Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-08-28

22 243006 S53 03 TLAB,

22 243007 S45 03 TLAB,

22 243008 S45 03 TLAB;

Bianconi (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 127

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

August 28, 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):

M. BIANCONI

Applicant(s):

THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD

Property Address:

32 BELLMAN AVE

COA File No.:

22 148269 WET 03 CO (B0028/22EYK),

22 148322 WET 03 MV (A0344/22EYK),

22 148380 WET 03 MV (A0345/22EYK)

TLAB Case File No.:

22 243006 S53 03 TLAB,

22 243007 S45 03 TLAB,

22 243008 S45 03 TLAB;

Hearing Date(s):

Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member J. Tassiopoulos

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner

2841010 ONTARIO LIMITED

Applicant

THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD

Appellant / Primary Owner

M. BIANCONI

F. ROMANO

Participant

D. VENDRAMIN

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Hearing arises from an appeal by Marco Bianconi of the decision of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) to refuse the variances sought for the subject property located at 32 Bellman Avenue.

2The purpose of the applications is to obtain consent to sever the existing lot into two lots, demolish the existing house on the property, and construct a new two storey residential dwelling, with an integral garage, on each lot.

3The subject property is located on the west side of Bellman Avenue, northwest of Kipling and Horner Avenues, just south of Valermo Drive and north of Rimilton Avenue. The property is designated Neighbourhoods and zoned Residential Multiple RM (u3)(x18) under the city-wide Zoning By-law 569- 2013 and Third Density Residential (R3) under the former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code.

4Ms. Dorina Vendramin emailed TLAB on the day of the Hearing indicating that she was withdrawing her intention to appear as a Participant.

5In attendance at the Hearing were the Owner / Applicants’ representatives Ms. Jessica De Marinis, counsel, assisted by Ms. Jennifer Meader, counsel, and land use planning evidence was heard from Mr. Franco Romano in support of the application.

6The applications are for a consent to sever the existing lot at 32 Bellman Avenue into two lots and request the following variances for each of the two lots:

Part 1 List of Variances

Section 900.6.10.(18)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 465 m².

The lot area will be 232.26 m2.

Section 900.6.10.(18)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage is 12 m.

The proposed lot will have a lot frontage of 7.62 m.

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

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 33% of the lot area (76.6 m²).

The proposed dwelling will cover 43% of the lot area (99.24 m²).

Section 1(a), By-law 67-1979 & By-law 272-1981

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.4 times the area of the lot (92.9 m²).

The proposed dwelling will have a gross floor area of 0.77 times the area of the lot (178.47 m²).

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

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 0.6 m from the north side lot line and 0.9 m from the south side lot line.

Part 2 List of Variances

Section 900.6.10.(18)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 465 m².

The lot area will be 232.26 m².

Section 900.6.10.(18)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage is 12m.

The proposed lot will have a lot frontage of 7.62m.

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

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 33% of the lot area (76.6 m²).

The proposed dwelling will cover 43% of the lot area (99.24 m²).

Section 1(a), By-law 67-1979 & By-law 272-1981

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.4 times the area of the lot (92.9 m²)

The proposed dwelling will have a gross floor area of 0.77 times the area of the lot (178.47 m²).

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

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 0.6 m from the north side lot line and 0.9 m from the south side lot line.

7I 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

8Provincial 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’).

9Consent – 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 Planning 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;

(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).

10Variance – 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 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

11Mr. Romano described the existing condition of the property and indicated that a similar severance was approved for the lot immediately adjacent to the north. He also indicated that the existing dwelling was setback further than the dwelling to the south and that the proposed new dwellings would maintain a similar relationship.

12Mr. Romano provided land use planning evidence with respect to the proposed dwellings and the variances sought for each, as Parts 1 and 2, as follows:

The proposed dwellings will line up with the front and rear of the buildings to the north and the front yard and rear yard setbacks are greater than those that the Zoning By-Law requires;
The depth and length of the proposed dwellings meet Zoning By-Law requirements;
The side yard setbacks to the north for both Parts 1 and 2 are 0.61m whereas 1.2m is required and to the south side yard setbacks for both parts is 0.91 whereas 1.2m is required. These setbacks are similar to the severed property, and the resulting lots, to the north.
The driveway for Part 2 would need to be shifted to the south to avoid conflict with a utility pole located in the public right-of-way;
With respect to the lot width variance, he provided numerous examples of severances both in the geographic neighbourhood and in the immediate context including 5 and 5A, 15 and 15A, 19 and 19A, 20 and 20A, 24 and 24A, 28 and 28 A and 34 and 34A Bellman Avenue (Exhibit #1, pgs. 37 and 40); and
The majority of the dwellings on the properties in the immediate context had frontages of less than 12.0m (Exhibit #1, p.38). In the broader neighbourhood, 22.2% of the properties had a lot frontage of less than 9.0m, while 37.5% included frontages of between 9.0 and 12.2m.

