Haaslo v. Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 72199

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 05, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200076

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Seyedeh Azam Shobeiri Zanjani, Oliver and Mehdi Haaslo

Appellant: Wilket Park Developments Inc.

Subject: By-law No. 1798-2019

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: PL200076

OLT File No.: PL200076

OLT Case Name: Haaslo v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Seyedeh Azam Shobeiri Zanjani, Oliver and Mehdi Haaslo

Appellant: Wilket Park Developments Inc.

Subject: By-law No. 1799-2019

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: PL200076

OLT File No.: PL200077

Heard: June 8-9, 2021 by Video Hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Wilket Park Developments Inc. (“Applicant”)

C. Barnett

City of Toronto (“City”)

D. Abimbola

Seyedeh Azam, Shobeiri Zanjani, and Medhi Haaslo (“Appellants”)

B. Teichman

DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR AND R.G.M. MAKUCH AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Zoning By-law Amendment appeal concerns the Applicant’s revised development proposal for the lands known municipally as 2535 and 2537 Bayview Avenue (“Subject Lands”) for the development of seven townhouse dwellings fronting onto Bayview Avenue with two single detached dwellings in the rear, which was supported by City Planning staff and recommended for approval to City Council.

2City Council accepted the Planning recommendation for the townhouses, but not the single detached dwellings in the rear.

3The Applicant appealed this decision of City Council as did the Appellants.

DECISION

4For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal will allow the Applicant’s appeal and approve the development proposal in principle as recommended to City Council by City Planning staff and dismiss the Appellants’ appeal. The Tribunal will withhold its Final Order for a period of 60 days to enable the Applicant and the City to finalize the Zoning By-law Amendments.

LEAD UP TO THE HEARING

5This matter was originally set down for a 4 day hearing.

6In the lead up to the hearing, the parties were able to scope the issues, and the number of witnesses was reduced to two. From that it was apparent that not all five hearing days would be required and that two days would likely be sufficient to complete the hearing. Unfortunately, counsel did not advise the Tribunal until the day prior to commencement of the hearing, when counsel for the Appellants requested that the hearing commence on June 8 as scheduled and the Tribunal stand down on June 9 to allow his witness to attend a personal appointment. The hearing would then resume on June 10. The parties were advised at that time that this was not acceptable given that the hearing had been scheduled since December 2020 and that all were aware of this including Franco Romano, the Appellants’ witness. Counsel are well aware that the demands on the Tribunal’s calendar are extensive and that every hearing day is a valuable commodity, which should be used effectively.

7Mr. Teichman renewed his request to stand down at the commencement of the hearing advising the Tribunal that Mr. Romano was scheduled to receive a COVID-19 vaccine on June 9. The Tribunal again refused the request and directed that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on June 9. Mr. Romano has known since December 2020 that the hearing had been scheduled between June 8 and 11, 2021 and should have made alternative arrangements.

8Thus, the Tribunal declined Mr. Teichman’s proposal, set time limits for examination in chief, cross examination, and oral submissions, and completed the hearing in two days.

BACKGROUND

9In December 2017, the Applicant filed a development proposal for twelve dwelling units, with eight 3 storey townhouses in two blocks of four units fronting onto Bayview Avenue, and four detached homes at the rear fronting onto a shared private driveway.

10Due to concerns raised, the Applicant responded with a revised application in January of 2019 and later refined in November of 2019 whereby, inter alia, the number of units decreased from twelve to nine, the floor space index (“FSI”) decreased from 1.12 to 0.80, and the minimum rear yard setback for the detached houses increased from 7.4 metres to 9.5 metres (“m”).

CONTEXT

11The Subject Lands consist of two parcels being 2535 Bayview Avenue and 2537 Bayview Avenue. At 2535 Bayview Avenue there is an existing single detached dwelling that has driveway access onto Bayview Avenue with a very generous front yard setback and a number of mature trees.

12Abutting to the north of 2535 Bayview Avenue is 2537 Bayview Avenue which was the site of the Armenian Emmanuel Church of the Nazarene. The church itself is located closer to Bayview Avenue and there is an extensive paved area in the side yard with paved parking area at the rear of the church building.

