Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body regarding 65 Fortieth Street in Long Branch is in favour of the local community
You can access the TLAB decision of Oct. 14, 2022 regarding the property in question at this link (it may take some time to download):
The back story (from the PDF available at the above-noted link) is as follows:
REVIEW REQUEST NATURE AND RULE COMPLIANCE TO INITIATE
This matter involves the request to review (Review/Request) a Decision and Order of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) issued January 13, 2022 (“Decision”) where Panel Chair Shaheynoor Talukder (“Chair”) allowed an Appeal respecting 65 Fortieth Street, refusing both the Consent to Sever, as well as the variances requested for the houses to built on the lots resulting from the severance. The Applicant requested a Review of the Decision on February 10, 2022.
The Request was subject to an Administrative Review pursuant to Rule 31 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) of the TLAB and reported as having no procedural issues. The Request qualified to be conducted pursuant to Rule 31 as it has existed after May 6, 2019, when the revised Rules were promulgated
Sarvin Maysami is the owner of 65 Fortieth Street, located in Ward 3 (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) of the City of Toronto. She applied to the Committee of Adjustment (COA) to sever the property located at 65 Fortieth Street (Subject Property/Site) into two lots. The owner planned to demolish the existing house on the subject property and build a detached dwelling with an integral garage on each of the severed lots.
The COA approved the Owner’s applications for severance and variances. The City of Toronto (City) appealed the COA’s decision, to the TLAB. The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) elected for Party status, while many residents in the Long Branch area elected to be Participants.
After hearing the matter over 8 days from August 19, 2019, to February 9, 2021, the Panel Chair, Ms. Shaheynoor Talukder (the “Chair”) delivered her Decision on January 13, 2022 (the “Decision”), where she allowed the Appeals, refusing both the severance, as well as the variances to build the houses on the two lots.
The Applicants requested for a review of the Decision on February 10, 2022. The Appeal fulfilled administrative screening, resulting in the Decision being assigned to me for Review. I advised the Parties in opposition to the Application that they had until March 25, 2022, to make submissions. The City, and the LBNA made submissions on March 25, 2022.
I lived in Long Branch from 1997 until 2018 when I moved with my family to Stratford, Ontario.
Long Branch Neighbourhood Association
I am very highly inspired by the work of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association. Since moving to Stratford, I have been an associate (non-voting) member of the LBNA.
A related topic concerns community self-organizing, which I have been involved with for close to 35 years as a volunteer.
Another related topic concerns language usage.
65 Fortieth Street
Some previous posts are entitled:
Excerpt from Oct. 14, 2022 TLAB decision regarding 65 Fortieth Street
Below is an excerpt from the conclusion of the Oct. 14, 2022 TLAB decision regarding 65 Fortieth Street.
Question 3: Does the lack of analysis of the requested variances under the four tests seen in Section 45.1 constitute a reviewable error?
While it is true that in the “Matters in Issue” Section, the Chair sets out the question of “Whether the variances individually and cumulatively satisfy the four tests” constitute a “key test” in Paragraph 52, she also makes the following finding at Page 13 of her 19 page Decision.
52. Finally, I find that the variances, individually and cumulatively, are intimately connected to the proposed severance and the variance for lot frontage. In this circumstance, it is not appropriate or necessary to address the individual variances further as their respective lot severance application is not supported.
The reason for the Chair’s not analyzing the variances, or making findings on the requests for variances is crystal clear – such analysis becomes moot because the variances, come into play if and only if the dwellings can be constructed on the severed lots, which require the severance application to be successful. Should the consent to sever not be successful, as is the case here, the question of whether the variances are approvable, or not becomes a matter of theoretical, or academic interest – from a findings perspective, the result is a difference without a distinction.
Given that the analysis preferred by the Applicants would not made any difference to the final Decision, there is no demonstrable connection between this ground and Rules 31.7 (b) and 31.7 (c), which speaks to the violation of the rules of natural justice, and procedural fairness.
On the basis of this analysis, I find that the Chair fulfilled her duty by analyzing pertinent evidence, and presented her findings such that the path can be reproduced by a different individual. There is no reviewable error committed by the Chair because there is no demonstrable nexus between the Decision, and Sections 31.7 (b) and (c) of the Rules.
Given my findings that there are no reviewable errors made with respect to each of the three questions raised in the “Matters in Issue” Section, I find that the Review Request respecting 65 Fortieth Street should be refused, and herewith confirm the Decision released by Member Shaheynoor Talukder on January 13, 2022.
DECISION AND ORDER
1. The Request for a Review respecting 65 Fortieth Street is denied. The Decision, issued by Member Shaheynoor Talukder dated January 13, 2022, is herewith confirmed.
So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body.