Ufaratsta Jewish Outreach Centre (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 385

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2026-01-23

File: 25 209090 S45 18 TLAB

Ufaratsta Jewish Outreach Centre (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 385

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: January 23, 2026

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): UFARATSTA JEWISH OUTREACH CENTRE

Applicant(s): SG&M ARCHITECTS

Property Address: 45 LISSOM CRESCENT

COA File No.: 25 157986 NNY 18 MV (A0225/25NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 25 209090 S45 18 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): January 16, 2026

Decision Delivered By: G. SWINKIN

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Appellant	UFARATSTA JEWISH OUTREACH CENTRE	J. COLE & M. FODERICK
Party	L. SALAZAR MALPARTIDA
Participant	C. YOLLECK
Participant	N. ASGARI
Participant	R. GHAHNAVYEH
Participant	P. AVELLANEDA
Participant	A. IAKIMTCHIK

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

This appeal is brought by Ufaratsta Jewish Outreach Centre (the “Appellant”). It concerns the property municipally known as 45 Lissom Crescent (the “Property”), which lies east of Bathurst Street, and generally between Steeles Avenue West and Drewry Avenue, within the limits of the former City of North York.
The Appellant is an Orthodox Jewish congregation currently occupying space in a facility on Patricia Street, which is one street south of Lissom Crescent.
It is the aspiration of the Appellant to demolish the single family dwelling on the Property and construct a new building to function as their place of worship.
The Property is in the RD zone under City Zoning By-law 596-2013, which expressly permits a place of worship and therefore contemplates this use. However, there are regulations which the Appellant is not able to comply with and therefore made application to the Committee of Adjustment for variance relief.
The Committee refused the application. The Appellant appealed and the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) held a hearing on the matter.
The Appellant was represented by counsel at the Tribunal hearing and counsel called planning evidence through an accredited land use planner.
Also at the hearing, all in opposition, were the immediate next door neighbour at 43 Lissom Crescent, who elected party status, and five other neighbours from Lissom Crescent who elected Participant status. There were other persons in attendance as observers.
It must be noted here that the next door neighbour and the five Participants all indicated that they wished to speak at the Tribunal hearing. However, not one of them filed a witness statement as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Based on those Rules, that would preclude them from giving evidence at the hearing, which Rules are designed to ensure disclosure of a person’s position in advance of the hearing. They said that they didn’t know that they had to file witness statements.
The Tribunal was aware that each of those persons had filed a pro forma letter of objection at the Committee of Adjustment as those letters were part of the Disclosure Document filed by the Appellant. That pro forma letter detailed specific concerns of those persons.
On the strength of that known disclosure, the Tribunal entered into a discussion with Mr. Foderick about the nature of the participation of these persons at this proceeding. This resulted in a consensus that those persons could speak at this proceeding provided that their comments were confined to what was in the letter filed with the Committee and that no new evidence would be permitted in order to avoid any possible prejudice to the Appellant.
The Party and the Participants indicated that they would be content with such an arrangement.
Under the Tribunal’s authority in Rule 2.12 to grant exceptions to the Rules or other relief as it considers appropriate, and with the consent of all involved, the Tribunal allowed each of them to make an oral statement as described in Rule 13.7 d).
Furthermore, as Mr. Salazar Malpartida, the next door neighbour, elected Party status, Mr. Foderick acknowledged that he would be entitled to cross-examine Mr. Litavski, which he did.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY 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 clauses (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 applications for variances from the Zoning By-law, 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-law;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The Tribunal heard evidence about the proposal from the Appellant’s land use planner, Adrian Litavski. Mr. Litavski has practiced land use planning for 30 years and is a Registered Professional Planner accredited by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Accordingly, he was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters in the proceeding.
Mr. Litavski’s Expert Witness Statement was entered as Exhibit 1. The Document Disclosure Book was entered as Exhibit 2.