13The proposed lot sizes fit within the immediate context and surrounding neighbourhood and are consistent with Committee of Adjustment or appeal approvals for lots and severances on Bellman Avenue as well as the surrounding neighbourhood;

14Mr. Romano noted that the Participant’s disclosure had indicated a concern with respect to the shadow impact of the proposed dwellings. He explained that the Participant’s property was to the south so there was no impact other than potential shadowing would occur late in the evening;

15Mr. Romano identified a study area that considered a broader 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.

16Mr. Romano described the geographic neighbourhood as follows:

It is bounded by Brown’s Line to the west, the west side of Rimilton Avenue to the East, Horner Avenue to the south and Evans Avenue to the north and is comprised of a grid street pattern;
The neighbourhood is comprised of a variety of single and semi-detached dwellings including multiplexes and low-rise walk-up apartment buildings;

17Mr. Romano concentrated his analysis and review of the immediate context on Bellman Avenue comprised of 35 properties and described it as follows:

Comprised of single and two storey dwellings of diverse designs and various building frontage widths and dwelling types and styles;
A range of original and new dwellings are present on Bellman Avenue, with new development being two storeys. The proposal will also include two-storey dwellings for the proposed lots;
New construction on Bellman Avenue, in the immediate context, has lot coverages and FSI that exceed the Zoning By-law and higher lot coverage is common for new development in the neighbourhood;
In the immediate context FSI ranges from 0.14 to 0.8 with approximately 24% of the properties exceeding 0.4 FSI;
Tight side yard setbacks are common in both the immediate context and surrounding neighbourhood and are evident in the aerial plan (Exhibit 1, p.36) and in many of the images presented of the neighbourhood;
Approximately 58% of the properties have frontages of less than 12.0m in comparison to the geographic neighbourhood which has 44% with frontages of less than 12.0m;
Approximately 20% of properties in the immediate context have a lot area less than 465m²whereas in the geographic neighbourhood it is close to 52% of properties. This discrepancy is due to the deeper properties and through lots that are present on the east side of Bellman Avenue, which impacts the percentage for the immediate context;
There is a range of approved smaller frontages and lot areas on Bellman Avenue, whether through TLAB or other appeal approvals, which has not destabilized the neighbourhood;

18Mr. Romano in his analysis of the Decision Summary Table indicated that many of the approvals by the Committee of Adjustment, or the appeal process, included severances, frontages, lot sizes and setbacks that are similar and consistent with the proposed severance and dwellings. The proposal will be consistent with new development that is occurring both on Bellman Avenue and within the geographic neighbourhood.

19Mr. Romano provided evidence with respect to the Official Plan and touched on sections and policies in 2.3.1, 3.1.2 and 4.1 related to respecting and reinforcing physical character, building relationships within a planned context and that new development “fit” the existing physical character. He indicated that the proposal achieves this through the proposed setbacks and relationship to the lot and street frontage.

20In his Decision summary table (Exhibit 1, pgs. 41-44), utilizing fifteen years of City data, Mr. Romano explained that approximately 83.5% of applications included an FSI variance (121 of 145) and that the approvals ranged from 0.41 to 1.12 times the lot area and 26% of them with an FSI of 0.77 or larger.

21Mr. Romano opined that the proposal contains physical characteristics that exist in substantial numbers and are materially consistent with the physical character of the broader context and have a significant presence on properties located within the immediate context area. The proposal respects and reinforces the prevailing physical character.

22Mr. Romano’s review of the Zoning By-law with respect to lot frontage and area, lot coverage, floor space index and side yard setbacks, concluded that:

The proposal maintains modest lots that will fit in well with the existing neighbourhood and street with numerous lots smaller than the zoning by-law standard for both lot area and lot frontage;
Lot coverage requirements are to ensure the dwelling occupies a reasonable amount of the property to allow for servicing space, setbacks, and amenity space, and that the proposal lot coverage provides for this purpose;
The proposed two-storey dwellings are similar and compatible to those found in the surrounding area and the resulting massing is deployed in an appropriate manner on the lot and therefore the proposed FSI is compatible; and
The side yard setbacks are appropriate and comparable with other new residential development in the neighbourhood which includes dwellings which have side yards smaller than 1.2m.

