Saboohi (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 143

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-10-17

23 137925 S53 22 TLAB,

23 137927 S45 22 TLAB,

23 137928 S45 22 TLAB

Saboohi (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 143

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

October 17, 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. Saboohi

Applicant(s):

M Behar Planning & Design Limited

Property Address:

45 Scarden Ave.

COA File No.:

22 179348 ESC 22 CO (B0029/22SC)

22 179331 ESC 22 MV (A0216/22SC)

22 179339 ESC 22 MV (A0218/22SC)

TLAB Case File No.:

2023 137925 S53 22 TLAB

2023 137927 S45 22 TLAB

2023 137928 S45 22 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

September 13, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

M BEHAR PLANNING & DESIGN LIMITED

C. Pereira

Appellant

M. SABOOHI

Z. Fleisher

Owner

K. DALLAMI

Participant

P. ELEFTERIADIS

Participant

E. KYRIOPOULOS

Participant

S. FATOUREH BANBABI

Participant

D. MENESES BERTAO

Participant

H. CHEN

Participant

L. HUANG

Expert Witness

C. PEREIRA

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1In July 2022, the Applicant submitted applications for consent to sever 45 Scarden Avenue (the “Site”) into two lots, and for minor variances to construct one new

detached dwelling on each of the lots (the “Applications”). The Applications included plans dated April 22, 2022.

2In January 2023, the Applicant submitted revised the plans to the Committee of Adjustment, primarily to preserve a large oak tree on the north-easterly portion of the site (the “C of A Plans”).

3On April 4, 2023 the Committee of Adjustment refused the Applications including the C of A Plans.

4On April 25, 2023 the Owner appealed the refusal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”). The refusal was initially scheduled to be heard at the TLAB on August 21, 2023.

5On July 31, 2023, the Owner submitted revised plans prepared by Icon Architects dated May 11, 2023 to TLAB (the “Revised Plans”), and requested that the TLAB hearing be adjourned to allow for further discussions with neighbours.

6The hearing was adjourned, and I heard the appeal at the TLAB on September 13, 2023.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

7Provincial Interest – S. 2

TLAB shall have regard to matters of provincial interest, such as:

(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing

8Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the 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 Planning Act (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;

(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 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

A Evidence of the Applicant’s Planner

11The Applicant called Chris Pereira, a Principal with M. Behar Planning & Design Limited, as a witness. I qualified Mr. Pereira as an expert witness able to give opinion evidence on the subjects of land use planning and urban design. I entered his document disclosure as Exhibit 1, and his witness statement as Ex. 2.

12Mr. Pereira stated that the Site is a corner lot on the southwest corner of Scarden Ave. and Heaslip Terrace. Heaslip Terrace curves southwest, runs westerly south of Scarden, then curves northwest back to Scarden. Marlbank Road is the continuation of Heaslip north of Scarden.

13The Site has a frontage of 21.86 metres on Scarden Ave., a depth of 33.53 m on Heaslip Terrace and an area of 762 square m.

14The Site is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan.

15According to Mr. Pereira, the Site is zoned RD (x926) by Zoning by-law 569-2013 (the “ZBL”). ZBL Exception RD 926 applies to 9 lots surrounding the intersection of Scarden with Heaslip/Marlbank. Exception RD 926 requires lot frontage and area to be the same as those existing prior to the enactment of the ZBL. Exception RD 1462 also applies to the Site, and regulates the maximum floor space index according to the size of the lot.

16The ZBL provisions applicable to this Site include performance standards for: minimum lot frontage; minimum lot area; minimum front yard setback; setback from porch canopy; minimum side yard setback, maximum floor space index, maximum lot coverage; height of main walls for flat roof buildings; and height of parapets.

17The Site is located in a geographic neighbourhood between Sheppard and Highway 401, and Warden Avenue to Birchmount Road. The neighbourhood is characterized by fragmented or “patchwork” zoning. Semi-detached houses are permitted immediately south of the Site, and smaller lots are permitted north and west of the Site. The Site contains one of the largest lots in the neighbourhood.

18While the majority of the lots are oriented north and south, there are a significant number of houses oriented east to west, including the other three corners of the Scarden and Heaslip/Marlbank intersection.

19Lots with rear yards adjacent to side yards are found in significant numbers, particularly on corner lots, such as 47 Scarden across Heaslip east of the Site.

20Mr. Pereira described the proposed lots, shown on a draft plan prepared by Mandarin Surveyors Limited dated November 9, 2022, which appears in Ex. 2 at page 28. The existing lot fronting on Scarden would be cut in two by a new lot line running westerly from Heaslip to the easterly lot line of 41 Scarden, the lot immediately west of the Site. The new lot line would result in two lots with an east- west orientation.

