Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File Numbers: 23 109170 S53 14 TLAB, 23 109171 S45 14 TLAB, 23 109172 S45 14 TLAB
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: July 31, 2023
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): R. QUAN
Applicant(s): R. QUAN
Property Address: 199 JONES AVE
COA File No.: 22 165172 STE 14 CO (B0051/22TEY), 22 138437 STE 14 MV (A0592/22TEY), 22 138457 STE 14 MV (A0593/22TEY);
TLAB Case File No.: 23 109170 S53 14 TLAB, 23 109171 S45 14 TLAB, 23 109172 S45 14 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): May 18, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | M. LI | |
| Applicant / Appellant | R. QUAN | M. LI |
| Party | CITY OF TORONTO | C. DOUGHERTY A. LO-WONG |
| Participant | M. KIRZNER | |
| Participant | R. PRIEST | |
| Expert Witness | S. GUENTHER |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by R. Quan (the "Applicant/Appellant") from three decisions of the Toronto and East York Panel of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment denying a consent application, and two minor variance applications. The Applicant/Appellant seeks to sever an existing parcel, and to build a detached dwelling on each parcel.
2The appeal is being dismissed, and the original decision at the Committee of Adjustment for the consent application and the two minor variance applications is upheld.
3The subject property is a corner lot located on the east side of Jones Avenue, which flanks onto Sproat Avenue. The subject property is zoned R (d.06)(x752) – Residential Zone in the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law 569-2013, as amended.
4Ten exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing:
Exhibit 1: Applicant/Appellant's presentation for the Tribunal dated May 18, 2023.
Exhibit 2: Case Study for 199 Jones Ave filed by the Applicant with the Committee of Adjustment on January 4, 2023.
Exhibit 3: Case Studies – Large Developments in Area filed by the Applicant/Appellant and received by the Tribunal on April 17, 2023.
Exhibit 4: Case Studies – Corner Lots in Area filed by the Applicant/Appellant and received by the Tribunal on April 17, 2023.
Exhibit 5: 199 Jones Ave alternative density case studies filed by the Applicant/Appellant and received by the Tribunal on April 17, 2023.
Exhibit 6: Expert Witness Statement of Sean Guenther, Planner, City of Toronto received by the Tribunal on April 17, 2023.
Exhibit 7: Protected Major Transit Station Area – Gerrard-Carlaw Station maps.
Exhibit 8: Proposed Official Plan Amendment 649 (SASP 826).
Exhibit 9: City of Toronto Book of Authorities.
Exhibit 10: Sean Guenther's Presentation slides for the Tribunal dated May 18, 2023.
Exhibit 11: September 12, 2022, email correspondence received by the Tribunal on April 17, 2023.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal") must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (the "PPS") and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (the "Growth Plan").
6Consent – S. 53
TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that "regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan's design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
7The consent request is as follows:
To obtain consent to sever the property into two undersized residential lots.
Conveyed - Part 2, Draft R-Plan
1 Sproat Avenue
Part 2 has a lot frontage of 15.1425 m from Sproat Avenue and a lot area of 92.31 m². A new three-storey detached dwelling will be constructed, requiring variances to the Zoning By-law.
Retained - Part 1, Draft R-Plan
199 Jones Avenue
Part 1 has a lot frontage of 6.1 m from Jones Avenue and a lot area of 92.31 m². A new three-storey detached dwelling will be constructed, requiring variances to the Zoning By-law.
Exhibit 10: Sean Guenther's Presentation slides for the Tribunal dated May 18, 2023, at slide 8.
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 of 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.
9The variance requests are as follows:
199 JONES AVE (PART 1)
- Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a building must comply with the minimum required building setback of 7.5 m.
In this case, the terrace platform will be located 0.3 m from the rear (east) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a building must comply with the minimum required building setback of 0.9 m.
In this case, the second-storey floor platform will be located 0 m from the side (north) lot line.
In this case, the side steps platform will be located 0.15 m from the side (north and south) lot lines.
- Chapter 10.10.30.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required lot area is 180 m².
In this case, the area of the lot will be 92.31 m².
- Chapter 10.10.40.10.(2)(A)(i) and (ii), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of all front and rear exterior main walls is 7.5 m.
