaller bungalows on oversized lots

• redeveloped oversized homes

• narrow lots with modern homes

30. In terms of “prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties”, it was Ms. Kakish’s evidence that the proposed dwelling units on the proposed lots respect the prevailing heights within the immediate context without needing variances for height or floor area. As well, she concluded that the proposed front yard setbacks for the two lots are consistent with and marginally exceed the prevailing front yard setback of the immediate and broader neighbourhood context.

31. It was Ms. Kakish’s evidence that the site has no defined westerly side yard as the carport is situated 0.03 metres from the westerly property line, which creates an undesirable existing condition that does not respect and reinforce the immediate neighbourhood context. The application proposes a 4.57m setback from the east side of the lot and adjacent 1-storey dwelling.

32. Ms. Kakish stated that two-storey dwellings remain the dominant built form in the neighbourhood, with many original one-storey homes being replaced by modern infill. It was her evidence that the proposed two-storey dwellings are consistent with, and reinforce, this prevailing building type and scale to a greater degree than the existing situation.

33. Ms. Kakish undertook a neighbourhood context plan and divided up the broader neighbourhood into four quadrants, totalling approximately 637 properties. The subject property is located in quadrant two.

34. Ms. Kakish testified that the proposed 9.14m lot frontages align with prevailing conditions, as many properties within the immediate context have frontages between 8.5m and 12.5m. She also gave evidence that a substantial number of lots in quadrant two have lot areas under 400m².

35. Ms. Kakish spoke to her witness statement which outlined a comprehensive overview of lot sizes and frontages in the neighbourhood, dividing up the area into the four quadrants. In her review, she divided up the lots in each quadrant according into categories of 200-300m², 300-400m², 400-500m² etc., making it somewhat difficult to determine precisely how many lots are equivalent in size to the proposal of 310.53m² for each lot.

36. Ms. Kakish also categorized in her witness statement the lots in each of the four quadrants into frontages of 6.5-8.5m, 8.5-10.5m, 10.5-12.5m, etc., on the basis that a 10.5m frontage looks similar to 9m. Again, this distribution made it rather challenging to assess specifically how many lots are equivalent to the 9.14m frontage proposed for each of the two new lots.

[Section 51](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

37. Ms. Kakish’s evidence was that the application met the relevant criteria for approval for a severance under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, in particular clauses (c) and (f).

38. With respect to clause 51(24)(c) “whether the plan conforms to the official plan”, Ms. Kakish reiterated her evidence that there are a number of properties within the immediate context that share similar lot frontages and lot areas with the application. She indicated that most lot frontages in the neighbourhood were smaller than the frontage of the subject property.

39. With respect to clause 51(24)(f) “the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots”, Ms. Kakish testified that the proposed lots have been configured in the same way that is consistent within the neighbourhood context and the more recent compact pattern of development within the immediate and broader neighbourhood context.

Variances to the Zoning By-Law

40. The proposed lot frontage of each lot is 9.14m whereas the minimum required lot frontage is 15m. Ms. Kakish reviewed her neighbourhood study to illustrate that lot frontages between 8.5 metres and 10 metres are more prevalent than those exceeding 16 metres. She concluded that the proposed 9.14m frontages fall within this range, and are aligned with the lotting pattern of the area and in the Willowdale neighbourhood.

41. The proposed lot area of both lots is 310.53m², whereas the zoning by-law requires 550m². Based on Ms. Kakish’s neighbourhood study, she testified that lots with lot areas between 300m² and 400m², while less common, are already part of the neighbourhood fabric, and the proposed severance replicates that existing size.

42. The proposed lot coverage is 31.65% whereas the maximum permitted lot coverage is 30%. It was Ms. Kakish’s evidence that the application is appropriate since there is only an incremental increase into the lot coverage and no variances for front yard setback or rear yard setback, and the reduced east and west side yard setbacks preserve the functionality and purpose of a side yard.

43. For the building proposed to be located on the east side, the proposed east side setback to the front and rear platforms is 1.21m, instead of the required 1.8m. Ms. Kakish’s evidence was that this variance for the side yard setbacks for the deck and porch is in line with others that currently exist in the immediate context, and provides sufficient space for proper drainage and access for building maintenance.

44. The proposed front platform is 1.34m (for both Part 1 and Part 2) whereas the requirement is that the floor of the platform may be no higher than 1.2m above the established grade. Ms. Kakish’s opinion was that the height of the front platform is based on the established grade, and a 0.14m increase in height is subtle, appropriate, and will not be noticeable to the human eye.

