Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-02-14

22 151654 S53 03 TLAB 22 151657 S45 03 TLAB 22 151658 S45 03 TLAB

W. E. Oughtred & Associates Inc. (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 12

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

February 14, 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):

W. E. Oughtred & Associates Inc.

Applicant(s):

W. E. Oughtred & Associates Inc.

Property Address:

287 Valermo Drive

COA File No.:

21 165933 WET 03 CO (B0030/21EYK) 21 165939 WET 03 MV (A0307/21EYK) 21 165942 WET 03 MV (A0306/21EYK)

TLAB Case File No.:

22 151654 S53 03 TLAB 22 151657 S45 03 TLAB 22 151658 S45 03 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

October 2, 2022

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

Name

Representative

Appellant/ Applicant

W. E. Oughtred & Associates Inc.

J. Meader

Expert Witness

F. Romano

Owner

A. Abudurexiti and A. Hicks

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an appeal from decisions of the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances and a consent to permit the construction of a semidetached dwelling on the two lots to be created. There was no opposition to the consent or variances sought on appeal and the City suggested a number of conditions to be imposed if they were granted. At the hearing of the matter expert evidence was presented on behalf of the applicant by a qualified land use planner in favour of the variances and consent. That evidence clearly demonstrated that the variances met the four tests set out in s. 45 of the Planning Act and the consent met the requirements of s. 51 (24) of that Act. Both those sections are set out below and the evidence was set out in the Expert Witness Statement on file with TLAB. A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must also 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’). The planner’s evidence also established that conformity and confirmed that a plan of subdivision was not necessary as required by s. 53(1).

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

2TLAB 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).

3In 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.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

4The evidence as stated above clearly was provided by a qualified land use planner. The consent and variances met all legislative requirements; was uncontradicted; and raised no specific issues. There is no doubt that the consent and variances should be granted.

CONCLUSION

5The appeal should be allowed and the consent and variances should be granted.

DECISION AND ORDER

6The appeal is hereby allowed; the consent set out in Appendix 1 is granted, the variances set out in Appendix 2 are hereby granted; all subject to the conditions set out therein.

S. Makuch

Panel Member

APPENDIX 1

287 VALERMO DRIVE

THE CONSENT REQUESTED:

To obtain consent to sever the lot into two residential lots.

Conveyed - Part 2

Address to be assigned

The lot frontage will be 7.85 m and the lot area will be 242.3 m². The existing dwelling will be demolished and the property will be developed as the site of the east side of a new semi-detached dwelling with an attached garage.

Retained – Part 1

Address to be assigned

The lot frontage will be 7.85 m and the lot area will be 242.3 m². The existing dwelling will be demolished and the property will be developed as the site of the west side of a new semi-detached dwelling with an attached garage.

Consent Conditions

Before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 53(42) of the Planning

Act, the applicant is to fulfill the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Deputy

Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment:

1. Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of the Revenue Services Division, in the form of a statement of tax account current to within 30 days of an applicant's request to the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment to issue the Certificate of Official.

2. Municipal numbers for the subject lots indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

3. One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS (3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their respective areas, shall be filed with, and to the satisfaction of, the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

4. One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services shall be filed with the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

5. Prepare and submit a digital draft of the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O. Reg.

APPENDIX 2

287 VALERMO DRIVE

PART 1 – WEST LOT - VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Section 900.6.10.(18)(B)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage for a semi-detached dwelling is 9 m.

The lot frontage will be 7.85 m.

2. Section 900.6.10.(18)(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot area for a semi-detached dwelling is 332.5 mÇ.

The lot area will be 242.3 mÇ.

3. Section 900.6.10.(18)(C)(i), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted coverage for a semi-detached dwelling is 33% of the lot area (79.99 mÇ).

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will cover 35.56% of the lot area (86.19 mÇ).

4. Section 900.6.10.(18), By-law 569-2013 & Section 1(a), By-law 1979-67

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.4 times the area of the lot (96.95 mÇ).

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will have a gross floor area of 0.87 times the area of the lot (212.41 mÇ).

5. Section 10.80.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.5 m.

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will be located 1.22 m from the west side lot line.

6. Section 900.6.10.(18), By-law 569-2013 and Section 3, By-law 1979-67

The maximum permitted height is 7.5 m.

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will have a height of 8.76 m.

7. Section 10.80.40.10.(2)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 60% of the total width of all the front exterior main walls shall be a maximum height of 7 m.

A total of 0% of the proposed front exterior main walls will be less than 7 m (100% of the front main walls will have a front exterior main wall height of 8.44 m).

8. Section 10.80.40.10.(2)(A)(Ii), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 60% of the total width of all the rear exterior main walls shall be a maximum height of 7 m.