23Mr. Romano opined that the variances sought were minor as there are no unacceptable adverse impacts resulting from the proposal, the order of magnitude of the variances is consistent with those approved and that occur in the neighbourhood and are appropriate for the two lots proposed within their context.

24The proposal provides an appropriate development and use of the land by providing a reasonable form of development on the proposed new lots, adds to the mix of existing housing stock, and maintains the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

25With respect to the consent request, he explained that a plan of subdivision is not necessary to facilitate the severance proposal, or the proper and orderly development of the property and that the neighbourhood contains other lots created by severance of a similar size and configuration.

26Mr. Romano provided an overview of the consent criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, described those that were applicable to the proposal and opined that the proposal satisfies each criterion individually and cumulatively.

27He noted that the proposal is consistent with the Settlement Area related policies of the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement with respect to contributing to a range of housing options and optimizing the use of land and efficient use of existing Infrastructure. In addition, the proposal conformed to the Growth Plan, as amended in 2020.

28Mr. Romano concluded that the proposal satisfies all consent criteria, satisfies the four planning tests and represents good planning. He submitted that the application should be approved, and the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions outlined on pages 88 and 89 of Exhibit #1.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

29I accept Mr. Romano’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. I further accept his evidence with respect to the proposal meeting the consent to sever criteria of Section 51(24).

30Mr. Romano’s evidence was uncontroverted as the Participant in opposition to the application, Ms. Dorina Vendramin, withdrew her intention to appear and did not attend the Hearing. Given her absence, I have, nevertheless, considered the potential adverse impact the proposed consent and variances may have on the neighbouring property.

OFFICIAL PLAN

31Mr. Romano provided an analysis of applicable Official Plan policy, including OP Policies 2.3.1 with respect neighbourhood physical character, 3.1.2 with respect to built form, and 4.1.5 with respect to development criteria within established Neighbourhoods. These policies provide greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.

32Based on the analysis of the neighbourhood, and specifically Bellman Avenue, photographic evidence provided, along with records of previous COA approvals for the variances sought, submitted by Mr. Romano, I am satisfied that the proposed lot area and coverage, floor space index, frontage, and side yard setbacks of the resulting lots, respect and reinforce the physical character of both the geographic neighbourhood and immediate context.

33I am satisfied that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

ZONING BY-LAW

34Mr. Romano provided evidence of approvals for similar lot severances that resulted in lot area sizes, reduced frontages and increased lot coverage and floor space index in both the immediate and geographic neighbourhood. The most obvious example being the consent to sever that was approved for the neighbouring property to the north, 34 Bellman Avenue.

35The proposal does not require any front or rear yard setback or height variances and it was demonstrated that the proposed residential dwellings will ‘fit’ within the context and neighbourhood.

36I am satisfied that the proposed variances for lot area, lot coverage, floor space index, frontage, and side yard setbacks maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND

37I 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.

38The concern of the neighbour at 30 Bellman Avenue regarding the impact of shadows on their property was considered during the Hearing but as Mr. Romano explained in his evidence, excessive shadowing was not possible as the proposal is north of the neighbouring property in question. The proposed dwelling to the north also did not require any rear yard setback or building length and depth variances.

39Based on the above findings, I also find that the proposal is desirable for the development of the land. It results in a proposal that appropriately addresses its relationship to the adjacent properties and street and fits into its context.

CONCLUSION

40Based on the above analysis, I find that the variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the four tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

41The Appeal is allowed in part. The consent to sever, set out in Appendix ‘A’, is granted and the variances for Part 1 and Part 2, set out in Appendix ‘B’, are authorized subject to the conditions contained therein.

J. Tassiopoulos

Panel Member

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 7.62 m and the lot area will be 232.26 m². The existing dwelling

will be demolished and the property will be developed as a new detached dwelling with

an attached garage.

Retained - Part 1

Address to be assigned

The lot frontage will be 7.62 m and the lot area will be 232.26 m². The existing dwelling

will be demolished and the property will be developed as a new detached dwelling with

an attached garage.

Consent Conditions

The Consent Application is approved on Condition.

The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB therefore consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that 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 as outlined in Condition 6.