45. In terms of whether application is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, Ms. Kakish testified that the application replaces a large lot with a large carport with two modern dwellings with integrated garages, which is compatible with the surrounding streetscape and more desirable than what currently exists.

46. Ms. Kakish’s opinion was that the variances related to frontage, lot area and setbacks allow for gentle intensification that is consistent with recent redevelopment in the immediate and surrounding context, which varies from a historical pattern of bungalow development that is no longer being replicated in the Willowdale neighbourhood.

47. Finally, in Ms. Kakish’s opinion, the proposed variances are minor in nature both in scale and in impact. The increase in lot coverage is only 1.65% above the by-law standard. Her view is that the side yard setbacks do not impose unacceptable adverse impacts relating to drainage, access, and privacy or overlook.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

48. The central issue in this case is the proposal to subdivide the one lot into two equal sized lots, each with a lot area of 310.53m² and a frontage of 9.14m. The proposal also generates a request for seven variances, of varying significance, for each lot.

49. Although the only expert land use evidence called was in support of the Appellant, the Appellant still has the burden of proof to satisfy the TLAB that the application meets all legislative and policy standards.

50. Clause 51(24)(c) of the Planning Act requires that regard shall be had to whether the severance application conforms to the official plan.

51. The subject property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto official plan. Neighbourhoods are considered physically stable areas where new development will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

52. Section 4.1 of the official plan outlines the development policies for Neighbourhoods. The preamble to the development criteria states that:

"physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and 'fit' the existing physical character."

53. Policy 4.1.5 of the development criteria for Neighbourhoods requires that:

"Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots."

54. A key consideration is what the term “prevailing” as used in Policy 4.1.5(b) means in this context. Policy 4.1.5 defines “prevailing” to mean:

"The prevailing building type and physical character of a geographic neighbourhood will be determined by the most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood.”

55. Based on the materials submitted by Ms. Kakish, however, the lots proposed to be created by the severance do not replicate the “most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood.”

56. In fact, the lot size and frontage as a result of the severance would be among the smallest in the neighbourhood. Based on Ms. Kakish’s testimony, the “prevailing” lot frontage in the immediate and broader neighbourhood was shown to be 12m to 15.5m. As well, based on Ms. Kakish’s calculations for lot area, the prevailing lot size for the immediate and broader neighbourhood would appear to be 500-700m².

57. According to the map on page 44 of her expert witness statement that Ms. Kakish spoke to, there are 15 lots with less than 10.5m frontage within the hundred or so comparable lots in the immediate neighbourhood. Of those 15 lots, the lots with a frontage of between 9.14m and 10.5m were not identified on that map.

58. As well, in her chart on page 193 of the witness statement, Ms. Kakish lists 112 lots out of 196 in the quadrant that have a frontage of less than 10.5m. The lots with a frontage of between 9.14m and 10.5m were not identified. Ms. Kakish testified that the townhouse subdivision development of 101 lots can be removed from this calculation, so that leaves approximately 12 lots out of 95.

59. Ms. Kakish also measured the lot area of properties in quadrant two. According to her evidence regarding the chart on page 188 of her witness statement, there are 109 out of 196 lots in quadrant two with less than 400m² lot area. Excluding the nearby townhouse subdivision leaves approximately 9 lots out of around 95. Of those 9 lots, the lots with areas equivalent to or smaller than the 310.53m² lot area proposed in the application were not identified.

60. It should be noted that Ms. Kakish did provide comprehensive breakdowns in her witness statement of all properties in the quadrants regarding lot area and frontage size, but the charts that she relied upon in oral evidence were premised upon including the proposal in groupings that included properties with larger lot areas (up to 400m²) and larger frontages (up to 10.5m) and seemed not to delineate properties that were more closely aligned in configuration with the proposed lots.

61. In response to a query for more specific information, Ms. Kakish prepared a chart (Exhibit #2) which showed a more detailed breakdown of the properties within the quadrants that had frontages of less than 10.6m, accompanied by their lot sizes.

62. In quadrant two, the numbers in Exhibit #2 and those in the witness statement are roughly comparable. There are 10 or 11 properties that have frontages that are approximately the same or smaller as 9.14m that is in the proposed severance, compared to the 15 lots identified in the map on page 44 or the 12 lots identified on the chart on page 193.