A total of 0% of the proposed rear exterior main walls will be less than 7 m (100% of the rear main walls will have a rear exterior main wall height of 8.44 m).

9. Section 10.5.40.70.(2) to Section 10.80.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for an attached platform is 1.5 m.

The proposed rear platform will be located 1.3 m from the west side lot line.

10. Section 10.5.100.1.(1)(C)(iii), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted driveway width is 3.58 m.

The proposed driveway will have a width of 3.66 m.

11. Section 10.5.80.10.(3), By-law 569-2013

A parking space may not be located in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street.

One of the proposed parking spaces will be located in the front yard.

PART 2 – EAST LOT - VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Section 900.6.10.(18)(B)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage for a semi-detached dwelling is 9 m.

The lot frontage will be 7.85 m.

2. Section 900.6.10.(18)(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot area for a semi-detached dwelling is 332.5 mÇ.

The lot area will be 242.3 mÇ.

3. Section 900.6.10.(18)(C)(i), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted coverage for a semi-detached dwelling is 33% of the lot area (79.99 mÇ).

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will cover 35.56% of the lot area (86.19 mÇ).

4. Section 900.6.10.(18), By-law 569-2013 & Section 1(a), By-law 1979-67

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.4 times the area of the lot (96.95 mÇ).

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will have a gross floor area of 0.87 times the area of the lot (212.41 mÇ).

5. Section 10.80.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.5 m.

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will be located 1.22 m from the east side lot line.

6. Section 900.6.10.(18), By-law 569-2013 and Section 3, By-law 1979-67

The maximum permitted height is 7.5 m.

The proposed semi-detached dwelling will have a height of 8.76 m.

7. Section 10.80.40.10.(2)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 60% of the total width of all the front exterior main walls shall be a maximum height of 7 m.

A total of 0% of the proposed front exterior main walls will be less than 7 m (100% of the front main walls will have a front exterior main wall height of 8.44 m).

8. Section 10.80.40.10.(2)(A)(Ii), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 60% of the total width of all the rear exterior main walls shall be a maximum height of 7 m.

A total of 0% of the proposed rear exterior main walls will be less than 7 m (100% of the rear main walls will have a rear exterior main wall height of 8.44 m).

9. Section 10.5.40.70.(2) to Section 10.80.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for an attached platform is 1.5 m.

The proposed rear platform will be located 1.3 m from the east side lot line.

10. Section 10.5.100.1.(1)(C)(iii), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted driveway width is 3.58 m.

The proposed driveway will have a width of 3.66 m.

11. Section 10.5.80.10.(3), By-law 569-2013

A parking space may not be located in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street.

One of the proposed parking spaces will be located in the front yard.

VARIANCE CONDITIONS

1. The semi-detached dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by SMPL Design Studio:

a. Site Plan (SP1.01), revision date 2021.12.06.

b. Front Elevation (A2.01), revision date 2021.12.06.

c. Side Elevation (A2.02), revision date 2021.12.06.

d. Rear Elevation (A2.03), revision date 2021.12.06.

e. Side Elevation (A2.04), revision date 2021.12.06. and filed on October 6, 2022 with TLAB at part of Appellant’s Disclosure and attached below.

2. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.

3. Where there is no street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of 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.

4. The applicant shall submit revised site plan(s) with the following revisions and notations to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Construction Services and Transportation Services, at no cost to the City;

a. Illustrate the existing and proposed grades at all corners along the property boundary;

b. Revise the site plan to illustrate a positive slope of a minimum 2% to a maximum 4% that will be maintained on each of the proposed driveways, as measured between the proposed garage door entrance to the curb line of Valermo Drive (include elevations);

c. Clearly show location of hydrant has 1.2m clearance from proposed driveway;

d. Show the footprint of the existing house and driveway. Label any portion of driveway to be removed within the right-of-way as to be restored with sod.

e. The site plans must be revised to clearly indicate the restoration of the redundant portion of the former driveway and curb cuts with sod and raised concrete curb, all of which shall be designed to municipal standards;

f. Add the following notations to the Site Plan:

i. "The applicant is required to restore any redundant section of the existing driveway that is being closed with sod and a poured raised concrete curb within the municipal boulevard according to City of Toronto Design Standard;

ii. "The proposed new driveways shall be constructed to the applicable City of Toronto Design Standards at no cost to the municipality";

iii. "The applicant shall also submit a Municipal Road Damage Deposit (MRDD) prior to obtaining a Building Permit." The applicant is advised to contact Ms. Joanne Vecchiarelli of our Right-of-Way Management Section at (416) 338-1045 regarding municipal road damage deposit requirements;" and,

iv. "The applicant shall obtain the necessary authorizations and permits from the City's Right-of-Way Management Section of the Transportation Services before excavating