The Property and its context

Mr. Litavski described the Property’s characteristics and its neighbourhood. He advised that the Property is a 766.3m2 irregularly shaped parcel with 19.35m of frontage and a depth of 39.43m. The Property is located on the south side of Lissom Crescent and fronts partially onto the western ‘bulb’ of the street. The Property is presently improved with a 2-storey side-split single-family home with an integral single-car garage.
Lissom Crescent is a “U” shaped crescent public street south of Dewlane Drive, east of Bathurst Street, which is also connected to Patricia Avenue to the south via a short street called Laconia Drive.
The Pride of Israel Synagogue property immediately abuts the Property to the west and occupies all the lands south of Dewlane Drive between Lissom Drive and Bathurst Street. It is municipally known as 59 Lissom Crescent.The existing synagogue building on that property is located at the northern end of the property with pedestrian entrances facing both Bathurst Street and Lissom Crescent. The synagogue has a large parking lot, which lies immediately west of the Property and south of the synagogue, but vehicular access is via Lissom Crescent only. There is no vehicular access from Bathurst Street.
The other salient fact about parking, especially as traffic and parking was a primary concern of the neighbours, is that there is rather strict street parking control. The north side of Lissom Crescent is signed as No Parking at any time. The south side of the street is signed as No Parking from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day of the week.
Low-rise, single-family homes occupy the remaining lands fronting onto Lissom Crescent to the east of the Property. Beyond Lissom Crescent, the area to the northeast and south of the Property is characterized as a typical low density suburban neighbourhood dominated by low-rise single-family homes, park spaces, and schools. The Bathurst Lawn Memorial Park cemetery is approximately 150m north of the Property.

The Planning Controls

Mr. Litavski advised that the City of Toronto Official Plan (‘Toronto Official Plan’) was approved in part in 2006. The Property is designated under it as ‘Neighbourhoods’ on Map 16, Land Use Plan of the Toronto Official Plan. No Site or Area Specific Policies apply, nor does the Property fall within any Secondary Plan area.
Furthermore, the Property is zoned ‘RD - Residential Detached (f15.0; a550)(x5)’ by Comprehensive Zoning By-law 569 – 2013. He advises that the in-effect zoning reflects the low-rise, low-density residential character of the Property and its neighbourhood context. The Property is subject to site-specific zoning exception 5, but its provisions are not relevant to this application.

The Proposal

Mr. Litavski informed the Tribunal that the Appellant proposes to build a Place of Worship (which use is a defined term for the purposes of the Zoning By-law) on the Property. More specifically, they propose to tear down the existing house and replace it with the Ufaratsta Jewish Outreach Centre – an orthodox (Chabad) synagogue. He describes the new synagogue as of a modest size and of a similar mass to the other existing homes on the street. He underlines that apart from the front yard setback requirement, the proposed building mass complies with all building massing/envelope by-law requirements (i.e. – density, height, side & rear setbacks, lot coverage, building length & depth, etc.) The existing driveway will be used to accommodate one accessible parking space. He is thus of the opinion that these physical facts will work to maintain the impression of a house-form massing and lot layout consistent with the present neighbourhood character.
It was Mr. Litavski’s firm view that the proposed synagogue’s small size and limited congregation will limit its impact upon the neighbourhood. Further informing this view is that as an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, the congregation, by the rules that bind them, would not drive to prayers on Shabbat (the Sabbath/Saturday) or during holidays but would instead walk.
In order to further help describe the proposal, in his Expert Witness Statement, Mr. Litavski transcribed comments from the applicant which had been submitted to the Committee of Adjustment. They are as follows: “The Pride of Israel accommodates larger gatherings and has members using the facility via car vehicular traffic - particularly in the mornings, evenings and on Saturdays and Friday night. Our proposed synagogue is much smaller in scale, does not accommodate large gatherings whatsoever and our congregation attends primarily via pedestrian means (foot traffic) and not by car vehicular traffic. This synagogue complements the existing conservative synagogue and has purpose serving the local and nearby residents and community.”
A number of the objecting Participants raised concern over their belief that the facility would accommodate a daycare centre. They believed that such a use would attract vehicular traffic and at least short term parking in the street.
In response to this concern, Mr Litavski advised that he had spoken with his client about this and was assured that there was no intention to establish a daycare on the site and no application for a daycare license was contemplated or underway. To be clear, in keeping with the practice of many congregations, there may indeed be minders of children outside of the sanctuary while services are underway but no independent daycare. These would be children of the congregants who have attended to pray.