In this case, the height of all front and rear exterior main walls will be 9.53 m.
- Chapter 10.10.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.6 times the area of the lot
(55.41 m2).
The new dwelling will have a floor space index equal to 1.86 times the area of the lot (172.2 m2).
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required front yard setback is 2.86 m.
The new dwelling will be located 1.82 m from the front (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(2), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required rear yard setback is 7.5 m.
The new dwelling will be located 3.4 m from the rear (east) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(3)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback is 0.9 m.
The new dwelling will be located 0.15 m from the side (north) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback where there are no windows or doors is 0.45 m.
The new dwelling will be located 0.15 m from the side (south) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013
A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m from a building, with a floor higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required rear yard setback 1.5 m if it is no closer to a side lot line than 1.48 m on the north side and 1.03 m on the south side. The terrace platform will encroach 4.1 m into the required rear yard setback and will be located 1.52 m from the side (north and south) lot lines.
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law 569-2013
Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 m provided that they are no closer than 0.3 m to a lot line.
The roof eaves will project 0.1 m and will be located 0.05 m from the side (south) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013
A corner lot with a triplex dwelling is required to provide a minimum of 75% (4.5 m2) of the required side yard landscaping as soft landscaping.
In this case, the side yard will have 65.17% (3.91 m2) of the required landscaping area maintained as soft landscaping.
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 50% (10.37 m²) of the rear yard must be maintained as soft landscaping.
In this case, 11.38% (2.36 m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.
199 JONES AVE (PART 2)
- Chapter 150.10.40.40.(1), By-law 569-2013
A pedestrian entrance leading exclusively to a secondary suite is not permitted in a front main wall of a dwelling.
In this case, the pedestrian entrance will lead exclusively to the secondary suite from the front main wall of the dwelling.
- Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a building must comply with the minimum required building setback of 1.93 m.
In this case, the front steps platform will be located 0 m from the front (north) lot line and the terrace platform will be located 0.15 m from the front (north) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a building must comply with the minimum required building setback of 7.5 m.
In this case, the second-storey platform will be located 0.15 m from the rear (south) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a building must comply with the minimum required building setback of 0.9 m.
In this case, the second-storey terrace platform will be located 0.3 m from the side (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.30.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required lot area is 180 m².
In this case, the area of the lot will be 92.31 m².
- Chapter 10.10.40.10.(2)(A)(i) and (ii), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of all front and rear exterior main walls is 7.5 m.
In this case, the height of all front and rear exterior main walls will be 9.53 m.
- Chapter 10.10.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.6 times the area of the lot
(55.41 m2).
The new dwelling will have a floor space index equal to 1.86 times the area of the lot (172.2 m2).
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(F)(ii), By-law 569-2013
A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m from a building, with a floor higher than the first storey of the building above established grade may not encroach into the required side yard setback if the side yard does not abut a street.
In this case, the terrace platform will encroach 0.6 m into the side (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law 569-2013
Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 m provided that they are no closer than 0.3 m to a lot line.
The roof eaves will project 0.1 m and will be located 0.05 m from the rear (south) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required front yard setback is 1.93 m.
The new dwelling will be located 0.15 m from the front (north) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(2), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required rear yard setback is 7.5 m.
The new dwelling will be located 0.15 m from the rear (south) lot line.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
10The property owner, M. Li provided his testimony, followed by the Applicant/Appellant, R. Quan. Neither the property owner or the Applicant/Appellant were qualified as expert witnesses. The property owner and Applicant/Appellant referred to numerous documents which have been made as exhibits in this hearing.
11Mr. Li argued that the current house on the subject property is old and has structural damage. It will increase housing affordability if the lot is split into two and one of the lots are sold. The proposed lot fronting on Jones Ave has a proposed door on Sproat Ave because Mr. Li does not want a door facing a bus stop, partly for safety concerns.
12Mr. Li argued that the property is located within a Major Transit Station area and is approximately 750 metres away from the proposed Gerard Station on the Ontario line. Mr. Li also noted that the neighbours are enthusiastic about the development and that the objections being raised by the neighbours who elected participant status are common development objections. I note here that the only neighbours who attended the hearing were opposed to the proposal. Mr. Li argued that the proposal is beneficial as it will improve the appearance of the neighbourhood and add one more house to the City of Toronto (the "City"). Mr. Li admitted that he does not have much knowledge on various planning documents or the legal tests for a severance or minor variance. Mr. Li also noted that he partly wants to increase his property value and that he did not consider the meaning "prevailing" as outlined in the Official Plan.
