Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 172823 S45 15 TLAB
Green v. Woldemichael, 2023 ONTLAB 14
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 16, 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): William Green
Applicant(s): Graham Barrett
Property Address: 713 Balliol Street
COA File No.: 21 228430 NNY 15 MV (A0730/21NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 172823 S45 15 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 25 & 30, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
G. Barrett
Appellant
W. Green
Party
Y. Woldemichael
M. Mazierski
Party
South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association (SEDRA)
Expert Witness
D. Igelman
Witness
A. Kivi
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On June 23, 2022 the Committee of Adjustment ("CofA") heard an application for 7 minor variances to permit a ground and second floor addition and a new partial third floor (the "Application") at 713 Balliol Street (the "Subject Site"). The Committee approved the Application, subject to the condition that the building height and exterior main wall heights be developed substantially in accordance with the east and west side elevation drawings prepared for the application, dated April 19, 2022 (the "CofA Decision").
2On July 6, 2022, William Green, the owner and occupant of the 717 Balliol, immediately to the east of the Subject Property (the "Neighbouring Property)", appealed the CofA Decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body ("TLAB").
3Martin Mazierski acted as counsel for the Applicant. David Igelman, the Applicant's land use planner, submitted an Expert Witness Statement, including photos and an extensive list of documents in support of the Application. The Appellant submitted a Witness Statement, photo study and documents in opposition to the Application. Al Kivi, a representative of the South Eglinton Davisville Residents' Association ("SEDRA"), also submitted a Witness Statement, photos and documents in opposition to the Application.
4On January 24 & 30, 2023, I chaired an oral hearing with respect to the Application. Mr. Igelman presented evidence on behalf of the Applicant, and was questioned by Mr. Green and Mr. Kivi. Mr. Green and Mr. Kivi presented oral evidence on behalf of the Appellant, and Mr. Green was questioned by Mr. Mazierski.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5In considering an application for minor variances from zoning by-laws, the TLAB Panel must have regard to matters of provincial interest, be consistent with policy statements, conform to provincial plans and be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
Powers of Committee – S. 45(1)
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
6TLAB has the power to consider an application which has been amended from the application that was considered by the Committee of Adjustment.
Powers of Ontario Land Tribunal/TLAB – S. 45(18)
(18) The Tribunal may dismiss the appeal and make any decision that the committee could have made on the original application.
Amended Application – Ss. 45(18.1)
(18.1) On an appeal, the Tribunal may make a decision on an application which has been amended from the original application if, before issuing its order, written notice is given to the persons and public bodies who received notice of the original application under subsection (5) and to other persons and agencies prescribed under that subsection.
Exception – Ss. 45(18.1.1)
(18.1.1) The Tribunal is not required to give notice under subsection (18.1) if, in its opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 98 (5).
PRELIMARY ISSUE
7Mr. Mazierski, counsel for the Applicant, raised a preliminary issue. He explained that the City issued a Zoning Notice dated November 18th, 2022 based on plans dated June 14, 2022 which identified a required variance in floor space index ("FSI") for the Application of .632. The FSI permitted by Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the "ZBL") is .6. The Zoning Notice identified a variance in FSI due to an error made by previous City building examiners. Mr. Mazierski advised the panel that the Applicant was not seeking a substantial change to the plans approved by the CofA.
8The Appellant did not object to TLAB making a decision on an amended application without additional notice.
9The Applicant is seeking to amend the Application to add an 8th variance, to increase the FSI from .6 to .632. (the "Amended Application"). I find the amendment to be minor, which allows me to make a decision on the Amended Application without further notice.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
(a) Appellant's Evidence
10I qualified Mr. Igelman as an expert witness, able to provide opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. I accepted his Expert Witness Statement as Exhibit 1, and Document Disclosure as Ex. 2.
11Mr. Igelman described the existing house on the Subject Site as a two-storey single detached house with an integral garage. He stated that the east side-yard setback of the existing house was .37 metres (Ex. 2 - Site Plan page 1651).
