Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 2, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001677
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Lara Papa
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 – Neglect or Refusal of application by Township of King
Existing Zoning: Residential - single detached "D" (R1D)
Proposed Zoning: Residential - single detached “D”
Purpose: To permit development of two single-family buildings on two lots proposed to be created from the Subject Property, as sought in a separately filed application for consent to convey
Property Address/Description: 32 Marlynn Court
Municipality: Township of King
Municipal File No.: Z-2021-11
OLT Case Lead No.: OLT-21-001677
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001677
OLT Case Name: Papa v. King (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(14) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Lara Papa
Subject: Application for Consent - Failure of Township of King to make a decision
Purpose: To sever the land into two residential lots
Property Address/Description: 32 Marlynn Court
Municipality: Township of King
Municipal File No.: 06-B-21
OLT Case Lead No.: OLT-21-001677
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001675
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Lara Papa
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 32 Marlynn Court,
Variance from By-law: Zoning By-law 2017-66
Municipality: Township of King
Municipal File No.: 52-A-20
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001677
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001240
Heard: June 15, 2022 by Video Hearing
Parties
Counsel
Lara Papa
J. Alati J. Cole
Township of King
P. Harrington
DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal was the hearing of the merits for the appeals under s. 45(12) and 53(14) of the Planning Act, for the Township of King (the “Township”) Committee of Adjustment’s (the “CoA”) refusal of the applications of minor variance and consent to sever, by Lara Papa (the “Applicant”) the property municipally known as 32 Marlynn Court (the “Subject Property”) located in the Village of Schomberg community.
2The Applicant also made an appeal to the Tribunal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, for a Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”) application. However, prior to the beginning of the Tribunal’s proceedings the Applicant withdrew the ZBLA appeal.
3The Subject Property is a vacant lot that is located on the corner of Marlynn Court, with a 30 metre frontage, and Moore Park Drive with a 61.75 metres of frontage. While there are no existing dwelling structures located on the Subject Property, the lot was created as part of a planned subdivision and is serviced by existing municipal infrastructure. The area surrounding the Subject Property is primarily single detached dwellings with a mix of architectural styles.
4It is the intent of the Applicant to sever the property to allow for the construction of two single detached dwellings that would front onto Moore Park Drive. It is the Applicant’s request that the retained lot, which would be located at the corner of Marlynn Court and Moore Park Drive, would have a frontage along Moore Park Drive of 60 metres. In the revised application to address concerns, the retained lot will front onto Marlynn Court. The severed lot would consist of 21.75 metres of frontage onto Moore Park Drive.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
5In making its decision, the Tribunal took into account the following exhibits submitted by the Parties for its consideration:
Exhibit 1a) – Joint Document Book
Exhibit 1b) – Excerpt of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “Growth Plan”), policy 2.2.6
Exhibit 1c) – 32 Marlynn Severance Sketch
Exhibit 2 – Compendium of Expert Witness Statements
Exhibit 3 – ICBL Planning Report
Exhibit 4 – Study Area Map with Addresses
Exhibit 5 – Backyard Photographs
EXPERT WITNESSES
6For the ease of the reader, the Tribunal qualified without objections Jonathan Sasso for the Applicant, and Paul Kulyk for the Township, to give expert witness testimony in the field of land use planning.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
7In making its decisions the Tribunal must have regard to those matters of provincial interest outlined in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (the “PPS”) and conforms or does not conflict with the Growth Plan pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Planning Act.
Provincial Policy Statement 2020
8It was the opinion of Mr. Sasso, that the applications are consistent with the policy intent of the PPS as it is an infill project of a vacant lot, that is located within a built-up area, and is considered to be efficient land-use planning.
9In particular. Mr. Sasso stated that the proposed applications meet the directives of the PPS under s. 1.1.1:
1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by:
a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term;
b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types (including single-detached, additional residential units, multi-unit housing, affordable housing and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial), institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs;
e) promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs;
10In addition to the above noted policy, Mr. Sasso further testified that the proposed applications are an infill project that would utilize existing municipal infrastructure and services, is an appropriate development that is appropriate intensification of an under-utilized lot that meets the criteria of PPS s. 1.1.3.2 directives for land use patterns, and 1.1.3.3 directives for intensification that provides a range of housing options.
11Mr. Kulyk did not disagree that there are intensification policies within the PPS, however he stressed that the primary vehicle to implement these PPS policies are through the lens of a municipality official plan. Mr. Kulyk informed the Tribunal that the new “Our King” Official Plan (the “OP”) expressly states that intensification is not encouraged within areas identified as Established Neighbourhoods.