13The Applicant/Appellant, Mr. Quan is a CAD technician who works for an architecture company. Mr. Quan noted that he found many lots that are small, including 5 Committee of Adjustment decisions with lots smaller than 180 m2 in size within a 500-metre radius of the subject site. When using data to 115 m2, there are a lot more lot sizes similar to the proposal. Mr. Quan reviewed the requested variances for lot size, side yard setback, FSI, main wall height, etc. Mr. Quan argued that the adjacent properties have closed porches up to the property line. Mr. Quan argued that the property being classified as neighbourhoods under the Official Plan is supposed to be stable, and that he does not believe it is stable because of a number of redevelopments which are occurring.
14Mr. Quan cited various chapters and sections of the Official plan and noted that there are three options for dealing with the property, two of which require no severances. Mr. Quan noted that he spoke with neighbours who preferred severed lots. Again, I note that there were no neighbours present who testified in support of the proposal. On cross-examination, Mr. Li admitted that he is not well versed in planning policies, and that he chose a 500-metre radius area for his study area. He also admitted that one of the other options for the redevelopment of the subject property would be a garden suite, which would have a lower FSI than the proposed 3 storey dwelling on a severed lot. Mr. Quan argued than when reviewing lots of a size 115 m2 or less, there are more lots in the neighbourhood.
15Sean Guenther was qualified before the Tribunal as an expert in land use planning.
16Mr. Guenther testified that at an October 2021 meeting, the property owner originally wanted three two-storey dwellings on the lot. The current lot size of 187 m2 is substandard for the area. Mr. Guenther reviewed the geographic neighbourhood that he delineated. Mr. Guenther noted that a lot of smaller lots in the area were created prior to the Zoning By-Law, when there was no lot size requirement at the time. Mr. Guenther reviewed various lots in his study area. Mr. Guenther found that only 3.25% of the lots are 100 m2 or smaller within the larger area used by Mr. Quan.
17Mr. Guenther noted that variances are required for the proposed dwellings on both proposed lots because the lots are small. There is a deficient side and rear yard setback for the corner lot. In addition, the proposal calls for a car port in each lot, and there are no car ports on Jones Ave or Sproat Ave. The substandard rear yard setback for part 2 and side yard setback for part 1 result in structures that are too close to the adjacent property which will result in privacy and overlook issues. Mr. Guenther opined that two small square lots do not fit with the prevailing pattern of long and narrow lots in the neighbourhood. Mr. Guenther also opined that severances usually go down the length of lots and do not split lots in half. Within the past 5 years at the Committee of Adjustment, Mr. Guenther has not been able to find an approval with comparable lot area, FSI, and minimum soft yard landscaping.
18Mr. Guenther opined that the lot is outside the Protected Major Transit Station Area (the "PMTSA") for the future Gerrard-Carlaw station on the Ontario line. There are no land use planning policies which encourage intensification via severance. In addition, there are no land use policies supporting property owners who want to increase the value of their property. Mr. Guenther opined on cross examination that the proposed severance produces lot sizes that require major variances for the proposed structures. Mr. Guenther also opined that he used the lot size of 100 m2 because this is close to the property size. Mr. Li took issue with this because he believes there are much more lots comparable to his proposal if a lot size of 115 m2 is used. I find Mr. Guenther's analysis of lot sizes to be appropriate.
19One property discussed at length is 1172R Queen St E. Mr. Guenther argued that the area has a different fabric, as the property is on a laneway and it is a fairly built up area as Queen St E is an Avenue. Mr. Guenther opined that there is no normal number for lot size, FSI, etc. because planning matters are site specific.
20A neighbour, R. Priest provided testimony as a participant. Mr. Priest argued that the proposal is too dense and will result in the loss of privacy and safety if the existing garage is taken down and no fence is provided for the backyard. In addition, there is a point where the two buildings touch, and he would like to know what will happen for the construction.
21In closing argument, Mr. Li argued that the proposal adds green space to the land, and that corner lots are split based on width and not lengthwise.