13The Subject Lands have an area of approximately 3,500 square metres (“sq m”) or about 0.86 acres. The Subject Lands have approximately 62.15 m of frontage onto Bayview Avenue with a depth at the northerly part of the Subject Lands of 53.39 m and a depth at the southerly portion of the Subject Lands of about 61 m due to the alignment of Bayview Avenue.

LOCAL CONTEXT

14To the north of the Subject Lands is a two-storey detached house at the corner of Bayview Avenue and Wilket Road. North of that at the northeast corner of Wilket Road and Bayview, a Zoning By-law Amendment has been approved for seven townhouses. Further to the north is the Irving Paisley Park and the York Mills Arena. To the south of the Subject Lands is a two storey detached dwelling at 2533 Bayview Avenue, owned by the Appellants. Further south of that are other detached homes which have rear lotting onto Bayview Avenue and actually front onto Wilket Road.

15To the east of the Subject Lands are a mix of one and two storey detached dwellings on large lots.

16To the west starting at the southwest corner of York Mills and Bayview is a shopping centre. South of that is a townhouse development at 2498 – 2512 Bayview Avenue, and further west the lands are predominantly detached homes.

17Along Bayview Avenue in the vicinity of the Subject Lands, there are the following existing and/or approved townhouse developments:

2 Wilket Road

2500 Bayview Avenue

103 Bayview Ridge

108 Bayview Ridge

2425 Bayview Avenue

2710 – 2722 Bayview Avenue

2706 Bayview Avenue

2673 – 2675 Bayview Avenue

2655 – 2659 Bayview Avenue and15 Old Colony Road

6 Baytree Crescent

2619 Bayview Avenue and 1 Heathcote Road

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

18Both the existing detached house at 2535 Bayview Avenue and the church are proposed to be demolished. The revised development proposal consists of seven townhouse units with a northerly block of three townhouse units, a southerly block of four townhouse units separated by a private lane, with two large detached dwellings located in the rear. The townhouse dwellings facing onto Bayview would have a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 m in the north section and 7.6 m in the south section. The project will be serviced by a private lane that would be 6 m wide for vehicular access but the separation distance between the townhouse blocks is 10 m.

19In the rear portion of the Subject Lands, the two large detached dwelling units would each have a minimum 9.5 m rear yard setback, a 3 m northerly side yard setback, 4 m separating the two dwellings (interior side yard), and a 6 m side yard setback for the southerly house. The detached dwelling would be two storeys (10.6 m), have a gross floor area of about 430 sq m, and three car garages.

20The townhouse units would be 3 storeys at 11 m in height, each unit having a width of 6.2 to 7.13 m, and a gross floor area of approximately 200 sq m, and all with two car parking spaces.

21There would be one visitor space located at the southerly portion of the property of the Subject Lands adjacent to the southerly detached dwelling.

BAYVIEW TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES

22In December of 2015 the City adopted the Bayview Townhouse Design Guidelines (“Bayview Guidelines”) for the area of Bayview Avenue between Lawrence Avenue East and Highway 401.

23The Introduction to the Bayview Guidelines indicates that Bayview Avenue is beginning to experience change with townhouse developments becoming more prevalent along the street and that these guidelines will assist in the review, design and approval of new and current townhouse developments.

CITY PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

24The Subject Lands are designated Neighbourhoods in the City’s Official Plan which permits townhouse development.

25The Subject Lands are subject to two Zoning By-laws. They are zoned in Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 as Residential Detached where a detached dwelling is the only permitted residential use. Zoning requirements include a minimum lot frontage of 30 m, the minimum required lot area is 1,100 sq m, the maximum height is 11.5 m and three storeys, and the maximum lot coverage 25% with 3 m side yard setbacks, a minimum front yard setback of 12 m, and a rear yard setback the greater of 7.5 m or 25% of the lot depth.

26The Subject Lands are also zoned One-Family Detached Dwellings First Density Zone (R1) under the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625. This zone allows for a detached dwelling with the same lot frontage and lot area as under the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 but the maximum height is 9.5 m and three storeys and a minimum front yard setback of 12 m along Bayview Avenue and a minimum rear yard of 9.5 m.

27Townhouses are not a permitted use under either the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 or the former City of North York By-law No. 7625, hence the Applicant’s request for a Zoning By-law Amendment.

CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING STAFF REPORT

28The City Planning Staff Report for the Subject Lands is dated as of November 15, 2019 wherein it recommended that:

1. City Council amend the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 for the lands at 2535 – 2537 Bayview Avenue substantially in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment No. 6 to this report.

2. City Council amend the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 for the lands at 2535 – 2537 Bayview Avenue substantially in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment No. 7 to this report.

3. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Zoning By-law Amendments as may be required.

29The Planning Report first went to the North York Community Council which council recommended a modified project for the Subject Lands to permit the seven townhouse dwellings along Bayview Avenue, but with no detached dwellings at the rear of the site.

30That recommendation was adopted by City Council as it passed Zoning By-law Nos. 1798-2019 and 1799-2019, the effect of which was to permit the seven 3 storey townhouses fronting onto Bayview Avenue.

31As noted above the Applicant appealed, as did the Appellants.

POLICY REGIME

32It is trite but important to note that Ontario’s land use planning system is led by provincial policy: s. 1.1 Planning Act (“PA”).

33In this regard the PA in s. 2 sets out matters of provincial interest for which the Tribunal must have regard for including:

h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

j) the adequate provision of a full range housing, including affordable housing;

p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

r) the promotion of a built form that:

i) is well designed;

ii) encourages a sense of place…

34Section 2.1 of the PA requires the Tribunal when it makes a decision relating to a planning matter, to have regard to any decision made by the municipal council, and any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority considered in making the decision.

35Section 3(5) of the Planning Act mandates that any decision of the Tribunal (and of City Council) shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and to conform to a Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020.

PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT: (“PPS”)

36The Vision Statement for the PPS provides that growth and development will be focused within settlement areas, seeking efficient development patterns, encouraging planning authorities to permit and facilitate a range of housing options including new development as well as residential intensification to respond to current and future needs.

37The Vision Statement continues that efficient development patterns optimize the use of land, resources and public investment and infrastructure and public service facilities.

38The Vision is implemented through the policies of the PPS including 1.1.1 Healthy Liveable and Safe Communities are sustained by:

b) accommodating an appropriate and market based range and mix of residential types;

e) promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit support of development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost effective development pattern, optimization of transit investments and standards to minimize consumption and servicing costs.

39The PPS states in s. 1.1.3.1 that settlement areas are to be the focus of growth and development and they shall use land use patterns that efficiently use land and resources. It provides in s. 1.1.3.3 that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit supportive development accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas and to do that s. 1.1.3.4 provides that appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form.

40Under s. 1.4 Housing, the PPS directs that planning authorities shall provide for the appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities and shall do so by permitting and facilitating the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public services are available and establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimizes the cost of housing and facilitates compact form while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.

41The PPS provides in 1.7 that long term economic prosperity should be supported by optimizing the long term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure and public services.

42Finally, under Implementation and Interpretation, s. 4.6 provides that the official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this PPS. Comprehensive, integrated and long term planning is best achieved through official plans.

A PLACE TO GROW: GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE (“GROWTH PLAN”)

43Under the heading Where and How to Grow in s. 2.1 the Growth Plan provides that:

It is important to optimize the use of the existing urban land supply as well as the existing building and housing stock to avoid over-designating land for future urban development while also providing flexibility for local decision-makers to respond to housing need and market demand. This Plan’s emphasis on optimizing the use of the existing urban land supply represents an intensification first approach to development and city–building, one which focuses on making better use of our existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and less on continuously expanding the urban area. (Emphasis added)

44Thus the Growth Plan directs the vast majority of growth to settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary and directs that within those areas all municipalities will develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout the delineated built-up area and encourage intensification generally throughout the delineated built-up area and be implemented through official plan policies and designations, updated zoning and other supporting documents.

CITY’S OFFICIAL PLAN

45As noted above the Subject Lands are designated Neighbourhoods in the City’s Official Plan. In the (non policy) text to s. 4.1 Neighbourhoods, the Official Plan indicates that lower scale residential buildings in Toronto neighbourhoods consist of detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes and various forms of townhouses as well as interspersed walk-up apartments with or without elevators that are four storeys or less.

46Turning to the policy regime, s. 4.1.1 specifically permits townhouses within the Neighbourhoods designation.