21Lot One is the proposed northerly corner lot, with its side lot line on Scarden and front lot line on Heaslip. The house on Lot One would have its front door and driveway on Scarden, although its front lot line would be designated on Heaslip. The rear of the house would be adjacent to the northerly side of 41 Scarden.

22Lot Two is the proposed southerly lot, with frontage on Heaslip, and its southerly lot line adjacent to 84 & 86-88 Heaslip. The house on Lot Two would have its front door, driveway and front lot line on Heaslip.

23Mr. Pereira provided a chart showing the proposed lots, and the variances requested for houses to be built on each lot at Ex. 2, pages 14-15. Following is a simplified version of the chart, showing the applicable ZBL provision, the standard required by the ZBL, and that proposed by the Applicant in the Revised Plans:

Lot 1 – Corner Lot

ZBL Performance Standard

Required

Proposed (Revised Plans)

Minimum Lot Frontage

21.86m

20.22m

Minimum Lot Area

761.89sq. m

453.1sq. m

Minimum Front Yard Setback

4.45m

Number of Res. Buildings on a lot

2 (if consent granted)

Maximum density

.5x

.66x

Max. height (main wall, flat roof)

7.2m

8.41m

Max. height, parapet wall

7.5m

8.71

Min. rear yard setback

7.5m

3.6m

Lot 2 – Interior Lot

ZBL Performance Standard

Required

Proposed (Revised Plans)

Minimum Lot Frontage

21.86m

13.34m

Minimum Lot Area

761.89sq. m

308.39sq. m

Minimum Front Yard Setback

3.85m

Minimum Front Yard Setback to porch canopy

3.5m

2.99m

Maximum Density

.5x

.79x

Maximum Lot Coverage

33%

38.9%

Number of Res. Buildings on a lot

2 (if consent granted)

Max. height (main wall, flat roof)

7.2m

8.44m

Max. height, parapet wall

7.5m

24Mr. Pereira provided his opinion that the variances have regard for matters of provincial interest by providing housing opportunities that use land, energy and water efficiently. He opined that they are consistent with the PPS since they optimize the use of land and existing resources within an existing settlement area, and conform to the Growth Plan since they represent a modest form of intensification by adding an additional dwelling unit where growth is to be focused.

25Mr. Pereira opined that the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. They respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, particularly the immediate context. Houses on all three corners abutting the Site exhibit side-to-rear conditions similar to that proposed. The front door and driveway of the house on Lot One will continue the Scarden streetscape; the front door and driveway of Lot Two on Heaslip will match the orientation of existing houses on the east side of Heaslip and the other corner of Heaslip and Scarden further west.

26Lot One would continue to have one of the largest lot frontages in the neighbourhood, and Lot Two would fall within the 80th percentile. Lot One would fall within the 75th percentile with respect to lot size, and Lot Two would fall within the 12th percentile.

27The front yard setback of the house on Lot One would be result in a wall consistent with 41 Scarden, the house immediately to the west. The front yard setback of the house on Lot Two would be generally in line with the side walls of 88 Heaslip, the house on Heaslip to the south. The heights of both houses are below the maximum height of 9 m permitted for a peaked roof house.

28Mr. Pereira also opined that the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

29In his opinion, the reduced front yard setbacks generally align with the walls of adjacent homes on Scarden and Heaslip. Lot frontages, which are more noticeable from the street than lot areas, are larger than the majority of lots in the neighbourhood. Lot areas are sufficient for two single family homes, and the variances for reduced sizes do not result in any undue impacts.

30He stated that the reduced rear yard setback for the house on Lot One results from revisions to save large oak tree on the easterly portion of the Lot. The proposed house contains a “notch” to reduce the impact on the house to the west at 41 Scarden.

31Mr. Pereira also stated that the additional density, main wall height, and coverage of the house on Lot 2 would not result in any undue adverse impacts with respect to privacy, shadow or overlook.

32In his opinion, the variances are desirable since they add one additional dwelling without creating any inappropriate impacts on adjacent lots or houses. The variance are minor in nature, and would fit within the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

33Lastly, Mr. Pereira provided his opinion with respect to the request for a consent to create two lots. He stated that it meets the relevant criteria in S. 51 (24) of the Planning Act. It conforms to the Official Plan, does not impact any adjacent plans of subdivision and mirrors the condition on the west side of Heaslip where single detached dwellings with an east-west orientation were developed after semi- detached dwellings were developed along the north and south sides of Heaslip.

B Evidence of Danny Bertao

34Mr. Bertao and his wife Shima Banabi own and reside at 84 Heaslip Terrace, located southwest of the Site (“84”). The rear of 84 is largely situated back to back with the rear of 41 Scarden. However, the northeast corner of 84 shares a lot line with the southwest corner of the Site. 84 is a semi-detached dwelling sharing a party wall with 82 Scarden.