22In closing argument, Ms. Lo-Wong, counsel for the City argued that the proposal does not meet the statutory test, it is not in line with the physical character of the neighbourhood, and would be among the smallest lots in the neighbourhood. Ms. Lo-Wong asserted that the Tribunal should only focus on the land use planning merits of the case. The property owner and Applicant/Appellant went through aesthetic considerations, affordability considerations, etc. however, these are not relevant. In addition, it was a cost choice made by Mr. Li to not provide expert planning evidence before the Tribunal. Ms. Lo-Wong argued that the proposal is out of the ordinary and potentially precedent-setting.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
23I will not be reviewing these policies in detail as these documents are general in nature and provide the framework within which the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate.
Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan
24The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan. Policy 4.1.5 outlines Development Criteria for Neighbourhoods.
25Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, I find that the immediate context includes the lots on Jones Avenue. I find the broader context to be the area delineated by Mr. Guenther and illustrated below. The geographic neighbourhood is bounded by Gerrard Street East to the north, Alton Avenue to the east, Queen Street East to the south and Pape Avenue to the west.
Exhibit 10: Sean Guenther's Presentation slides for the Tribunal dated May 18, 2023, at slide 6.
26To draw the Neighbourhood boundary, the Official Plan lists nine criteria: "zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features".
a. Lot Size and configuration, zoning: The geographic area contains numerous lots with R zoning. The lots largely contain low-rise ground-related single-detached, semi-detached, and townhouse dwellings.
b. Pedestrian connectivity: The geographic neighbourhood is generally paved with sidewalks that allow for easy pedestrian access within the neighbourhood and access to public transportation for travel beyond the geographic neighbourhood.
c. Natural and human-made dividing features: This is a walkable neighbourhood with easy access to buses along Jones Avenue and streetcars along Queen Street East. Greenwood Park is a natural dividing feature in the northeast.
d. Street pattern: There is no major difference in street patterns throughout the geographic neighbourhood. The boundaries have major streets, parkland, and human-made dividing features.
Consent Request subsection 51(24) Criteria
27I have chosen to focus on three criteria from subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.
28The first criteria is (b) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
Mr. Guenther cited numerous OP policies which he believed that the proposal does not conform to. For example, Policy 2.3.1.1 Healthy Neighbourhoods requires that development in Neighbourhoods respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in the geographic area. I agree that the proposal does not respect or reinforce the existing physical character of the buildings or streetscapes as it results in two overdeveloped lots, and in two lots which are severed widthwise instead of lengthwise.
Policy 3.1.3.3 indicates that:
- Development will protect privacy within adjacent buildings by providing
setbacks and separation distances from neighbouring properties and adjacent building walls containing windows.
I agree with Mr. Guenther that the proposal will represent an overdevelopment of two lots which will result in significant privacy and overlook impacts in the immediate context. This can be seen in the small lot sizes and various setback variances requested in order to accommodate the small lot sizes.
I also find that per Policy 4.1.5, the proposal does not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood with regards to:
a) patterns of the streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;
b) size and configuration of lots;
f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; and
g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.
Mr. Guenther noted that there is only one case where a corner lot on Jones Avenue fronts onto the abutting street. The property at 144 Jones Avenue abuts Dagmar Avenue. Mr. Guenther opined, and I accept his opinion that the property at 144 Jones Avenue has a significant rear yard behind the main dwelling and appropriate front and side yard setbacks.
The size of the lots proposed are 92.35 square metres where the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 180 square metres. In the study area only 2 percent of properties have a lot area in this range.
Lot Area Sizes
| Feet | Metres | Number of Lots | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1076 | < 100 | 45 | 2.2% |
| 1076 – 1614.99 | 100 – 149.99 | 633 | 32.2% |
| 1615 – 1937.99 | 150 – 179.99 | 517 | 26.4% |
| 1938 – 2367.99 | 180 – 219.99 | 355 | 18% |
| 2368 – 5381.00 | 220 – 499.99 | 381 | 19.4% |
| 5382 + | 500 + | 36 | 1.8% |
| Total Lots in Study Area | 1967 | 100% |
| Minimum Lot Area (sq. m.) | 27.9 |
| Maximum Lot Area (sq. m.) | 11,364 |
| Average Lot Area (sq. m.) | 210 |
Exhibit 6: Expert Witness Statement of Sean Guenther, Planner, City of Toronto received by the Tribunal on April 17, 2023, Table 2: Lot Study Area Sizes within Study Area (page 16 of 30).
