Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-08-14
23 116681 S45 06 TLAB
Oosterhuis (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 114
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
August 14, 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):
RALPH OOSTERHUIS
Applicant(s):
ARCHAUS ARCHITECTS INC
Property Address:
36 YORK DOWNS DR
COA File No.:
22 230390 NNY 06 MV (A0735/22NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 116681 S45 06 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
July 05, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Marin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
ARCHAUS ARCHITECTS INC
Appellant
R. OOSTERHUIS
M. HELFAND
Party
E. OOSTERHUIS
M. HELFAND
Expert Witness
M. GOLDBERG
Expert Witness
T. TRUDELLE
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This was a hearing of an appeal by Robert Oosterhuis (“Appellant”) from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto to refuse minor variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013 for the property at 36 York Downs Drive.
2The Variances sought were:
10.20.30.40(1) Maximum Lot Coverage – the maximum lot coverage allowed is 30.00 percent of the lot area where the Appellant proposed 42.38 percent.
10.20.40.20(1) Maximum Building Length – the permitted maximum length is 17m where the Appellant proposed 24.99m.
10.20.40.30(1) Maximum Building Depth – the permitted maximum depth is 19m where the Appellant proposed 26.22m.
10.20.40.20 (4) Maximum Building Height for a Detached House with a Flat Roof – the permitted maximum height is 7.2 metres where the proposed building height is 7.68 metres.
900.3.10(5) Exceptions for RD Zone – the permitted minimum east side yard is 1.9 metres where the proposed east side yard setback is 1.19 metres.
900.3.10(5) Exceptions for RD Zone – the permitted minimum west side yard is 1.9 metres where the proposed east side yard setback is 1.51 metres.
Section 12.7, By-law 7625 Maximum Permitted Building Height - The maximum permitted building height is 8.00 metres where the proposed building height is 8.34 metres.
3The Appellant was represented by lawyer Matthew Helfand of Aird & Berlis.
4Mr. Helfand called Mr. Todd Trudelle of the Goldberg Group who was qualified during the hearing to give expert evidence in land use planning.
5No parties or participants attended the meeting either in opposition or support of the requested variances.
6Prior to commencement of the hearing, the Appellant, Mr. Helfand and Mr. Trudelle, spoke to planners at the City of Toronto to determine whether changes to the requested variances to reduce their impact, could be supported. Based on those discussions, the requested variance before TLAB were:
Chapter 10.20.30.40(1) Maximum Lot Coverage – the maximum lot coverage allowed is 30.00 percent of the lot area where the Appellant proposed 39.74 percent.
Chapter 10.20.40.20(1) Maximum Building Length – the permitted maximum length is 17m where the Appellant proposed 23.84m.
Chapter 10.20.40.30(1) Maximum Building Depth – the permitted maximum depth is 19m where the Appellant proposed 24.12m.
7The minor variances requested will permit the construction of a new 2-storey single detached house if approved.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
8Variance – 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
9Mr. Trudelle identified the area known as Armour Heights as the Geographic Neighbourhood in which the property at 36 York Downs Drive is located.
10[Armour Heights is bounded on the north and east sides by the West branch of the Don Valley River, on the West by Bathurst Street and the South by Lyonsgate Drive.
11The Armour Heights area is designated Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto Official Plan.
12The property is zoned RD (f15.0; a600) (x5).
13The property is rectangular in shape with a 15.24 m frontage, a 45.74 m depth and a lot of 696.6 m2.
14The proximity of the West branch of the Don Valley River allowed the Armour Heights Geographic Neighbourhood to have lots with very deep (ravine) lots, and smaller lots like the property at 36 York Downs Drive.
15The Armour Heights neighbourhood has been an area where the first generation of single detached homes are being replaced with larger 2-storey single-detached homes. This period of regeneration has been occurring for 20-25 years.
16The Appellant intends to construct a new 2-storey single detached dwelling with a front yard facing integral garage. It will consist of the main dwelling (living area and kitchen on the main floor, four bedrooms on the second floor, and recreational areas and storage areas in the basement) and, an open-air covered deck in the rear yard. An inground pool and pool shed will also be in the rear yard.
17Mr. Trudelle’s opinion was that the new home as proposed was consistent with the existing physical character of homes in the area and was a compatible fit with the mix of architectural styles, roof lines, integral garages, and performance standards currently applied to many existing original and replacement dwellings.
18Mr. Trudelle further described the variances requested and the reason each variance was required.
