Other Tribunals - OTLAB

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a lot into two and associated minor variances for lot frontage and area to permit the construction of two fourplexes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot sizes and frontages respected the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal approved the severance and variances subject to conditions requiring the planting of an additional street tree and the retention of an arborist to supervise tree protection and replacement during construction.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to demolish a single-family dwelling and garage and replace them with a new dwelling and a two-storey garage.

The appellant amended the application to reduce the requested variances.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and respected the physical character of the neighbourhood, particularly given the unique context of the adjacent laneway.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing fourteen variances required to bring a dwelling into compliance with the Zoning By-law.

In an earlier interim decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal subject to a condition that privacy screening be installed on the rear platform.

The appellant submitted affidavit evidence confirming the installation of the required privacy screens.

The tribunal found the condition was fulfilled and issued a final order authorizing the variances.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of two garden suites on the footprint of an existing garage.

The proposed garden suites would have a gross floor area larger than the existing primary residence on the lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented good planning, provided gentle intensification on a Major Street, and met the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances for a property on Alfred Avenue.

The appellant argued the presiding Member violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by rejecting the expert witness's qualitative analysis, ignoring a prior TLAB decision, and mischaracterizing the quantitative evidence regarding comparable lot sizes in the neighbourhood.

The reviewing Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Member correctly applied the Official Plan's prescriptive directives for neighbourhood character, was not bound by prior TLAB decisions, and accurately assessed the lack of comparable lot frontages and areas in the immediate context.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a proposed warehouse development in an employment area.

Following an interim decision that approved side yard and driveway variances but required the removal of a front yard loading space, the appellant sought an additional variance to reduce the access width to a rear loading space from 6.0m to 3.65m.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the amendment minor, requiring no further notice.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence and a swept path analysis accepted by the City, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variance.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize an existing dwelling that was constructed contrary to its building permit.

The application was amended to 14 variances based on updated as-built drawings.

The City of Toronto and a neighbourhood association opposed the appeal, arguing the dwelling's height, flat roof, and high floor space index (FSI) were out of character and set a negative precedent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the FSI was inflated by the lot's shoreline hazard area and that the dwelling's articulation mitigated its massing.

The Tribunal concluded the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to a privacy screening condition.

The Appellant requested an adjournment of a Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing on the morning of the scheduled date because their counsel was suffering from a debilitating flu and had lost his voice.

The Tribunal considered Rule 23.3 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Noting that the opposing party present did not object and actually wished counsel a quick recovery, the Tribunal found the grounds for an adjournment were met.

The hearing was rescheduled to a mutually agreeable date.

The owner of an apartment building requested a review of a TLAB decision that dismissed an appeal and refused minor variances to convert ground-floor storage lockers into two residential units.

The owner argued the TLAB acted outside its jurisdiction by considering the loss of tenant storage lockers and other operational factors, which are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The TLAB review dismissed the request, finding that the original member acted within their jurisdiction by considering the broader public interest and the impact of the proposal on the existing building and tenants when applying the four tests under the Planning Act.