The Application before the Committee of Adjustment

The following variances were requested before the Committee of Adjustment:
Chapter 10.5.80.10.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

A parking space may not be located in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street.

The proposed will have one (1) accessible parking space to be located in the front yard.

Chapter 10.20.20.100.(8)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

A Place of Worship is a permitted use provided it is located on a lot with a front lot line or side lot line abutting a major street.

The proposed Place of Worship does not have a front lot line or side lot line abutting a major street.

Chapter 10.20.20.100.(8)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

A Place of Worship is a permitted use provided it is located on a lot with a lot area of 2,000m² or greater.

The existing lot area is 766.3m².

Chapter 10.20.20.100.(8)(B)(iii), By-law No. 569-2013

A Place of Worship is a permitted use provided it is located on a lot with a lot frontage of at least 30m.

The existing lot frontage is 16.86m.

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 30.20% of the lot area.

Chapter 10.5.40.70.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback is 14.55m.

The proposed front yard setback is 7.35m.

Chapter 150.50.50.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A Place of Worship is a permitted use in the RD Zone, provided the lot has a minimum 1.5m wide strip of land, used only for soft landscaping, along the entire length of all side lot lines and rear lot lines.

A minimum 1.5m wide strip of soft landscaping has not been provided along the entire length of the west side lot line.

Chapter 150.50.50.10.(1)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

A Place of Worship is a permitted use in the RD Zone, provided there must be a fence and a 3.0m wide strip of soft landscaping along the entire length of the part of the lot line abutting any lot in a Residential Zone category.

The proposed minimum of 2.44m soft landscaping strip abutting lot in the RD zone to the east, and a proposed minimum of 0.3m soft landscaping strip abutting lot in the RD zone to the west.

Mr. Litavski advised that the Appellant’s architect, since the time of the Committee application, has revisited the building plans and reduced the extent of certain features of the building so as to bring the building within the lot coverage limits of the Zoning By-law. As such, the Appellant is no longer seeking Variance #5 and has withdrawn it from the request before this Tribunal.
Mr. Litavski also advised that Variance #6 contains a Chapter paragraph misreference and he has provided the Tribunal with the correct reference. He assures the Tribunal that this has been corroborated with the City Zoning Examiner and the City Building Division.