63. However, with respect to lot area, the difference was more marked. There are two or three properties within quadrant two that have lot areas that are equivalent to the lot areas proposed in the new lots. While some lots are not that much larger than the proposed lots and there are several between 300-400m², only two-three lots with a lot area of around 310.53m² means that lots of the size in the application are not representative of the prevailing lot configuration in the neighbourhood.

64. To sum up, the numbers presented for lot frontage and especially for lot area demonstrate that the proposed lots do not represent the prevailing lot size, configuration or physical character in the neighbourhood.

65. Where there are instances of significant differences between the broader and immediate contexts, Policy 4.1.5 states that the immediate context will be considered of greater relevance. Specifically, the policy says that:

"Proposed development within a Neighbourhood will be materially consistent with the prevailing physical character of properties in both the broader and immediate contexts. In instances of significant difference between these two contexts, the immediate context will be considered to be of greater relevance.”

66. In this case, the other quadrants show similar patterns. The official plan states that the immediate context will be considered of greater relevance in instances of significant differences between broader and immediate contexts. It stands to reason that even where there is no significant difference between the broader and immediate context, the immediate context is of greater relevance. As a consequence, it is not necessary to review in detail the other three quadrants which are further in distance from the subject property.

67. In terms of the immediate neighbourhood, Policy 4.1.5 states that the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood includes the broader context as well as the same street, which includes the same block and opposite block:

"… both the physical characteristics of the entire geographic area in proximity to the proposed development (the broader context) and the physical characteristics of the properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (the immediate context).”

68. On both sides of the block of Alfred Avenue where the subject property is located, Ms. Kakish’s evidence was that lot frontages generally range between 12m and 15.4m. The subject property and one other lot on the block are over 18m in frontage. A frontage of 9.14m is manifestly not prevalent on either side of that block.

69. Ms. Kakish’s evidence was that the proposed setbacks and the reduction in height of the proposed dwellings from the original application addressed the “prevailing” standard. While building type and physical character must be considered, the term “prevailing” refers not just to built form, but to size and configuration of the lot, as described in Policy 4.1.5(b).

70. Ms. Kakish testified that lots under 310.53m² was one of the prevailing size of lots, given the three types of building types in the area described in paragraph 29, notwithstanding the fact that most of the lots in the immediate context were larger than 310.53m². Her evidence was that lots of this size were one of the prevailing types because other lots in the broader area were of a similar size.

71. This approach is not an accurate reflection of the criteria established under the official plan. Policy 4.1.5 states that no changes will be made through minor variance, consent or other public action that are out of keeping with the overall physical character of the entire neighbourhood. The physical character of the neighbourhood is not comprised of lots with areas of 310.53m² or equivalent. The prevailing lot size is a minimum of 400-500m² and most or many lots are even larger.

72. The official plan requires proposed developments to respect and reinforce the prevailing size and configuration of lots. The prevailing lot sizes in this area are larger than the proposed lots. I find that the proposed lot frontage of 9.14m and a lot area of 310.53m² do not reflect the prevailing physical character of the immediate context and lead to a building form inconsistent with the character and scale of the surrounding area.

73. For the reasons outlined above, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has provided a sufficient foundation of evidence to support a determination that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Policy 4.1.5(b). Therefore, the proposed severance fails to address the consent criteria under clause 51(24)(c) of the Planning Act.

74. The application also does not satisfy the criteria described in clause 51(24)(f) of the Planning Act with respect to the dimensions of the proposed lots, given the area of the proposed lots compared to the prevailing lot size in the neighbourhood.

75. Since the severance application is refused it is unnecessary to consider whether the variances applied for meet the four tests of the Planning Act. The variances exist because of the proposed creation of the two lots on which the dwellings were to be located. Without the creation of the two lots the variances are not achievable.

76. The findings above on their own are sufficient for both the consent-to-sever and the variances to fail. For completeness, however, I find that the application for minor variances do not meet the tests outlined in subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and are therefore refused. The variances are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan or zoning by-law and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

CONCLUSION

77. As noted earlier, it rests upon the Appellant to provide a sufficient basis in evidence for the TLAB to reach the conclusion that the application meets the tests set out in legislation. I find that the Appellant has not provided a sufficient basis in the evidence for the TLAB to be satisfied that the applications for the consent-to-sever and the variances meet the legislative tests.

DECISION AND ORDER

78. The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 25, 2025, for the application at hand is confirmed.

Y. Herscher

Panel Member