Mr. Guenther further opined that the Application is proposing variances that are not compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of floor space index, rear and side yard setbacks, and rear yard soft landscaping variances. I agree that these variances do not conform with Policy 4.1.8 of the Official Plan. As Mr. Guenther noted, the Application proposes almost no rear yard with little rear and side yard soft landscaping in Part 1.
The subject property is located in a Residential zone where a floor space index of 0.6 is permitted. The proposed floor space index is 1.86 times the area of the lot for each application, which is more than triple what is permitted. I agree with Mr. Guenther's opinion that the current proposal represents overdevelopment of the lot. Mr. Guenther opined that upon reviewing previous Committee decisions both on the street and in the study area, it was found that there were no similar floor space index variances that have been approved in the past five years to what is being proposed.
29The second criteria is (d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
The subject property is located in a Residential zone that Mr. Guenther opined contains lots that are typically severed lengthwise and not widthwise. This means that the proposed new lots would be breaking with the prevailing character of the neighbourhood. In addition, I find that the proposal results in an overdevelopment of the lots such that the land is not suitable for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided.
30The third paragraph is (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
Mr. Guenther opined, and I agree that the proposed residential lots are considerably undersized relative to the existing physical context and with regard to the zoning by-law standards in the study area and in the immediate context, Jones Avenue. This can be seen in the Lot Area Sizes chart above.
Mr. Guenther was of the further opinion that the proposed severance requires significant variances to the Zoning By-law for lot area in order to allow the land to be divided. These variances are directly related to the undersized nature of the proposed lots. I agree with Mr. Guenther's opinion on this matter.
Mr. Guenther opined further that the dimensions of the proposed undersized residential lots create an undesirable condition for the neighbourhood's physical context. It was his opinion that the significantly substandard lot areas would have noticeable impacts on the streetscape, create larger and more variances and thus does not fit with the configuration along Jones Avenue. The majority of lots in the neighbourhood have a lot area between 100 and 180 square metres and the average in the study area is 210 square metres. I accept Mr. Guenther's opinion on this matter.
31I have also considered the other consent request criteria outlined in subsection 51(24) and I find that on an individual and cumulative level, the consent request fails to meet the required statutory test.
Section 45(1) Test for Minor Variances
32Since I have found that the test for a consent has not been met, it is not necessary to review whether each variance meets the statutory test for a minor variance. Nonetheless, it is important to note that I find that the Applicant/Appellant has not discharged its burden in proving that the requested variances meet the statutory test.
33I conducted an analysis as part of the severance test above as to whether the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The analysis applies to the requested variances individually and on a cumulative level. The proposed variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
34Considering that the proposal does not meet this particular statutory test, I do not consider it necessary to specifically elucidate in great detail the remaining three statutory tests for a minor variance. I will note that the Applicant/Appellant has failed to meet its burden to prove that requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law on either a quantitative or qualitative level.
35In addition, I find that proposed variances individually and cumulatively will cause an impact which rises to the level of undue adverse impact. They are not minor in nature. This can be clearly seen in the extent of the minor variances requested and in the privacy and overlook impacts on the neighbours that I have previously commented on in this decision.
36I find that the variances are not appropriate for the development of the subject property. The variances individually and cumulatively do not respect and reinforce the established building pattern in the area and contribute to an overdevelopment of the site. The variances are not compatible and do not fit in with the immediate or broader context.
CONCLUSION
37I find that the consent request fails to meet the following subsection 51(24) criteria outlined in the Planning Act: (c) the proposed subdivision is premature and is not in the public interest; (d) the land is not suitable for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; and (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are not suitable for the orderly development of the neighbourhood.
38In addition, the Applicant/Appellant has the onus of proving that each variance requested and the variances as whole meet the statutory test for a minor variance under section 45(1) of the Planning Act. I find that the Applicant/Appellant has failed to discharge this burden.
DECISION AND ORDER
39The Appeal is dismissed, and the original decision of the Committee of Adjustment is upheld.
T. Kezwer Panel Member