The Planning Issues

Mr. Litavski then engaged in a review of the relevant planning issues.
With respect to the Provincial planning interests and policies, he indicated that, in his view, these were generally of high level application and that he did not perceive any conflict arising out of this Committee application with the Provincial interests identified in Section 2 of the Planning Act or with respect to the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.
As it was commented upon by many of the Participants that the Provincial policy had an objective of creating housing and that this proposal would result in the demolition of an existing dwelling, Mr. Litavski pointed out that the Provincial policy also has the objective of creating complete communities, which comprehends the provision of places of worship to serve the various communities. One has to reconcile the many objectives of Provincial policy and in this instance he believed that that was being successfully achieved here.
Mr. Litavski addressed the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, commencing with the question as to whether the proposed variances were in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Toronto Official Plan.
He specifically brought to the attention of the Trtbunal the policies relating to the Neighbourhoods designation. In this regard, he cites Policy 2.3.1.1 which states: “Neighbourhoods are low rise and low-density residential areas that are considered to be physically stable. Development in Neighbourhoods will be consistent with this objective and will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas.”
In response to this directive, he offers the opinion that the proposed synagogue, with its modest size and house-form building massing, is entirely consistent with the well established low-rise, low-density, single-family character of the street and broader neighbourhood.
He then directed the Tribunal to Policy 4.1.1, which says, in part: “Low scale local institutions play an important role in the rhythm of daily life in Neighbourhoods and include such uses as: schools, places of worship, community centres, libraries, day nurseries and private home daycare, seniors and nursing homes and long-term care facilities, public transit facilities, utility and telecommunications installations, and public services and facilities provided by the local, provincial and federal governments.”
Mr. Litavski spoke to the built form policies in Policy 3.1.3.1 and was of the opinion that the proposal would meet the criteria set forth in that policy. He concludes that the proposed building massing, front façade and its setback from the street are entirely in keeping with the existing planned context, and respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Litavski canvassed the development criteria in Policy 4.1.5. In keeping with the direction in this policy, he established an Immediate Context (being Lissom Crescent) and a general neighbourhood area and considered the nature of development in these areas. Based upon that review, he was of the opinion that the predominant character of the area is that of a low-rise, low-density residential neighbourhood, where single-family homes featuring spacious front yards, driveways, and consistently aligned front facades create a classic suburban atmosphere. It was his opinion that the proposed synagogue, with its modest scale and density, reflects the prevailing single-family form and respects and reinforces the established character of the neighbourhood. From the street, he says that it will read in many ways as a single-family home. And he concludes that it aligns with the urban design policies set out in the Official Plan.
In summary of his opinion that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, he identifies the following key points: 1. The proposed synagogue is a permitted use, and the proposed building mass closely reflects the low-rise single-family house form prevalent within the existing and proposed planning context. 2. The Official Plan makes no mention of the need for minimum lot frontages or lot sizes for Places of Worship, nor imposes any policy requirement to locate them on major streets. Instead, it speaks of the general importance of locating local institutions such as the proposed synagogue within neighbourhoods to support the daily life of residents. 3. With the removal of Variance #5 and except for the proposed front-yard setback variance, the proposed building mass complies with all applicable building envelope zoning standards and is in keeping the with the prevailing massing of the geographic neighbourhood. 4. The front wall of the proposed synagogue maintains the setback of the existing home and aligns with the home next door to the east. 5. The proposed synagogue design respects and reinforces the prevailing patterns of front, side and rear yard spaces within both the immediate and broader context. 6. The required landscaping variances are very minor in nature and simply reflect how the proposed synagogue will be maintaining the existing side yard conditions. 7. The requested variances will result in a development that respects, is in keeping with, and maintains the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Litavski then addressed the test of maintaining the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. This review was undertaken in light of the Official Plan policy.
He says that places of worship are permitted by the Official Plan within the Neighbourhoods designation and that the Official Plan does not place any limits on the size or location of lots they may be located on. However, the zoning by-law, by way of specific provisions applicable to places of worship in the RD zone, limits them to lots that have a minimum frontage of 30m, a minimum area of 2000m2, and front onto a major street.