47Turning to the development criteria for Neighbourhoods, the text provides that while communities experience constant social and demographic change, the general physical character of Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods endures. Physical changes to established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and “fit” the existing physical character. A key objective of the City Official Plan is that new development respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in the Neighbourhood.

48Section 4 of the Official Plan then goes on to set out the policy format with the development criteria as follows:

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

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;

d) prevailing building type(s);

e) prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages;

f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscape open space;

h) continuation of special landscape or built form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic Neighbourhood; and

i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.

The geographic neighbourhoods for the purpose of this policy will be delineated by considering the context within the Neighbourhood in proximity to a proposed development, including: zoning; prevailing building type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features. Lots fronting onto a major street shown on Map 3 and designated Neighbourhoods are to be distinguished from lots in the interior of the block adjacent to that street in accordance with Policy 6 in order to recognize the potential for a more intense form of development along major streets to the extent permitted by this Plan. …

Lots fronting onto a major street, and flanking lots to the depth of the fronting lots, are often situated in geographic neighbourhoods distinguishable from those located in the interior of the Neighbourhood due to characteristics such as:

Different lot configurations

Better access to public transit

Adjacency to developments with varying heights, massing and scale; or

Direct exposure to greater volumes of traffic on adjacent and nearby streets. (Emphasis added)

49Section 5 of the Official Plan deals with implementation and s. 5.3.2 deals with Implementation Plans and Strategies for City Building. The introductory text provides that the Official Plan provides for a long term vision based on principles that are durable but detailed action-oriented plans, programs and strategies will be needed to implement the Plan and to adapt to changing circumstances and challenges over the life of the Plan. In that regard the sidebar under the heading “Existing and Proposed Implementation Plans and Strategies” clearly indicates that urban design guidelines should provide a more detailed framework for built form and public improvements in growth areas and the policy provision for that is found in s. 5.3.2.1 which provides that although there may be guidelines adopted by City Council and they express council policy, they are not part of the Official Plan unless the Official Plan has specifically been amended to include them.

BAYVIEW GUIDELINES

50The Tribunal will now turn to the Bayview Guidelines mentioned above. Under the heading Mandate, the Bayview Guidelines note that City Council in 2013 adopted a motion directing Staff to review the appropriate development framework for lots abutting Bayview Avenue between Highway 401 and Lawrence Avenue East with the focus of the study being to develop design guidelines to be used for studying and evaluating development applications for townhouses along this segment of Bayview Avenue. The Mandate provision also indicates that these design guidelines will provide detailed implementation guidance and respond to changing circumstances and priorities specifically to the Bayview Avenue context.

51Section 3.1 provides that townhouses should only be sited on lots fronting onto Bayview Avenue. In this regard Figure 21 provides that certain properties were excluded from the study which include four lots south of the Appellants’ property all of which have frontage onto Wilket Road and have rear lots facing onto Bayview Avenue. While those lots are within the study area, they are specifically excluded from the study in Figure 21 and this is explained in s. 1.5 as lots which were rear-lotted along Bayview Avenue, were deemed inappropriate for townhouses.

52Of note for this appeal, s. 3.4.14 states that where lot depth permits, neighbourhood house(s) should be provided that meet the minimum standards of the application zoning by-law. The text provides that: “On sites where the lot is deep enough, one or more “neighbourhood house(s)”, detached dwellings on separate (lot(s), should be introduced or maintained on site to provide an appropriate fit between the new townhouse development on Bayview Avenue and the existing adjacent stable residential neighbourhood”. (Emphasis added)

53The policy further states that: “They should meet the existing zoning-by-law requirements found in the adjacent neighbourhood, including lot frontage, lot area, lot coverage, setbacks, heights and landscape space, which will help to reinforce the existing lot and built form patterns found within the neighbourhood”. (Emphasis added)

54The policy goes on to address development on corner lots and then states that: “On deeper mid-block sites, address and access to an existing house or new neighbourhood house(s) should be maintained or provided” and Figure 39 provides a sketch of a new neighbourhood house or existing neighbourhood house maintained with a new townhouse development in a mid-block condition. (Emphasis added)

55The Guidelines then in s. 4.0 note that there is a varying nature of lot depths along Bayview Avenue and three lot types were identified which include shallow, medium and deep lots in both mid-block and corner conditions. Separate guidelines were developed for each of the three lot types.