12The land use planner stated that the Application would fill in a "sliver" approximately 5.75 m in length by .52 m. in width (Ex. 2 - Site Plan, supra and Proposed Level 1 Plan, p. 1666). The proposed "sliver" would fill in the rear portion of the existing first and second floors, as well as the new third floor (Ex. 2 - Proposed South Elevation, p. 1677)
13The proposed 3rd story would be set back 5.86 m from the front wall, and 3.51m from the side wall (Proposed Level 1 Plan Ex. 2 p, 1669). According to Mr. Igelman, approximately 49% of the height of the side main walls will comply with the ZBL, while 51% will require a variance for side wall height (Ex. 1 page 10 par. 59).
14Mr. Igelman described the neighbourhood where the Subject Site was located, comprised of the immediate neighbourhood, adjacent neighbourhood and study area boundary (Ex. 2 p. 1363).
15According to the planner, the neighbourhood is characterized by a variety of building types, massing and styles, with a mix of integral garages, detached garages and front yard parking pads. The neighbourhood consists of low-density ground-related residential houses/buildings such as single and semi-detached houses, and apartment buildings, typically 2-3 stories in height.
16Mr. Igelman showed approximately 20 photos of 3 story houses and apartments in the neighbourhood, including properties on Balliol St., Belsize Dr., Davisville Ave., Harwood Road, and McCord Road (Ex. 1, Photo Study, p 1364-1506).
17Mr. Igelman drew TLAB's attention to a Neighbourhood Research Table (the "Table"), containing over 200 examples of variances approved in the study area (Ex. 2 p, 573-5).
18According to the planner, there were numerous variances granted in the neighbourhood similar to those requested in the Amended Application.
19Mr. Igelman emphasized that the Table did not include all of the examples of variances similar to those requested. Similar variances occurred as the result of legal non-conforming uses built before the first zoning by-law, or granted prior to the 10 or so years included in the Table.
20Mr. Igelman described the history of the application. It was originally scheduled to be heard by the CofA in January, 2022, but was deferred to incorporate some of the suggestions of surrounding neighbours. 3 variances originally requested were eliminated, and a 4th variance was reduced, leaving 7 variances to be considered by the CofA. On June 14, 2022 the Applicant submitted revised plans to the City. At the CofA hearing on June 22, 2023, the Application was approved based on plans dated April 19, 2022. On November 14, 2022 the City issued a Zoning Notice based on the June 14 plans, identifying 8 variances.
21Mr. Igelman opined that the Amended Application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater golden Horseshoe 2020.
22Mr. Igelman reviewed Policy 3.1.3.3 the City of Toronto Official Plan (the "OP'), which provides that development will protect privacy within adjacent buildings by providing setbacks and separation distances from neighbouring properties and adjacent buildings with walls containing windows. Under the existing condition, the Subject Property has 3 windows on the 2nd floor on the east side. Under the Amended Application, the Subject Site would have 3 windows on the 2nd floor and 2 basement windows on the east side. One of the third floor windows had been moved back so it would not align directly with a window on the 2nd floor of the Neighbouring Property. Appellant.
23Policy 4.1.5c) requires development to respect and reinforce prevailing heights, massing, scale and density of nearby residential properties. Mr. Igelman emphasized that as perceived from the street, the proposed development would be of similar scale and massing, since almost half of the proposed development was compliant with the zoning by-law, and the third floor addition was set back from the front and back walls.
24Policy 4.1.5d) requires development to respect and reinforce existing side-yard setbacks. Mr. Igelman opined that the reduced east side-yard setback reflected the existing condition with respect to the Subject Site.
25Mr. Igelman reviewed each variance, focusing on those which were opposed most strongly by the Appellant: Variance 1 - side-yard setbacks; Variance 3 – maximum side wall heights; and Variance 5 – maximum FSI.
26Mr. Igelman emphasized that the proposed east side-yard setback of .37 was similar to the existing condition, since the front portion of the east front wall of the Subject Site was located .39 m from its east lot line. He referred to ZBL exception 930, which allows the first floor to be built to the existing setback, although it requires variances for the 2nd and 3rd floors. He noted that there was a greater reduction in the side-yard setback between the Neighbouring Property and 719 Balliol to the east, and similar reductions between a number of other houses in the immediate neighbourhood and adjacent neighbourhood.