On the surface, the requested variances in Variance #s 2,3 and 4 appear numerically significant. The neighbour opponents seized on this and took the position that departures from the standard of this magnitude could not be considered minor or in keeping with the intent of the by-law.
Mr. Litavski’s response was that these provisions assume that a place of worship is a larger institutional use that would otherwise require a larger lot. He says that the general intent and purpose of the by-law is to place these presumably larger uses on the edge of a neighbourhood with ready access to transit, on lots large enough to accommodate them and to offer enough space on those lots to mitigate potential impacts upon adjacent low-density residential uses.
Further to that discussion, in a dialogue with the Tribunal, Mr. Litavski acknowledged that these requirements pre-dated the present state of the Zoning By-law, which has been amended by By-law 89-2022 to dramatically alter the parking standards and requirements in residential and other zones, to the point that by contrast to the past, there are no minimum on-site parking requirements for places of worship in the present form of the Zoning By-law. Consequently, it is highly conceivable that the lot area requirements applicable to places of worship may very well have presumed a not insignificant need for area for parking spaces. As Mr. Litavski did not produce any staff reports or other documentary evidence regarding the rationale for these place of worship requirements, the foregoing is speculation but it is speculation that appears to the Tribunal to have a plausible foundation.
In further support of his proposition as to the intent of the by-law, he provided five examples of other small scale places of worship in residential neighbourhoods along with photographs of those facilities. In particular, he identified synagogues at 187 Brunswick Avenue, 22 Gilgorm Road and 18 Rockford Road (not far from the Property but west of Bathurst Street) as well as a First Christian Reformed Church at 67 Taunton Road and a Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist at 28 Hendon Avenue.
No property data was supplied by Mr. Litavski with respect to these examples but from the photographic evidence it was clear that none of them fronted on a major road and the lot frontages and lot areas did not appear extensive and likely were less than that which is presently stipulated.
Mr. Salazar Malpartida, in his cross-examination, challenged Mr. Litavski on when these facilities were constructed and whether they would have been subject to the current by-law provisions. So, there was no explicit evidence on whether these facilities conform with the current regulations and whether any of these places required a rezoning or variance approvals. Nonetheless, they exist and can squarely be characterized as small scale and located in established residential neighbourhoods.
In any event, again based upon the photographic evidence, in keeping with the directive in the Official Plan policies, each of these places of worship in form and mass appeared to “fit” the character of their respective neighbourhoods.
Regarding these three heads of variance relief (Variances 2, 3 and 4), Mr. Litavski concludes that the proposed synagogue is more modest in scale than anticipated by the by-law, does not require the size of lot otherwise anticipated by the by-law and is appropriately scaled for the Property. Likewise, he says, the smaller house-form building is in keeping with the low-rise, low-density character of the street. No height, density, building length or depth, side or year yard setback, or lot coverage variances are required. Apart from the front yard setback, the proposal complies with all applicable building envelope & massing standards for the RD zone. This includes landscaping and soft landscaping requirements.
With respect to the accessible parking space in the front driveway, Mr. Litavski advises that the by-law allows parking on a driveway at the front of a detached, semi-detached, duplex or townhouse home. In this case, the synagogue is designed to mimic the prevalent single-family built-from within the neighbourhood and, in his view, retaining the existing driveway will help do this. Having a vehicle park within this retained driveway will be entirely in keeping with similar driveway parking in the immediate context. Likewise, the smaller synagogue building will maintain the same pedestrian friendly and accessible presence on Lissom Crescent in the same way the existing house does today and as the surrounding homes do as well. Further, using the existing driveway as the accessible parking space also ensures mobility-limited patrons will have easier access to the building. As such, the general intent and purpose of the by-law is maintained.
With respect to the front yard setback, Mr. Litavski offers the view that the general intent and purpose of the front yard setback requirement is to establish a consistent and generally even streetwall that appropriately frames the public street, in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
The front yard setback is meant to be the average of the two dwellings on either side of the lot. In this instance, there is no dwelling on the west side, so the control is drawn from the setback of the dwelling to the east. The front wall of the proposed synagogue maintains the existing home’s setback and lines up with the front wall of the home to the east. The general intent and purpose of the by-law is thus maintained.
With respect to the landscape strip variances adjacent to the side lot lines, the variance on the west side is due to a pinch point near the front of the proposed building at the location of a walkway but otherwise compliant. Regarding the 2.44m strip provided along the eastern side lot line, Mr. Litavski takes the view that it represents a modest .56m reduction from the 3.0m requirement and is appropriate given the modest house-form massing and size of the proposed synagogue. It also represents an improvement over the existing home’s current 1.52m setback from the eastern side lot line. He thus concludes that the proposed landscaping strips on either side of the proposed synagogue will maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.