56Of interest for this matter is that the difference between medium sites and deep sites is simply based on the ability of the lot to accommodate the new neighbourhood house or maintain an existing detached dwelling, and (should) comply with the underlying zoning by-law requirements.

THE HEARING

57The Tribunal heard two land use planning witnesses: Sean McGaffey, qualified as an expert in land use planning with a focus on urban design, and Franco Romano, qualified as an expert in land use planning.

58The Tribunal would note that while the City appeared in support of the decision of City Council to approve the seven townhouses that front onto Bay Street, no direct evidence of any kind was called on behalf of the City.

59In essence the evidence of Mr. Romano was that:

• The Subject Lands are designated Neighbourhoods an area that is planned for stability with little physical change;

• His “neighbourhood” was a modest stretch of Bayview Avenue of about 800 m;

• The Subject Lands are zoned Detached Residential which permits one residential building per lot fronting onto a public road;

• That the planned context pursuant to the Official Plan is as per the existing zoning, detached residential;

• That the building setbacks along Bayview in the vicinity of the Subject Lands are generous establishing a significant landscape character highlighted by ample building setbacks which enhance the landscape streetscape and the existing character is one of conventional lot structure, site layouts and overall physical form;

• That the development proposal is an unconventional form of residential development that does not respect or reinforce the neighbourhood’s physical character;

• That the proposed townhouse development represents over-development and does not represent good planning and should not be approved.

60In contrast, the City focused its evidence with regard to s. 3.4.1(d) of the Official Plan in terms of the encouragement of the preservation and enhancement of the urban forest, increasing tree canopy coverage, and regulating the injury and destruction of trees. The City’s submission was that the deletion of the two proposed detached dwellings in the rear yard would save some existing trees and add to the City’s tree canopy and also significantly increase the open space and amenity area on the Subject Lands.

61The evidence from Mr. McGaffey on behalf of the Applicant was that contrary to the “neighbourhood” area advanced by Mr. Romano that ranged only from the Canadian Film Centre to York Mills Road: thus was only 800 m of approximately a 3.5 kilometre length of the Bayview Guidelines study area.

62While Mr. Romano opined that the planned context for the Subject Lands “can occur within the existing zoning by-law permissions” Mr. McGaffey indicated that this ignores the reality of land use planning in Ontario which is led by provincial policy.

63It was Mr. McGaffey’s opinion that the planned context of the Subject Lands has to be informed by all of the relevant policies including the PPS, the Growth Plan and the Bayview Guidelines, which are Council policy, although not official plan policy.

64With regard to the provision of the detached dwellings in the rear yard, he indicated that the detached dwellings were permitted uses within the Zoning By-law, that detached dwellings at the rear of the townhouses that would face onto Bayview Avenue were specifically considered in the Bayview Guidelines, that in his opinion and supported by the City Planning staff and contrary to Mr. Romano, the Subject Lands were sufficiently deep to accommodate the detached dwellings and that the proposed house forms were large (in the range of 430 sq m), had a minimum 9.5 m rear yard setback, complied with the height as required in Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, and would conform with the 3 m side-yard setback for the northerly house and the southerly house had a 6.0 m side-yard setback.

COMMENTARY AND FINDINGS

65To the Tribunal, the Subject Lands are located within a settlement area, in a Built-Up Area, and in an area earmarked for potential intensification by a City study with design guidelines.

66The Subject Lands, with over 62 metres of lot frontage with a depth that ranges from 53.4 m to over 61 m deep, are currently underutilized.

67Of the Subject Lands, the former church at 2537 Bayview Avenue had an extensive area simply for paved surface parking, whereas the lot at 2535 has an extensive front yard setback from Bayview Avenue.

68The Tribunal notes that the Official Plan specifically allows townhouses as-of-right in the Neighbourhoods designation.

69Bayview Avenue is a major street and the City’s Official Plan specifically notes that lots fronting onto major streets are to be distinguished from lots in the interior recognizing the potential for a more intense form of development along a major street.

70The City adopted the Bayview Guidelines in 2015 the purpose of which has been to assist in the design review and approval of new and current townhouse developments. The Subject Lands fall within the study area, unlike some properties in the immediate context that are excluded due to rear lotting.