Growth Plan
12It was the testimony of Mr. Sasso, that the proposed application conforms with the principles of the Growth Plan.
13The severance of the vacant Subject Property to create two lots with single detached dwellings, in an existing built-up neighbourhood with existing municipal infrastructure supports the guiding principles of s. 1.2.1.
14Mr. Sasso opined that the intensification represented in the proposed development contributes to the density targets and the mix of housing options as desired in s. 2.2.6.1 and s. 2.2.6.2 of the Growth Plan.
THE FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE
15In determining this matter, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an application for a minor variance has met the four tests as prescribed under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
16The Applicant has requested the following listed minor variances.
17Variances to the retained lot:
(a) The proposed height for a two-storey dwelling on the retained lot is 9.785 metres (north) and 9.125 metres (east) metres whereas a maximum height of 9 metres is permitted;
(b) The minimum lot area for the retained lot is 1069.31 square metres is proposed whereas the By-law states that the minimum lot area shall be “As legally existing”; and
(c) The proposed pervious surface area (as a % of a lot) for the retained lot is 43.52% whereas a minimum of 45% is required.
18Variances for the severed lot:
(a) The proposed height for a two-storey dwelling on the severed lot is 10.261 metres (east) 10.45 metres (west) and 11.841 metres (north), whereas a maximum height of 9 metres is permitted.
(b) The minimum lot area for the severed lot is 680.35 square metres, whereas the By-law states that the minimum lot area shall be “As legally existing”.
(c) The proposed coverage for the severed lot is 33%, whereas a maximum of 30% is permitted.
(d) A minimum interior side yard setback for the severed lot is 2.4 metres (measured to the exterior stairwell) whereas 3.4 metres is required.
Does the application conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
19In September 2019, the Council for the Township approved the new OP called “Our King”, which was approved by the Council for York Region a year later. “Our King” has a number of appeals that are before the Tribunal. Both expert witnesses agreed that at the time that the Applicant submitted the applications the policies for the Schomberg Community Plan had still been in effect and remain the enforceable policies for this application.
20The Subject Property is located as part of the Schomberg Community Plan and is designated under schedule “A” of the Schomberg Community Plan as Low Density Residential.
21Mr. Sasso testified that s. 3.5.4 of the Schomberg Community Plan defines the permitted uses of Low Density Residential as being limited to:
single attached or detached dwellings, two-unit dwellings, such as small-detached and duplex dwellings, home occupation uses and, public and institutional uses which are complimentary and compatible with the basic residential function of the area.
22He further stated that the Schomberg Community Plan policies call for a priority for infill projects that are in areas considered to be residential in nature and are fully serviced by municipal water and sewage infrastructure.
23Under s. 8.5 of the Schomberg Community Plan, the plan has policies to deal with an application for a Consent to Land Severance. Mr. Sasso took the Tribunal to two specific policies under s. 8.5:
(e) a consent to a land severance shall generally be given favourable consideration if it has the effect of infilling;
(i) it shall further be the policy of this Plan that a consent to a land severance shall generally be denied where the effect is to create a Lot of disproportionate depth and width.
24It was the opinion of Mr. Sasso that the proposed construction of the two dwellings on the vacant Subject Property is an appropriate infill project. He further opined, that the nature of the proposed lots sizes and proposed building form are consistent and complimentary to the other existing dwelling forms in the area neighbourhood.
25In the expert opinion of Mr. Sasso, the application for the proposed minor variances maintains the general intent and conforms with the Schomberg Community Plan.
26While the OP policies of “Our King” are not subject to these appeals, Mr. Sasso stated that due consideration and regard has been given to the new OP. The Subject Property is designated to be part of an Established Neighbourhood in Schedule “D3” Village of Schomberg Land Use Designation. These policies direct that the objectives of the OP are to maintain and protect the character of the existing low density neighbourhoods. The new OP policies continue to recognize that corner lots have a unique characteristic that can be larger than interior lots. It further directs under s. 5.5.4 that “the creation of new lots for residential purposes is not encouraged and is not permitted in the Established Neighbourhood designation except by way of a Zoning By-law Amendment”.
27It is the opinion of Mr. Sasso, that the proposed applications would contribute to the character of low-density development that is intended for the existing stable neighbourhood. He further opined that while respecting the intent of the OP policies, it can not be expected that established neighbourhoods are to remain static.
28In contrast, it was the opinion of Mr. Kulyk that the proposed minor variances to the severed lot, do not meet the general intent and purpose of the Schomberg Community Plan. The Township continues to maintain that the scale and character of the proposed development do not reflect the character of the area.