27Mr. Igelman also referred to an "aggregate separation distance" of more than 2 m between the houses at 713 and 717 Balliol as relatively generous, due to a driveway on the westerly edge of the Neighbouring Property.
28Mr. Igelman stated that the proposed side wall height of a portion of the side main wall of 9.17 m was consistent with redevelopment within the neighbourhood, and would not create any undue adverse impact on neighbouring houses or the streetscape. He provided a number of examples of main wall height variances approved in the neighbourhood. He also noted a recent Ontario Land Tribunal ("OLT") Decision increasing the permitted main wall height from 7 to 7.5 m. (Bahardoust v. Toronto, OLT PL130592 Nov. 30, 2022)
29Mr. Igelman described the proposed FSI of .632 as a small increase of 12.93 sq.m over that permitted as-of-right, and practically imperceptible from the street.
30Mr. Igelman also opined that the Amended Application was minor and desirable for the neighbourhood, since it would add an additional bedroom and increase the functionality of the house for a family.
31Mr. Green conducted a thorough cross-examination of Mr. Igelman. In response to questions from Mr. Green, Mr. Igelman stated that the 3rd floor windows had been relocated to minimize direct overlook to windows at the Neighbouring Property, but did not know their exact location. Mr. Igelman agreed that that distance between the southeast corner of the 2nd floor of the Subject Site and the lot line was only .31 m (Ex. 1 p. 217).
b) Appellant's Evidence
32Mr. Green gave oral evidence based on his personal experience living in the Neighbourhood Property, a Photo Study (Ex. 3), Witness Statement (Ex. 4), and Updated Document Disclosure (Ex. 4a).
33Mr. Green's parents bought the Neighbouring Property in 1948. Mr. Green was born and grew up there. He was familiar with the first renovation of 713 Balliol in 1981, which maintained a side-yard setback of .9 m for the rear portion and 2nd story addition. He purchased the house in 2002, and was raising two teenage children in the house on the Neighbouring Property.
34Mr. Green expressed concerns that the variances would generally encroach on his space, negatively impact his privacy, and decrease his sunlight.
35Mr. Green objects in particular to Variance 1 which reduces the east side-yard setback, since it will "cantilever" the first, 2nd and 3rd floors over the existing foundation, and bring the front portion of the house closer to his property.
36The reduced distance between houses and new window locations will bring 2 windows at the Subject Site approximately 1 m closer to his daughter's bedroom window at 717 Balliol, impinging on his family's privacy. It will also increase noise from inhabitants of the Subject Site.
37The impact of Variance 1 is further increased since Mr. Green parks on his driveway located on the westerly edge of the Neighbouring Property. He is now able to park and allow passengers to exit from in the mid-portion of the driveway, since there is a side-yard setback of .9 m to the rear portion of the existing house on the Subject Site. He expects his teenage children will soon obtain driving licences, which will result in at least 2 cars parking requiring sufficient space to open the passenger door. Mr. Green stated that he and his family have used the setback at the Subject Site to open the passenger door and exit from vehicles for as many years as he could remember. Any reduction in the width of the east side-yard setback on the Subject Site would impede his use of the driveway on the Neighbouring Property, and would devalue his house and property.
38Mr. Green also expressed concern that cladding which could further reduce the east side-year setback. He drew TLAB's attention to S. 10.5.40.60 of the ZBL, which allows cladding to be added to the exterior surface of a main wall of a building, but which limits the width of cladding to .15 m if the added cladding in no closer to a lot line than .3 m
39Mr. Green presented a survey of 717 Balliol prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in 1981 which shows the frontage of 7.77m, instead of 7.62 m as shown in the Applicant's survey. The 1981 survey shows his driveway to be .05m wider than the Applicant's survey (Ex. 4a p.3). These discrepancies will likely negatively impact Mr. Green's continued use of his driveway.
40Mr. Green also objected to Variance 3, which will result in a wall 17 m. long and 9.3 m tall in the mid-section being located closer to his house than the by-law permits. The variance would create a sheer wall of a mass and scale which would overshadow the Neighbouring Property. It would also diminish the light coming into the windows on the west side of his house.