35Mr. Bertao submitted a witness statement and documents as a Participant. I entered his witness statement as Ex. 3, and his documents as Ex. 4. According to the overview in his statement, the proposal would result in two large houses which are too large for the proposed lots.

36He stated that the variances are not minor, since they would result in houses that are excessively tall, bulky and imposing. They would result in a significant loss of privacy, view, and indirect light to the north-east portion of 84.

37He stated that there are no other flat roof houses in the neighbourhood, and certainly none which are over 7 m in height.

38The proposed houses would be oriented in an east-west direction. That orientation would be out of keeping with the neighbourhood character, and would result in a loss of spacing between the rear of 84 and houses on the Site.

39Mr. Bertao stated that the Revised Plans represent an improvement over the C of A Plans, due to increasing the rear yard setback of the house on Lot 2 to 7.5 m. However, he continued to object to the reduction in privacy resulting from windows and deck on the west side (rear) of the house on Lot Two.

40He consulted a real estate agent, who advised him that the proposed development would reduce the value of 84.

41Mr. Bertao objected to an increase in the permitted side wall height for the proposed houses, particularly since they have flat roofs, which will have greater mass and impact than a peaked roof house. The proposed houses would tower over 84, which he estimates has a height of 5.7 m.

42He calculated that the proposed lot coverage for the house on Lot 2 would be over 25% greater than the coverage of 84 and other houses on Heaslip. The increase in floor area for the house on Lot 2 is 32% larger, and for the house on Lot 1 is 31% larger, than that allowed by the ZBL.

43He objected to the reduction in rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 3.56 m between the house on Lot 1 and 41 Scarden. He also objects to the proximity of the two houses to each other.

44Mr. Bertao characterized the requested variances to lot area and frontage as major rather than minor.

45Mr. Bertao also stated that the proposed variances do not meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. They don’t reflect the prevailing size and configuration of lots along Scarden, which are larger, or Heaslip, which are smaller. They don’t reflect the prevailing heights or massing. There are no existing homes with two floors above a basement garage, with a flat roof on top. They don’t reflect the prevailing pattern of rear yard setbacks, which are characterized by generous open pace behind the houses.

46Mr. Bertao took issue with a number of the houses which the Applicant relied on as comparable to the Site. Lots on Aragon are larger, and other houses sought smaller variances than those sought by the Applicant.

47In his view, the proposed development is not desirable. Intensification could be achieved by building two parallel homes both fronting on Scarden which maintain the required rear yard setbacks.

48Mr. Bertao opposed the Applications. However, if TLAB approves the consent and variances, the approval should be made conditional on their being no changes to the Revised Plans.

49In response to questions on cross-examination, Mr. Bertao conceded that there was some overlook from the existing windows at 84 to the Site, and he had not calculated the height of 84 with precision.

Evidence of Peter Elefteriadis

50Mr. Peter Elefteriadis and his wife own and live at 86 Heaslip Terrace. He took part in this hearing as a Participant. I entered his witness statement as Ex. 5

51According to Mr. Elefteriadis, he also represents the owners of 82 and 88 Heaslip. I entered their witness statement as Ex.6.

52Mr. Elefteriadis agreed with and adopted the objections of Mr. Bertao, in his witness statement and oral statement to the TLAB.

53He also asserted that the two proposed houses are too large for the lots; will result in significant visual impairment of his property; and are not consistent with the look and feel of the neighbourhood due to their east-west orientation.

54Mr. Elefteriadis also requested the TLAB to dismiss the appeal, but if TLAB approves the consent and variances, to make the approval conditional that there be no changes to the plans.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

55I determined that the changes between the C of A Plans and the Revised Plans are minor. Consequently, I can consider the Revised Plans at this hearing without further notice, pursuant to Section 45 (18.1.1) of the Act.

56The first issue in this case is whether the application for consent meets the criteria in S. 51 (24) and S. 53 of the Act.

57Mr. Pereira addressed this issue in Ex. 1, and also provided his oral opinion that severance of the site into two lots meets the criteria set out in the Act, and does not require a plan of subdivision.

58The City did not appear at the hearing or provide any evidence in opposition to the consent. The participants did not address this issue directly, but took the position that the proposed lots do not conform to the Official Plan, one of the criteria which I must have regard to in determining if a consent is to be allowed. I will deal with this argument when I consider the second issue, whether the minor variances meet the tests set out in S. 45 of the Act.

59Mr. Pereira provided the only expert planning evidence in support of the proposed variances. He provided visual and statistical evidence that the variances

maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, since they respect and reinforce the existing neighbourhood character. He showed that the neighbourhood is composed of a mix of physical characters, including semi-detached houses immediately south of the Site, and demonstrated that single family homes oriented east to west, and homes with rear yards adjacent to side yards, exist in substantial numbers and have a significant presence in the immediate context of the Site.

