GC Jain Investments Limited v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 111

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-07-05

22 221410 S45 15 TLAB

GC Jain Investments Limited v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 111

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

July 5, 2023

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s):

G.C. JAIN INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Applicant(s):

G. MYERS

Property Address:

2 SHADY OAKS CRES.

COA File No.:

22 181006 NNY 15 MV (A0511/22NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

22 221410 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 3, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member J. Tassiopoulos

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner/Appellant

G.C. Jain Investments Ltd.

D. Bronskill & Z. Fleisher

Applicant

G. Myers

Party

City of Toronto

J. Dexter

Expert Witness

R. Guetter

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Hearing arises from an appeal by G.C. Jain Investments Limited of the decision of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) to refuse the variances sought for the subject property located at 2 Shady Oaks Crescent.

2The purpose of the application is to demolish the existing house on the property and construct a new two storey residential dwelling with on integral garage.

3The subject property is located on the north side of Shady Oaks Crescent, southwest of Lawrence Avenue East and Leslie Street. The property is designated Neighbourhoods and zoned RD (f30.0; a1100) (x971) under City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and R1 under former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625.

4Prior to the scheduled Hearing date, the Parties achieved a settlement. As per section 13.6 of the TLAB Rules and Procedures, City counsel, Jamie Dexter, emailed that they would be withdrawing as a Party to the matter based on the changes made to the plans.

5Mr. Jaffar Hussain and Mr. Alf Kwinter also emailed their intention to withdraw as Participants as the lot coverage percentage had been reduced to 32%.

6As the variances have been reduced from what was before the Committee of Adjustment, the revisions are minor, pursuant to section 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, and no further notice is required.

7In attendance at the Hearing were the Owner’s representatives Zachary Fleisher, counsel, and land use planning evidence was heard from Mr. Ryan Guetter in support of the settlement.

8The requested variances:

1. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25 percent of the lot area.

The proposed lot coverage is 32 percent of the lot area.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum front yard setback is 9.14 metres.

The proposed front yard setback is 8.56 metres.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(5)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 7.5 metres where the building depth is greater than 17.0 metres from the main wall of the building.

The proposed west side yard setback is 4.11 metres.

4. Chapter 10.10.80.40.(2), By-law 569-2013

The by-law requires a building on a corner lot to gain its vehicular access from the flanking street or public lane.

The proposed access to vehicle parking is from the main street.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(5)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 7.5 metres where the building depth is greater than 17.0 metres from the main wall of the building.

The proposed east side yard setback is 3 metres.

6. Section 13.2.6, By-law 7625

The maximum permitted building height is 9.5 metres.

The proposed building height is 12.09 metres.

9I advised, as per Council direction, that I had visited the site and surrounding neighbourhood and reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the Hearing, but it was the evidence to be heard that was of importance.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

10Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).

11Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;

• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and

• are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

12Mr. Guetter provided evidence with respect to the variances sought and described the proposed building footprint with respect to the variances including:

• The permitted building envelope outline to the footprint of the proposed building noting that the variances are mostly related to small portions of the proposed building projecting slightly beyond the permitted envelope;

• The requested front yard variance of 8.56m is triggered by the entrance feature projection into the setback while much of the proposed dwelling meets or exceeds the required 9.15m setback requirement;

• The east side yard setback variance is triggered by a small portion of the building beyond the 17.0m length. The west side yard setback variance occurs due to the stepping of the building and projections that occur due to the angled west property line;

• The rear yard setback proposed is an improvement to what currently exists because it has been setback 16.0m whereas the required building setback is 11.49m;

• The lot coverage of 32%, whereas 25% is required, is consistent with many of the newly built and existing dwellings in the study area and is closer to the prevailing character than the required coverage. The proposed lot coverage is compatible and appropriate in the surrounding context;

• The variance for vehicular access from the flanking street has been reviewed by Transportation Services and the access of the proposed dwelling is acceptable; and,

• The variance for building height is from a previous North York zoning by-law that was identified in the zoning notice and the variance is to address this condition.

• Mr. Guetter identified a study area that considered a geographic neighbourhood and immediate context that are arrived at and consistent with the criteria as outlined in policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan.

13Mr. Guetter described the geographic neighbourhood as follows:

• There is evidence of many redeveloped lots in the neighbourhood with residential dwellings that are larger in scale, mass, and lot coverage.

• There are numerous examples of dwellings that have sought and received approval for variances to lot coverage, side yard setback and front yard setback that are similar to or greater than those sought for the proposal (Tabs 31, 32, and 33, Exhibit #2).