71The Tribunal finds that the appropriate geographic context is within the Bayview Guidelines as informed by the PPS and the Growth Plan and not within the constructed 800 m range fabricated by Mr. Romano, which ignores the PPS and the Growth Plan.

72Within the Bayview Guidelines study area, Exhibit 4 illustrates more than ten other existing and approved townhouse developments: some are corner block and there are others that are mid-block such as the Subject Lands. There has been at least one such development approval that has a detached home in the rear.

73The Tribunal observes that the Bayview Guidelines specifically anticipate that there may be mid-block development, and that there may be deeper sites located in the middle of blocks that may accommodate new neighbourhood house(s).

74The Tribunal notes the language in Bayview Guideline 14 where it states in reference to the neighbourhood house(s): “…They should meet the existing zoning by-law requirements found in the adjacent Neighbourhood including lot frontage, lot area, lot coverage, setbacks, heights, landscape space which would help reinforce the existing lot and built form patterns found in the neighbourhood.” (Emphasis added)

75In this regard the Tribunal notes the City Planning Staff report to Council which provides:

The detached houses are organized along the new-north-south portion of the shared driveway with front doors visible from Bayview Avenue along the east-west portion of the driveway. … Additionally, the two detached houses on the east portion of the site would be compatible with the existing houses fronting onto Wyegate Court. Both the townhouses and detached houses have various front, rear and side yard landscape areas abutting the neighbours and Bayview Avenue which is in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood and the Bayview Townhouse Design Guidelines.

76Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the detached dwellings have a height of 10.6 m whereas 11.5 m is allowed in the Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. The detached houses would have a minimum side yard setback of 3 m and a minimum rear yard setback of 9.5 m which would comply with the side yard setback and achieve the minimum rear yard setback in one of the City Zoning By-laws.

77The City Planning Staff report to Council concludes:

The proposed front, side and rear yard setbacks with separation distances between all buildings are appropriate in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood and the Bayview Townhouse Design Guidelines.

78The Tribunal is satisfied that the Subject Lands have sufficient depth to accommodate the detached dwellings.

79With regard to the City’s submission that the elimination of the two detached dwellings would conform to the City’s Official Plan and preserve existing trees and enhance the urban forestry canopy, the Tribunal notes that the City Planning Staff report identifies that Urban Forestry had no objections to the revised development proposal but rather requested a total of 45 new large-growing native trees be planted at a replacement ratio of 3:1.

80To the Tribunal, it finds that: the PPS and the Growth Plan direct intensification in settlement areas and built-up areas; and the PPS and the Growth Plan direct compact and efficient forms of development to optimize existing infrastructure. While the Appellants and the City suggest that it would be poor land use planning to have the two detached dwellings in the rear, the Tribunal disagrees, as it finds that the PPS and Growth Plan mandate the intensification, in a compact and efficient form to optimize the existing land supply.

81The Tribunal clearly prefers the evidence of Mr. McGaffey and the professional land use planning opinion provided by the City Planning staff in support of the application for the seven townhouses fronting onto Bayview Avenue with the two detached dwellings in the rear.

82The Tribunal finds that such a development would have appropriate regard for the Provincial Interests found in s. 2 of the Planning Act specifically with regard to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities (h) the adequate provision of a full range of housing (j) the appropriate location of growth and development (p) and the promotion of a built form that is well designed and encourages a sense of place (r).

83Further the Tribunal finds that the revised development would be consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan by providing a modest form of intensification on under-utilized lands that formerly were occupied by a church with a large surface parking area, and one detached house with a large front yard setback from Bayview Avenue. The Tribunal finds that the revised development proposal conforms to the City’s Official Plan, implements the City’s Bayview Guidelines for townhouses within the Bayview Study Area and represents good land use planning.

84The Tribunal will therefore allow the Applicant’s appeal of the revised development proposal, but at the request of counsel will withhold its Final Order for a period of 60 days from the issuance date of this Decision, to enable the Applicant and the City to finalize the proposed Zoning By-laws.

85The cross appeal by the Appellants is wholly dismissed.

86This is the Interim Order of the Tribunal.

“Blair S. Taylor”

BLAIR S. TAYLOR

MEMBER

“R.G.M. Makuch”

r.G.M. makuch

vice-chair

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.