29It was the testimony of Mr. Kulyk, that the proposed development massing and building height are considerable in comparison to the immediate neighbourhood area. While from the street perspective the proposed development of the severed lot would have a building height of two-storey, the property slopes in such a way that the rear would have a three-storey height causing the potential of privacy issues for neighbouring lots.
30Mr. Kulyk did confirm that with the re-orientation and updated proposed building design, the retained lot now in his opinion has been substantively changed to better reflect the scale and character of the neighbourhood area.
31With regards to the “Our King” OP, it is the opinion of Mr. Kulyk that the proposed lot area and depth do not satisfy s. 5.5.4.1 a) or 5.5.4.1 h) and would not meet the general purpose and intent of the new “Our King” OP.
Does the application conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
32Zoning By-law 2017-66 regulates the land uses, building structures, scale and massing for the lands in the Village of Schomberg. The Subject Property is zoned single detached “D” R1D.
33It is the expert opinion of Mr. Sasso, that the proposed development of two new single detached dwellings is consistent with the intent and permitted uses in Zoning By-law 2017-66.
34When it comes to the Lot Area, Mr. Sasso explained that the Subject Property is 1,749.66 square metres. The proposed severance would include a retained lot of 1,069.31 square metres and the severed lot would be 680.35 square metres.
35The Tribunal was informed that in the July 21, 2021 planning report to the CoA, staff stated that:
the intent of the Urban Areas Zoning By-law in establishing a lot area minimum of ‘As legally existing’ was to remove a numerical standard from the majority of residential zones for the purposes of setting the lot size according to the existing lot fabric and maintain the character of the established neighbourhoods throughout the villages. The intent is clear that any changes to lot area would require an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw, since a non-numerical standard would be difficult to obtain relief from, especially when considering a reduction in lot area to support the creation of a new lot. As such, a Minor Variance application, requesting any relief, would not be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning by-law in this regard
36Mr. Sasso expressed his concerns that the staff interpretation of the above noted policy would preclude the ability of an individual to file an application for a minor variance, and gives no consideration for an oversized lot to be used for a potential infill development.
37It was noted by Mr. Sasso, that the By-law requirements do not give an established standard but uses the language of “As legally existing” to define lot area. As previously stated by Mr. Sasso, the proposed consent of severance to the Subject Property is comparable to other corner lots within the immediate neighbourhood.
38Lot coverage is allowed for a maximum of 30% of the total lot. Mr. Sasso testified that the proposed lot coverage for the severed lot is requested to be 33% and that includes an uncovered deck. The application for the severed lot also requests a variance for the side yard setback from 3.4 metres to 2.4 metres. Building heights are permitted to have a maximum of 9 metres. The proposed dwelling on the retained lot would have a height requested at 9.79 metres, and the proposed dwelling on the severed lot would have a height requested at 11.84 metres. In his opinion these requested variances meet the general intent of the of the Zoning By-law and should be considered minor.
39Mr. Kulyk informed the Tribunal that the Township had conducted a Zoning By-law Review that identified building envelopes and built forms for existing dwellings and new lot creation withing residential neighbourhoods. Through this process the Township identified that the ‘As legally existing’ residential lot areas would become the minimum zoning standard replacing the 1,400 square metre numerical standard as identified in Zoning By-law No. 74-53.
40It is the opinion of Mr. Kulyk that the application does not meet the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 2017-66. As the minimum lot coverage no longer uses the 1,400 square metre standard, the ‘As legally existing’ minimum lot coverage for the Subject Property is 1,749.66 square metres. Mr. Kulyk stated that zone standards are intentionally rigid to ensure that changes to the existing parcel fabric, in an established neighbourhood, are to be addressed through a ZBLA approved by Council.
Are the variances considered desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property?
41It is the opinion of Mr. Sasso, that the proposed infill development, creating two new single detached dwellings, supports the provincial policies by creating modest intensification. The built-forms and created lot sizes are consistent with the context of the existing neighbourhood. He believes that the requested variances are appropriate and desirable.
42Mr. Kulyk testified that he would accept that the residential type being proposed is appropriate if the building height and massing was more in line with the Township policies.
43The grading of the proposed retained lot results in a building height request that is not as significant as the severed lot. It is the position of Mr. Kulyk that this will result in the severed lot requiring a significant building height variance that is not an appropriate development of the Subject Property.
Is the variance minor in nature?