(2) Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise 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. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act if applicable as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent transaction to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

(6) The applicant shall, to the satisfaction of Heritage Preservation Services:

a. Retain a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O 1990 as amended) to carry out a Stage 1- 2 archaeological assessment of the entire development property and follow through on recommendations to mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. The assessment is to be completed in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

b. Should the archaeological assessment process continue beyond a Stage 1-2 assessment, any recommendations for Stage 3 or Stage 4 mitigation strategies must be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning prior to commencement of the site mitigation.

c. The consultant archaeologist shall submit a copy of the relevant assessment report(s) to the Heritage Planning Unit as an Acrobat PDF file. All archaeological assessment reports will be submitted to the City of Toronto for approval concurrent with their submission to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

d. No demolition, construction, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the City’s Planning Division (Heritage Planning Unit) and the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Archaeology Programs Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.

(7) Once all of the other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall request, in writing, that the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment issue the Certificate of Official.

(8) Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.

APPENDIX ‘B’ – VARIANCES - 32 Bellman Avenue

Part 1 List of Variances

Section 900.6.10.(18)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 465 m².

The lot area will be 232.26 m2.

Section 900.6.10.(18)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage is 12 m.

The proposed lot will have a lot frontage of 7.62 m.

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

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 33% of the lot area (76.6 m²).

The proposed dwelling will cover 43% of the lot area (99.24 m²).

Section 1(a), By-law 67-1979 & By-law 272-1981

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.4 times the area of the lot (92.9 m²).

The proposed dwelling will have a gross floor area of 0.77 times the area of the lot (178.47 m²).

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

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 0.6 m from the north side lot line and 0.9 m from the south side lot line.

Part 2 List of Variances

Section 900.6.10.(18)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 465 m².

The lot area will be 232.26 m².

Section 900.6.10.(18)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage is 12m.

The proposed lot will have a lot frontage of 7.62m.

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

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 33% of the lot area (76.6 m²).

The proposed dwelling will cover 43% of the lot area (99.24 m²).

Section 1(a), By-law 67-1979 & By-law 272-1981

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.4 times the area of the lot (92.9 m²)

The proposed dwelling will have a gross floor area of 0.77 times the area of the lot (178.47 m²).

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

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 0.6 m from the north side lot line and 0.9 m from the south side lot line.

APPENDIX ‘B’ – VARIANCES - 32 Bellman Avenue

Variance Conditions

(1) The proposed dwellings shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Dero Building Designs, dated December 7, 2021, and attached as APPENDIX ‘C’, herein:

i) Part 1:

Site Plan (SP1)
Front Elevation (A1)
Rear Elevation (A3)
Left Side Elevation (A4)
Right Side Elevation (A5)

ii) Part 2:

Site Plan (SP1)
Front Elevation (A2)
Rear Elevation (A3)
Left Side Elevation (A4)
Right Side Elevation (A5)

Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized.

(2) Where there is no street tree, 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 applications. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.

(3) The requirements of the Engineering and Construction Services Division and Transportation Services Division:

i. 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 width of the entire driveway for the Part 2 Lot within the private property, public right-of-way and the proposed curb cut as being a maximum of 3.2m wide.

b. Illustrate the portion of the site driveway and curb cut within the public right-of-way that is aligned and matches the width of the proposed driveway on private property for both new lots.

c. Illustrate the re-location of the existing hydro pole within the public right-of-way so that its edge is a minimum of 1.0m from the limits of the proposed driveway.

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

e. 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 Bellman Avenue.

ii. The following notations must be included on the revised Site Plan drawings:

a. "All portions of the existing driveway and curb cut that will be removed must be restored to the satisfaction of, and at no cost to the City of Toronto."

b. "The reconstructed driveway and curb cut within the Bellman Avenue boulevard of the site must be built to City standards and at no cost to the municipality."

c. "Obtain approval from the applicable utility company with respect to the hydro pole relocation."

d. "The owner must obtain all required permits from the Construction Activities unit of Transportation Services prior to commencing construction, which may include but not be limited to, payment of a Municipal Road Damage Deposit. The owner must contact the Construction Activities unit of Transportation Services in order to obtain the exact particulars of all required permits."

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Part 1 List of Variances

Part 2 List of Variances

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

OFFICIAL PLAN

ZONING BY-LAW

MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND

CONCLUSION

DECISION AND ORDER

APPENDIX ‘A’ – CONSENT- 32 Bellman Avenue

APPENDIX ‘B’ – VARIANCES - 32 Bellman Avenue

Part 1 List of Variances

Part 2 List of Variances

APPENDIX ‘B’ – VARIANCES - 32 Bellman Avenue

APPENDIX ‘C’