In addressing the test of desirability, Mr. Litavski takes the position that small scale institutional uses such as schools, community centres, and appropriately sized places of worship like the proposed synagogue are important ingredients in the making of complete and thriving neighbourhoods. This is underscored in the policy documents. He says that the new synagogue will introduce a new place for residents to gather and worship and help to build community spirit and connections.
Mr. Litavski addresses the test of minor on the basis of three perspectives: size, importance and impact.
On the perspective of size, he says that the variances in lot size, frontage, and location for places of worship are not significant given the modest and contextually appropriate size of the proposed synagogue, and the fact it is still in close proximity to Bathurst Street and directly visible therefrom. He treats the front yard setback as effectively technical and the landscaping variances as objectively modest.
On the perspective of importance, he says that the question of importance relates to whether the required zoning relief should be secured through a full rezoning application or whether the Committee of Adjustment is the appropriate vehicle. Having considered all the facts, he believes that it is appropriate to seek the required relief via minor variance as proposed.
And lastly, on the perspective of impact, he asserts that the proposed building has been designed to fit into its context, so that its massing will not result in additional impacts over those that may be experienced by as-of-right development. He recognizes that the neighbours have great apprehensions over traffic congestion and parking. In response, he points to City Council’s decision to eliminate minimum parking requirements for this character of use. And more importantly, he communicates the advice which he has received from his client that as an Orthodox Jewish congregation which lives in the vicinity, they will come to the synagogue on foot. As such, he views the requests for relief as minor.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The Zoning By-law is unequivocal that a place of worship is a permitted use in the RD zone category, which is the zoning applicable to the Property. The applicant here does not therefore need, or seek, a dispensation with respect to the proposed use.
The heads of relief being sought are all related to regulations, or performance standards, set out for this zone category and this proposed use. These standards are primarily meant to control massing and spacing. And that control is anchored back to the Official Plan objective of maintaining harmony amongst the elements that make up the community.
For this character of use, place of worship, the Zoning By-law has set up performance standards which differ from the general residential standards, resulting here in enhanced lot area, lot frontage and yard setback requirements. The deduction of by-law intention as relayed by the planning witness is that the establishment of these enhanced standards was predicated upon an assumption that a place of worship would generally be a much larger structure than a dwelling and would likely have or require a more significant provision of motor vehicle parking.
So the task for the tribunal on this appeal is to analyze the current and planned fabric for this community and attempt to project the proposal onto that and ascertain whether there will be harmony amongst the elements or not.
As this panel said in its 2022 decision of 251 Old Forest Hill Road, the Zoning By-law is in many ways a crude generic regulatory instrument which is insensitive to individual sites and relationships between and among buildings and properties as well as the natural and public features which make up the context. Mr. Litavski similarly referred to it as a blunt instrument.
The magnitude of applications coming before the Committee on a weekly basis seeking what on their face may appear to be significant relief that do not attract objection from Planning Department staff, and which are approved by the Committee, is testament to the truth that this is not simply an arithmetic exercise but rather one informed by context and anchored in some sense of the reasonableness of the outcome from the street, the subjective view of a pedestrian observer.
It was the longstanding jurisprudence of the Ontario Municipal Board (before the waters were temporarily muddied by Vincent v. deGasperis, but which influence has since seemed to wane) when considering variance appeals to apply the test of “impact”. That is, would the proposal result in an unacceptable adverse effect or impact. If so, then the proposal would be found to not meet the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. However, if an unacceptable adverse effect was not discernible or likely, then it was reasonable to conclude that the departure from the by-law could be treated as minor, desirable and in keeping with the intention of the planning instruments.
Such an analysis is necessarily site and area specific. It requires a clear understanding of the proposal and the composition and character of the neighbourhood. In this way, the arbitrariness of general zoning standards can be more rationally applied and adjusted to unique parcels and proposals.
To this panel, the test of impact remains an entirely legitimate and useful point of departure in assessing variance applications.
Expressing this in another fashion, born of the statute’s specific text, ‘minor’ should not be understood to devolve down to a mere arithmetic exercise. In this hearing, as in many hearings, the objectors identified the percentage relationship of the standard against what was being sought.