41Mr. Kivi gave evidence in support of the Appellant. He introduced his Witness Statement as Ex. 5, his Photos as Ex. 6 and his Document Disclosure as Ex. 7.
42Mr. Kivi has lived at 427 Belsize since 1959, and has been an active member of SEDRA for the past 8 years. He explained that SEDRA encourages residents to try to settle differences with applicants. Since Mr. Green was unable to settle his differences with the Applicant, Mr. Kivi was appearing in opposition to the Application.
43According to Mr. Kivi, the Amended Application will not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood with respect to the height, mass and scale; will have a negative impact on abutting neighbours and nearby properties; the cantilevered section is not appropriate for the development of the property; and the variances are not minor.
44Mr. Kiwi focused his oral evidence on distinguishing the impact of a number of the photos introduced by Mr. Igelman.
45Mr. Kiwi noted that 401 Balliol (Ex. 2 p. 1379) had not been approved but not built, and could not be used as an example of increased height existing in the neighbourhood.
46Mr. Kiwi described 419 Balliol (Ex. 2 p. 1435) as an example of a new house with stucco cladding causing an adverse impact on the usability of a driveway at an adjacent older house.
c) Submissions of the Parties
47In his closing submission, Mr. Mazierski emphasized that the aggregate separation distance between the Proposed Development and 717 Balliol St. was wider than many other properties in the neighbourhood. He noted that City Planning had no objection to the Application, and the Amended Application was based on the same plans. However, he agreed, on behalf of the Applicant, to add frosting to all windows on the east side of the Proposed Development.
48Mr. Mazierski filed the case of Re Green Dot Architects (2017 CarswellOnt 20910), containing the statement that "there is no right to an unobstructed view through backyards, or to be free from shadowing, or a claim that privacy should be paramount where there might be overlook". He submitted that the Appellant had an even weaker claim to an unobstructed view from a side window, which did not look out on to the street or public realm.
49In his closing submission, the Appellant submitted that the cantilever condition along the side wall was not characteristic of the neighbourhood; the second floor windows would reduce privacy, unless they could not be opened as well as being frosted; and his driveway would be rendered inoperable.
50Mr. Kivi filed a number of cases on behalf of SEDRA in opposition to the Application. He submitted that the cases supported the following positions: new development should be refused where it reduces the usability of a driveway (Poorsina re 73 Donegal Drive, OMB PL140158); shadowing, overlook and privacy are important planning concerns (D'Alessandro re 354 Woodmount Ave., 21 196520); TLAB should take account of prevailing patterns of side yard setbacks (Maw re132 Glencairn Ave., 22 120701 S45 08 TLAB); and TLAB should consider both adverse impact and desirability when evaluating variances maintaining existing conditions (French re103 Esgore Drive, 20 217166 S 45 08 TLAB)
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
51The primary issue is whether the applicant discharged the onus of providing evidence that the Amended Application meets the requirements of the Planning Act; particularly with respect to privacy, side-yard setback and side wall height.
52A secondary and related issue concerns my jurisdiction to consider some of the evidence offered by the Appellant.
PLANNING ISSUES
53Mr. Igelman provided extensive expert evidence on behalf of the Applicant concerning the requirements of the Planning Act. His evidence concerning consistency and conformity with provincial planning documents was not refuted by the Appellant. However, the provincial documents address new development at a high general level, and my determination will be based primarily on the tests set out in S. 45(1) of the Act.
a) Privacy
54There was a factual discrepancy between the evidence of the Applicant and Appellant with respect to the location of the third floor window in the Proposed Development.
55According to the Applicant's planner, changes were made to realign the windows to avoid direct overlook. However, the Appellant provided calculations, which I found persuasive, showing that 1 second floor window in the proposed development would be closely aligned with an existing window on the 2nd floor of the Neighbouring Property, specifically with the window in the bedroom used by the Appellant's daughter.
56I agree with the Appellant that privacy and overlook are valid planning concerns. However, I do not find the D'Alessandro case submitted by the Mr. Kivi of much assistance. That case involved a more significant increase in FSI, and was decided primarily on the basis of overlarge scale, not privacy or overlook.