44In the testimony of Mr. Sasso, he indicated that the creation of the new lots and the minor variances sought to construct the two new dwellings, on a vacant lot with municipal services is minor in nature. He stated that the proposal to create one new lot is minimal and does not add any negative shadow, traffic, or parking impacts.
45Mr. Kulyk gave the opinion that some, but not all, of the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature. However, what Mr. Kulyk noted is that the requested variances to the proposed building heights for the severed lot should not be considered minor in nature. The request would seek an increase of up to 11.84 metres in height from the zoning standard of 9 metres. He further reiterated that the creation of the small lot sizes is a significant reduction from the ‘As legally exists’ 1,749.66 square metres.
CONSENT OF SEVERANCE
46The Tribunal in considering the planning evidence before it, must determine if the application for a consent of severance is proper and orderly development of the Subject Property pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Planning Act, and be satisfied that the application has regard for the criteria set out under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
47Mr. Kulyk testified, that the Shomberg Community Plan identifies that an application for consent to create an infilling lot, shall generally be given a positive consideration if the application does not create a disproportionate lot depth and width. The area has a frontage range of 17 to 29 metres, with severed corner lots measuring 22 metres or greater, the proposed applications are consistent with the other lots in the neighbourhood area. However, Mr. Kulyk points out that these previous severances had been facilitated through a ZBLA.
48The proposed consent to sever would create a retained lot size of 1,069.31 square metres, and a new lot size of 680.35 square metres. The previous five severances have created lot sizes that range from 680 to 894 square metres. While on the smaller side, Mr. Kulyk informed the Tribunal that the proposed application is similar and would not detract from the area character.
49Mr. Kulyk stated that while the updated building plans, (that include a re-orientation and a reduction in the building footprint for the retained lot) better reflect the character of the area, it is his position that the proposed building plans for the severed lot do not. The grading of the severed lot is such that while the dwelling appears to be a two-storey structure from the street view, it includes a walk-out basement and will appear as a three-storey structure that is 11.84 metres in height and in his opinion would tower over the yards of the abutting neighbours.
50The Tribunal was informed by Mr. Kulyk that the Subject Property is void of any significant vegetation, which impact the character of the area, from the perspective of natural vegetation. In terms of privacy concerns, Mr. Kulyk indicated that the vegetation to the rear of the severed lot is subject to environmental factors and does not provide in year-round coverage. As a result, the proposed dwelling would tower over the abutting lots and not be consistent with the area’s character.
51Mr. Sasso gave contrary evidence that the proposed application of consent meets the criteria and has the appropriate regard to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
52Mr. Sasso stated that while the Village of Schomberg is not a recognized area for intensification, modest redevelopment and intensification within the settlement area is appropriate. He further stated that similar infill developments were not uncommon in the immediate neighbourhood and using the Applicant’s visual evidence was able to show the Tribunal five similar corner lot severances in the immediate area. As the Subject Property is already part of a fully serviced subdivision, he opined that the creation of these lots is appropriate and would not create an undesirable effect to the existing municipal infrastructure.
53The Township OP gives special consideration to corner lots under s. 5.5.4 that states:
for corner lots, recognizing that the lot frontage may have a unique characteristic and is typically larger than interior lots, emphasis shall be placed on having a lot area and depth that is consistent with that of existing corner lots in the neighbourhood
54It is the opinion of Mr. Sasso, that the proposed consent satisfies this policy of the OP. The proposed Consent would result in a lot size of 1066.31 square metres, and 680.35 square metres. The five corner lot examples that Mr. Sasso showed the Tribunal ranged from 680 to 894 square metres. He further stated that in his opinion, the creation of the two lots and proposed development of two single detached dwellings fits the overall character of the neighbourhood.
55Mr. Sasso informed the Tribunal that there are no natural heritage features or trees located on the Subject Property.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
56In considering an application for a minor variance, the Applicant has made revisions from what had originally been before the Township CoA. The Tribunal must determine whether or not further notice is required under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that no further notice is required as the revised changes to the retained lot are minor as they reduce the dwelling size, change the building orientation and were viewed positively by the Township’s planning expert.
57In considering these appeals, the Tribunal has reviewed and given careful consideration to the materials and submissions of all Parties. The Tribunal accepts and adopts the land use planning evidence and expert opinion provided by Mr. Sasso.
58The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the consent and variances promote efficient development of land that intensifies uses within the urban settlement area, while contributing to the range of housing options, and that this is an infill project that utilizes a vacant lot with existing municipal services and is consistent with the principles of good planning.
59The Tribunal finds that the proposal has given due regard to matters of provincial interests under s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, conforms to the relevant directives established by the Growth Plan, and meets the general intent maintained by the Schomberg Community Plan.
