≡ Menu

What the OMB said when approving the plans

In its final order issued on May 28, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) allowed applicant Kevin Hall to successfully appeal the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (COA) to deny minor variances for his property located at 28 Rumsey Rd.

The decision paves the way for Hall to demolish an existing house at the location and to replace it with a new two-storey home.

Stephen Chamberlain and Nicole Brasseur, residents of abutting property 22 Rumsey Rd., were concerned that the new development was “too large” and “too close” to their home, and might create a feeling of being “walled-in.”  

The couple, who were granted party status at the OMB hearing on March 20, as well as members of the Leaside Property Owners’ Association (LPOA), who were granted participant status, worried that 12 variances Hall had originally sought would create a structure that blocked views and sunlight, diminished property values, as well as failed to conform to Leaside’s heritage and architectural character.

In a meeting with Chamberlain and Brasseur prior to the hearing, Hall agreed to eliminate four variances, including those involving roof eaves projections, building height, and parking space dimensions, as well as to revise  four others, including the south side yard setback, floor space indexes, and maximum lot coverage dimensions.

Maher Rahim, a Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, provided both oral and documentary evidence in support of the application.

In his opinion the proposal met the requirements of the Planning Act, respected the physical character of Leaside, as well as conformed to recent renovations and/or rebuilds in the area that obtained COA and OMB approvals.

In arriving at its final decision, the OMB not only accepted but adopted the uncontested planning and expert opinion evidence of Rahim.

The board further stipulated that it was satisfied that the variances, both individually and accumulatively, “did not result in the creation of adverse impacts to adjacent properties of the neighbourhood as a whole, and are therefore, minor in nature.”