57I agree with the Applicant that there is no absolute right to privacy, particularly in a developed urban setting. I do not find the Green Dot case submitted by Mr. Mazierski of much assistance either. The fact situation in that case, involving overlook resulting from the construction of a rear yard gazebo, is very different from the Subject Site.
58I considered the presence of existing windows on the east side of the 2nd floor of the Subject Site facing windows on the west side of the 2nd floor of the Neighbouring Property. The Amended Application will result in the windows being located in a wall of the Subject Site which is about a metre closer to, and likely more closely aligned to, the windows in the Neighbouring Property. However, it will not fundamentally change the existing condition of side windows overlooking side windows.
59I find that the Applicant's proposal to require all of the windows on the east side of the proposed to be frosted meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan with respect to privacy and overlook. I will not require that the windows not be openable. In my view, that would likely require additional air conditioning, which would conflict with other matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act, such as the efficient use and conservation of energy (Subsection 2(e)).
b) Side-Yard Setback
60The reduced side-yard setback was the most contentious variance in the Amended Application.
61The Applicant's planner emphasized that the reduced eastern side-yard setback was an existing condition for the front portion of the Neighbouring Property. He also provided a number of examples of reduced side-yard setbacks in the immediate and adjacent neighbourhood, ranging from 0 to .6m. The planner opined that there were additional reduced setbacks in the immediate adjacent and broader neighbourhood not included in the Photo Study or Table.
62The Appellant referred frequently and critically to the fact that Variance 1 involves a "cantilever" extension from the first to the third floor, since the Proposed Building would be built closer to the lot line than the existing foundation. Mr. Igelman also used the term "cantilever", although he limited its application to the rear portion of the Proposed Building.
63In response to a question of clarification from me as Panel Chair, the Applicant's planner agreed that this was not a cantilevered building in the traditional sense of an upper portion of a building overhanging the ground, as illustrated by 196 Manor Road East (Ex. 2 Photo 189 p. 1458). Instead it described a building where the rear portion of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the house were approximately .5 m closer to the lot line than the foundation.
64My jurisdiction is based on assessing minor variances in accordance with the tests set out in S. 45(1) of the Planning Act. I am not charged with evaluating the construction methods used to reduce the side-yard setback, such as a cantilever as described above.
65I have considered the cases that SEDRA submitted opposing Variance 1. The Donegal Drive case involved a variance requiring an extension of approximately 3.5 m in length for the proposed house, affecting a mutual driveway. There is no increase in length in the subject case.
66In the Glencairn case, TLAB Member Yao found reduced FSI and setbacks were found in only a small percentage of the total properties in the neighbourhood. In this case, the planner provided evidence that the geographic neighbourhood contained a mix of physical characteristics, and that narrow side-yard setbacks are found in significant numbers on properties in the immediate and adjacent neighbourhood.
67In the Esgore case, the applicant sought to maintain existing reductions in side yard setbacks as well as other existing conditions. Esgore cited the case of Elbasiouni v. Brampton, 2017 ONSC 1556, to affirm the principle that expanding a legal non-conforming use must meet a two-part test: it must be desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property and its impact on surrounding uses must not be unacceptably adverse. Esgore found expanding the area subject to the reduced setback was desirable and did not have an unacceptable adverse impact.
68The Appellant also objected vigorously to the reduction in the east side-yard setback due to discrepancies in surveys and reduced use of his driveway. I find these are not primarily planning matters, and will deal address these concerns below under the heading "Other Issues".
69I accept the evidence of Mr. Igelman that that reduced setbacks are found in substantial numbers in the immediate and adjacent neighbourhoods, and his opinion that the reduced setback is desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Site and will not have an undue adverse impact on the Neighbouring Property. Consequently I find the variance which reduces the side-yard setbacks to be acceptable.
c) Height of Main Walls
70Mr. Igelman provided 10 examples of main wall height variances approved in the adjacent and larger neighbourhood. In response to questions from me and evidence from Mr. Kivi, the planner agreed that houses at 401 Balliol and 153 Forman Ave. were approved but not yet built.
71Mr. Igelman also provided a sketch showing that the Applicant could have built the side walls higher than proposed as of right at the front and rear of the building, which would have had a greater and more deleterious impact on massing and scale than the Proposed Development (Ex. 1 East Elevation [plus full 3rd story] page 1673).