Lot Coverage - 39.74 percent
- The lot coverage is inclusive of the rear and front porch and the pool shed. The proposed dwelling exclusive of the front and rear porch and pool shed is 32.90 percent.
Building Height (Flat Roof) - 7.68 m
- As measured the established grade and the elevation of the highest point of the building.
Building Length - 23.84 m
- The rear deck is excavated to accommodate the requested basement amenities, the building length is measured from the front main wall to the rear portion of the open-air covered deck.
Building Depth - 24.12 m
- The rear deck is excavated to accommodate the required amenities in the basement the building depth is measured from the front yard setback to the rear portion of the open-air covered deck.
Side Yard (East) Setback - 1.19 m
- Is like side yards allowed for existing replacement houses in the geographic area.
Side Yard (West) Setback - 1.51 m
- Is like side yards allowed for existing replacement houses in the geographic area.
19With respect to the Appellant’s amendments to the minor variances requested by TLAB, versus those approved and denied by the Committee of Adjustment, Mr. Trudelle’ s expert opinion in land use planning was that these changes were minor and that no notice of the changes was required pursuant to subsection 45 (18.1) of the Planning Act.
20Mr. Trudelle’ s expert opinion in land use planning was that the variances requested satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act, being 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.
are minor.
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan.
21Mr. Trudelle advised TLAB that areas of the city designated Neighbourhoods are stable, but not static. The Official Plan therefore expects and allows new development in areas designated Neighbourhoods provided the new development respects the existing physical character of the area and reinforces the stability of the area. He emphasized that respect does not require sameness but requires the physical character of the area is maintained.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law.
22Mr. Trudelle advised TLAB that the general intent and purpose of a zoning by-law is to identify permitted uses, together with performance standards which, once applied to a building or property, will allow the types of land use, and built structures identified in the Official Plan.
23Mr. Trudelle was able to demonstrate that the new home as proposed was consistent with the existing physical character of homes in the area and was a compatible fit with the mix of architectural styles, roof lines, integral garages, and performance standards currently applied to many existing original and replacement dwellings.
Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
24Mr. Trudelle’s opinion is that the proposed replacement house is a reinvestment for the property and a reinvestment in the neighbourhood. The size and massing of the house is appropriate, and includes features such as the covered attached deck, backyard pool and pool house already found on adjacent properties. If constructed, the proposed house will contribute to the ongoing stability of the neighbourhood.
Are the variances requested minor?
25Mr. Trudelle’s opinion was that the variances requested were numerically minor, and both individually and cumulatively, do not create any adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the neighbourhood.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
26The requested variances most concerning to TLAB were those related to Lot Coverage, Building Length and Building Depth. Under questioning by TLAB, Mr. Trudelle confirmed that the interior living area of the proposed house (meaning the structure not including the attached deck was in fact 19 m in length which is the permitted maximum building length in the zoning by-law. Because the deck is considered part a structure pursuant to the Ontario Building Code, it had to be included in the calculation of Lot Coverage, Building Depth and Building Length. It is clear to TLAB that the proposed deck will not have any adverse impact on abutting properties.
27Following receipt of the Committee Adjustment Notice of Decision, the Appellant met with the city planners to reduce the Lot Coverage, Building Length and Building Depth minor variances refused by the Committee of Adjustment thereby making the proposed house even more compatible with proximate residential properties.
CONCLUSION
28A hearing of TLAB to consider an appeal by Robert Oosterhuis was conducted on July 5, 2023. Opinion evidence from Mr. Todd Trudelle was presented during the hearing. After consideration of the opinion evidence, TLAB was satisfied that the four statutory tests for approval of a minor variance had been satisfied.
DECISION AND ORDER
29The Tribunal will allow the Appellant’s appeal subject to the following:
Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City-owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.
Construction shall be in substantial accordance with the Site Plan and Elevations attached hereto, being drawings A0.01, A2.01, and A2.02 of the architectural plans prepared by Archausts Architects Inc., dated April 18, 2023.
30The approved minor variances are:
The approved maximum lot coverage is 39.74 percent of the lot area. (By-law 569-2013)
The approved maximum height is 7.68 metres. (By-law 569-2013)
The approved building length is 23.83 metres. (By-law 569-2013)
The approved building depth is 24.12 metres. (By-law 569-2013)
The east side yard setback is 1.19 metres. (By-law 569-2013)
The west side yard setback is 1.51 metres. (By-law 569-2013)
The maximum building height is 8.34 metres (Section 12.7, By-law 7625)
B. Martin
Panel Member