• The dwellings in the neighbourhood are a mix of one and two storey dwellings with many new dwellings being 2 storeys with integral garages which is a physical character that the proposed dwelling is consistent with and fits into immediate and geographic neighbourhood.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

14I accept Mr. Guetter’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

OFFICIAL PLAN

15Mr. Guetter’s provided an analysis of applicable Official Plan policy, including OP Policies 3.1.2 with respect to built form and 4.1.5 with respect to development criteria within established neighbourhoods. They are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.

16Of the criteria set out in OP Policy 4.1.5, I consider criteria c), f) and g) to warrant further discussion in relation to the variances requested for building front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, driveway access, and height:

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

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

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

17Based on the record of previous COA approvals for front and side yard setbacks and lot coverage, submitted by Mr. Guetter, along with the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the lot coverage of the proposal, the front and side yard setbacks, and building height respect the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood and both the geographic and immediate context.

18I am satisfied that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

ZONING BY-LAW

19Mr. Guetter’s evidence was that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law relating to front yard setback is generally met by the proposal as the variance is only for the entrance feature portion of the front elevation while the remainder of the building frontage meets the required setback of 9.14m.

20The side yard setback variances are only for small portions of the proposed side elevations and that the purpose of the Zoning By-law was to ensure appropriate separation, relationship and building massing in relation to adjacent properties and to the street. The consistent treatment on the east side does not result in any adverse impacts to the neighbouring property.

21The proposed west side elevation addressing the Glenorchy Road is articulated and relates to the street with portions that are setback further than what is permitted and some portions that project beyond the permitted building envelope. The small portion of the dwelling and its accompanying massing do not cause any adverse impact to the streetscape frontage.

22The lot coverage has been reduced and resulted in the withdrawal of the Participants from the Hearing as their concern was addressed. Mr. Guetter explained that the purpose of the Zoning By-law related to lot coverage was to control mass, ensure appropriate building transition and relationships and ensure that the proposed dwelling is not overdevelopment of the property.

23The deployment of the new dwelling floor plate on the property has allowed for a more generous rear yard and increased separation from the property to the north as compared to the existing floorplate. The reduction of the lot coverage brings the proposal closer to the lot coverage found in the surrounding neighbourhood.

24The driveway access variance, although part of the new proposal, is an existing condition on the property as it currently exists but as Mr. Guetter pointed out, the proposed driveway is slightly narrower and results in no further impact. Transportation Services has also indicated that the driveaway location is acceptable.

25The building height variance is required from the North York Zoning By-law 7625 and was identified during the zoning review process. There is no building height variance under By-law 569-2013, but the Applicant is seeking the variance to ensure that it does not impact their obtaining a building permit in future.

26I am satisfied that the proposed lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, driveway access and proposed building height maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND

27I find that there are no undue adverse impacts of a planning nature from the proposal. It is compatible with the neighbourhood and adjacent dwellings in terms of massing, scale, number of storeys, and physical character.

28Based on the above findings, I also find that the proposal is desirable for the development of the land. It results in an appropriate proposal that is sensitive to its relationship to the adjacent properties and street and fits into its context.

CONCLUSION

29This is an Appeal that has been settled between the Parties. I find that the revised proposal is not contrary to the Planning Act section 45(18.1.1) and is within the range of reasonable outcomes.

30I find that the variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

31The Appeal is allowed in part. The variances listed in Appendix ‘A’ are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

J. Tassiopoulos

Panel Member

APPENDIX A

APPROVED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL:

VARIANCES:

1. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25 percent of the lot area.

The proposed lot coverage is 32 percent of the lot area.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum front yard setback is 9.14 metres.

The proposed front yard setback is 8.56 metres.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(5)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 7.5 metres where the building depth is greater than 17.0 metres from the main wall of the building.

The proposed west side yard setback is 4.11 metres.

4. Chapter 10.10.80.40.(2), By-law 569-2013

The by-law requires a building on a corner lot to gain its vehicular access from the flanking street or public lane.

The proposed access to vehicle parking is from the main street.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(5)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 7.5 metres where the building depth is greater than 17.0 metres from the main wall of the building.

The proposed east side yard setback is 3 metres.

6. Section 13.2.6, By-law 7625

The maximum permitted building height is 9.5 metres.

The proposed building height is 12.09 metres.

CONDITIONS:

1. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan, Front, Rear, East, and West Elevations prepared by Richard Wengle Architect Inc., dated January 18, 2023, attached hereto. Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized.

2. Where there are no existing street trees, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting one street tree on the City Road allowance abutting each of the sites involved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.