72Counsel for the Applicant told the Tribunal that the OLT recently approved an increase in height for side walls, so that the permitted height was now 7.5 m, reducing the height variance for half of the length of the building to 1.67 m.
73The Appellant objected since it would create a sheer wall over 9 m in height and 17 m in length which would tower over the mid-portion of his house.
74I reviewed the documentary and visual evidence provided by both parties and Mr. Kivi. The proposed main wall heights are similar to those of a significant number of homes in the immediate and adjacent neighbourhood, and the impact of the proposed partial 3rd floor is less than that which could have been built as of right. Consequently, I find that the proposed increase in the mid-portion of the side walls meets the tests in S. 45 (1) of the Planning Act.
(d) Other Variances
75The Applicant is seeking a variance for maximum building height. Counsel for the Applicant advised TLAB that the OLT has increased the height limit to 10 m, so an application submitted after October 12, 1922 would no longer require a height variance.
76The Applicant is seeking a variance for building depth, which reflects the depth of the existing building on the site.
77The Applicant is seeking a variance for FSI in the amount of 12.93 m2. The increase will be imperceptible from the street.
78The Applicant is seeking a reduction in minimum required front-yard setback, which reflects the setback of the existing house and is generally in line with the setbacks of adjacent houses at 709 and 717 Balliol.
79The applicant is seeking a reduction in front yard soft landscaping. The proposed variance will result in an increase in the existing soft landscaping.
80I find that the variances in the Amended Application, individually and cumulatively, meet the tests set out in the Planning Act.
OTHER ISSUES
81The Appellant attempted to raise concerns arising from discrepancies in lot widths and side-yard setbacks between two surveys prepared by Ontario Land Surveyors showing the Neighbouring Property:
(a) Survey prepared by V. Dosen Surveying dated May 5, 2021, submitted by the Applicant (Ex. 1.p. 6); and
(b) Survey prepared by Wheeler Associates dated July 16, 1981 submitted by the Appellant (Ex. 4a p. 3)
82I note that the discrepancies between the surveys appear relatively small – less than .5 m. However, they were of significant concern to the Appellant, due to the narrow width of his driveway, and the fact that he converted a garage to the rear of his property to a workshop. As I ruled at the hearing, I do not have jurisdiction or authority to resolve disputes concerning surveys. Such disputes could only be resolved by an application to the Ontario Superior Court.
83The Appellant submitted that first his father and then he had for many years used a portion of the Applicant's land – the same portion that the Applicant characterized as the "sliver' that the proposed development was filling in - to open a car door. The Appellant, who was self-represented, referred to his right to use the sliver as based on "adverse possession", without explaining the term or his understanding of the basis for his alleged right. By contrast, counsel for the Applicant characterized the Appellant's expectation of continued use of a sliver of the Applicant's land as trespass.
84The use of land by one party, such as the Appellant, when paper title is held by another party, such as the Applicant, is a complex area of law. I do not have jurisdiction or authority to determine the Appellant's claim to use any portion of the Applicant's land by adverse possession, prescriptive easement or any other legal doctrine. Again, this is a matter for determination by the courts.
CONCLUSION
85I will uphold the CofA Decision to allow the variances, as amended by an additional variance for FSI. I will make the TLAB Decision subject to a condition similar to that imposed by the CofA, but updated to reflect more recent elevations. Lastly, I will add a condition requiring all windows on the east side of the Proposed Development to be frosted.
DECISION AND ORDER
86That TLAB:
(a) Approves the variances for 713 Balliol as set out in the Zoning Notice dated November 18, 2022, (Exhibit 1, page 1680) attached to this Decision as Attachment 1;
(b) That the approval of the variances be subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the building height and side exterior main wall heights be developed substantially in accordance with Proposed East and West Elevation drawings dated June 14, 2022 (Ex. 1 p. 1673 & 1674) attached to this Decision as Attachment 2; and that
(ii) The windows shown on the East (side) Elevation drawing (Ex. 1 p. 1673) in Attachment 2 be frosted.
R. Kanter
Panel Member
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2