60The Tribunal is satisfied that based on the evidence, the application is not premature, and a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the Township pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Planning Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application has regard for the criteria set out under s.51(24) of the Planning Act.
61The Tribunal is satisfied that the four tests of a minor variance have been met. The application does not change the intent of the current land use for the Subject Property and conforms with the general intent of the Schomberg Community Plan. The dwelling, massing and set back variances are minor but remain consistent with the neighbourhood area. With regards to the height increase to the rear portion of the proposed severed dwelling, the Tribunal accepts the evidence that this is an issue due to the grading restraints of the lot and is satisfied that the 2.84 metre variance in height is acceptable.
62The Tribunal acknowledges the withdrawal of the Applicant’s appeal of the ZBLA filed under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act. While the ZBLA is no longer a matter before the Tribunal, the Tribunal gives consideration to the Zoning By-law with regards to the other appeals. The PPS and Growth Plan both direct that infill development of underutilized vacant lands within a settlement area is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence that the proposed consent is in line with the five previous examples that have been recently approved within the immediate neighbourhood, and therefore form part of the character against which the current proposal is to be considered. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the building lots created through rezoning and consent have in any way destabilized the established neighbourhoods into which they have been incorporated, and therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that the current application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
ORDER
63THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the following conditions:
Payment of a Municipal Administration Fee in accordance with the Township’s Fees and Charges By-law.
Submission of a fully executed deed conveying the severed land.
Payment of a Parkland Levy to the Township of King in accordance with the Township’s By-law to Require the Provisions of Parkland or Money in Lieu of Parkland.
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of two (2) prints of a deposited Plan of Reference of the severed and retained lands, which conforms substantially with the application as submitted, and the calculated area of each Part of the Plan.
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of written confirmation that Minor Variance Application File Number 52-A-20 has been approved and the decision has come into force and effect, as evidenced by a Final and Binding Notice or an Ontario Municipal Board order.
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of written confirmation that the Township of King Council has formally allocated servicing capacity (water and sanitary sewage) for one (1) additional single detached equivalent unit to the severed lands (Part 1).
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of written confirmation from the Public Works and Building Department that the Owner has submitted a complete Service Location Form to assist in planning for municipal service connections from the street to the property line for the severed lands (Part 1) and the retained lands (Part 2).
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of written confirmation from the Public Works Department that the Owner has at its cost, complete engineering drawings signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Ontario for the design of a sanitary service pipe, domestic water supply, and storm sewer to the severed lands (Part 1) and the retained lands (Part 2), all to Township design criteria specifications and best engineering practices. Further, the engineering drawings shall include the proposed building envelope and initial lot grading and drainage elevations confirming that a proposed structure will not adversely impact the grading and drainage of the surrounding properties. The drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of a copy of the receipt issued by the Township’s Finance Department confirming payment of a deposit to be used as a source of funding the cost to construct municipal sanitary sewer services and municipal domestic water connections from the street to the property line for the severed lands (Part 1) and the retained lands (Part 2). Subsequent to the installation of aforementioned services, the actual construction costs plus a 20% administrative charge shall be subtracted from the said deposit and the remaining funds, if any, will be refunded to the Owner. Any additional costs beyond the deposit will be paid by the Owner prior to final consent. All services must be installed and paid for prior to final consent.
64THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the listed variances set out in Attachment “1” to By-law No. 2017-66 are authorized.
65THE TRIBUNAL having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
PART 1:
A. The proposed height for a two-storey dwelling on the retained lot (Part 1) is 9.785 metres (north) and 9.125 metres (east) metres whereas a maximum height of 9.0 metres is permitted.
B. The minimum lot area for the retained lot (Part 1) is 1069.31 square metres is proposed whereas the By-law states that the minimum lot area shall be “As legally existing”
C. The proposed pervious surface area (as a % of a lot) for the retained lot (Part 1) is 43.52% whereas a minimum of 45% is required.
PART 2:
A. The proposed height for a two-storey dwelling on the severed lot (Part 2) is 10.261 metres (east) 10.45 metres (west) and 11.841 (north), whereas a maximum height of 9.0 metres is permitted.
B. The minimum lot area for the severed lot (Part 2) is 680.35 square metres, whereas the By-law states that the minimum lot area shall be “As legally existing”.
C. The proposed coverage for the severed lot (Part 2) is 33%, whereas a maximum of 30% is permitted.
D. A minimum interior side yard setback for the severed lot (Part 2) is 2.4 metres (measured to the exterior stairwell) whereas 3.4 metres is required.