In this application, the proposed lot area (being the existing lot area and not one which was to be created by severance) is less than half of the special requirement for a place of worship but not out of keeping with the lot areas in the neighbourhood in question.
Similarly, the lot frontage and front yard setback is approximately two-thirds and half respectively of that which is prescribed for places of worship but entirely in keeping with the lot and building characteristics found on this street.
The arithmetic here doesn’t in any meaningful way speak to the question of ‘fit’ or likely impact. As such, minor here cannot usefully be reduced to a simple calculation but requires the more broad assessment of relationship to the context.
Based upon the evidence adduced through this hearing, the Tribunal is persuaded by the conclusions of Mr. Litavski that the proposed structure will mimic the built form in this neighbourhood and will comfortably fit in with the existing structures on the street and reinforce the character of the area.
The Tribunal further finds that the four tests set forth in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act are satisfied. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Litavski’s opinion on this and comes to its own assessment that no discernible or likely adverse impact will be engendered by the proposal.
The underlying issue which arose at the Committee of Adjustment seemed to be the prospect of potential parking demand and the lack of provision of space for that.
The evidence here provides the Tribunal with comfort that lack of parking will not be a material issue due to the rules which govern the activity of this congregation. They do not drive on the Sabbath or the high holidays by reason of their beliefs and practices as Orthodox Jews.
The evidence is that the Chabad congregation intending to occupy this facility are in the Orthodox tradition and that treats driving on the Sabbath and the high holidays as strictly forbidden. As such, there is no foundation to the fear of adverse traffic impacts arising from this occupation.
In making the foregoing observation about impact, given that only one accessible parking space is to be provided on the Property, being the only parking space, much depends on acceptance and reliance on the advice of the Appellant that its congregation will not be coming to the Property on the Sabbath and holidays by motor vehicle and therefore will not require parking. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
The conundrum for the Tribunal is what may come of an unrestricted grant of the requested variance relief in terms of any successor place of worship of any denomination. A solution here is to ensure that the habits and proscriptions of this congregation will apply to any successor, should there be one. As such, the Tribunal believes that it would be fit, and fall within its broad jurisdiction, to impose a condition that the requested variances are granted to this applicant and to any successor which falls within the Orthodox Judaic stream.
The ocean of decisions rendered by Committees of Adjustment, or the appeal tribunal, discloses a broad range of conditions, all of which are specific to the subject matter of the application and not of universal effect. The decisions, as bound up in their specific conditions, are an integrated whole to be understood in their specific context. In this regard, decisions are sometimes made personal to the applicant, are expressed to be of limited duration or effective only so long as a stipulated circumstance prevails.
The Planning Act empowers the Committee, and this Tribunal on appeal, to impose conditions on any approval. The phrase "such conditions as the Committee considers advisable" as expressed in Subsection 45(9) of the Planning Act refers to circumstances or terms that are deemed suitable or recommended for a specific situation. It implies a degree of discretion or flexibility in determining what those conditions should be, based on the context or the needs of the parties involved.
Apart from specific matters which are deemed necessary to perform antecedent to access to the relief, such as payments or execution of agreements or applications for permits, the authority to impose conditions also relates to the placement of limitations meant to mitigate potential adverse impacts or control potential consequences which similarly may result in adverse effects.
Mindful of this jurisdiction, the Tribunal canvassed with Mr. Foderick the prospect of the requested variances being approved on condition that the Property be used as a place of worship for the purposes of an Orthodox Jewish congregation.
Mr. Foderick reacted instantly in support of such a condition and further indicated that he had, in fact, discussed such a possibility with his client, who indicated assent to such a condition.

CONCLUSION

The Tribunal, for the reasons expressed above, is satisfied that the requested variances satisfy the four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and should be approved.
As such, the appeal will be allowed and the variances, save for original Variance 5 (which has been withdrawn) and original Variance 6 which has been modified in order to refer to the correct clause of the Zoning By-law which is to be varied, are approved.
As also noted at the conclusion of the Issues discussion, the approval will be conditioned on the Property being used by the Appellant or any successor for the purposes of an Orthodox Jewish congregation.

DECISION AND ORDER

The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the following variances are approved ON CONDITION THAT the Property is used by the Appellant/Applicant, or any successor, for the purposes of an Orthodox Jewish congregation:

Approved Variances:

Chapter 10.5.80.10.(3), By-law No. 569-2013