60I do not accept Mr. Pereira’s evidence that the proposal complies with Policy

4.1.9 of the Official Plan. I agree with the Participants that the infill provision is limited to development on existing lots that vary from the local pattern. The existing lot conforms to the existing pattern.

61Mr. Pereira provided evidence that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. He explained that some deviations from the by-law, such as reduced front yard setbacks, are consistent with neighbourhood character. Others, such as reduced rear yard setbacks, result from the applicant’s adherence to other planning objectives, such as maintaining the large mature tree on the north-easterly portion of the Site. He explained that other variances, such as the increase in FSI for both houses, are within the range of other approvals in the neighbourhood. The increase in height for the main walls was lower than the permitted height of a peaked roof house. The remaining variances, such as the reduction in lot frontage to a porch canopy, were minor and acceptable.

62He also provided persuasive evidence that the variances are minor and desirable.

63Mr. Bertao, with support from Mr. Elefteriadis, provided comprehensive, well organized and articulate evidence in opposition to the Revised Variances.

64The Participants did not retain a professional planner. They did not provide factual evidence to support their views that east-west orientations of the proposed lots, or rear to side orientations were not characteristic of the neighbourhood. Nor did they provide persuasive evidence that the proposed houses would result in significantly greater impact on overlook or privacy than the existing condition, or one house which could be built as of right.

65The participants raised concerns about the number and numerical extent of the proposed variances. However, many TLAB decisions have determined that the impact of the variances, rather than their number and mathematical extent, are more important in assessing their acceptance or rejection.

66Consequently, I prefer the evidence of the Applicant’s Planner to the evidence of the Participants with respect to the tests for the consent and variances. I find that the Revised Variances have regard for the criteria for a consent, and meet the tests for minor variances contained in the Act.

67However, I understand the concern of the Participants with respect to the potential increased impact of the Applications should they be altered by changes such as additional windows or decks. Consequently, I will add a condition requiring the Applicant to construct the proposed houses substantially in accordance with the Revised Plans.

CONCLUSION

68I will allow the appeal, subject to the usual conditions for the consent, and subject to the conditions proposed by City staff and the Participants with respect to the variances.

DECISION AND ORDER

Consent & Conditions for Consent

69I give a provisional consent as shown on draft Plan 66R- prepared by Mandarin Surveyors Limited dated November 9, 2022 attached as Schedule 1.

70Before 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 Owner must submit a revised draft 66R-Plan to address the following comment to the satisfaction of the Land and Property Surveys, Engineering and Construction Services, prior to being deposited in the Land Registry Office for registration:

a. The draft 66R plan to reflect correct Easting coordinate for Point ID5.

Point ID 5 should read as Easting 320839.43

(6) 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.

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

Variances for Lot 1 – Corner of Scarden & Heaslip Terrace

71I approve the following variances for Lot 1, subject to conditions 1 & 2 set out below:

Exception RD 926.(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed lot frontage is 20.22 m.

Exception RD 926.(B), By-law 569-2013

The proposed lot area is 453.31 m².

Exception RD 1462.(C)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The proposed front yard setback is 4.45 m.

Exception RD 1462.(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The proposed floor area is 0.66 times the lot area. (296.92 m²)

Chapter 10.20.40.1.(2), By-law 569-2013

The proposed number of dwellings on the lot is two, following approval of the consent.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed height of main walls is 8.41 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

The proposed height of parapet walls is 8.71 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.70.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed rear yard setback is 3.56 m.

Variances for Lot 2 – Interior Lot south of Lot 1

72I approve the following variances for Lot 2, subject to conditions 1-4 set out below:

Exception RD 926.(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed lot frontage is 13.34 m.

Exception RD 926.(B), By-law 569-2013

The proposed lot area is 308.39 m².

Exception RD 926.(C)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The proposed front yard setback is 3.85 m.

Exception RD 1462.(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

The proposed floor area is 0.7925 times the lot area. (244.4 m²)

Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed lot coverage is 39.8% of the lot. (122.82 m²)

Chapter 10.20.40.1.(2), By-law 569-2013

The proposed number of dwellings on the lot is two.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed height of main walls is 8.44 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

The proposed height of parapet walls is 9 m.

Chapter 10.5.40.60(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The proposed setback to the front porch is 2.99 m.

Conditions of Approval - Minor Variances

Construction of the proposed dwelling(s) shall be substantially in accordance with the Site Plan and Elevations dated June 20, 2023, attached as Schedule 2

2 (a) Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.

(b) 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.

No windows shall be located on the south elevation of Lot 2.
The minimum south side yard setback of Lot 2 shall be 1.35 metres.

R. Kanter Panel Member

Schedule 1

Schedule 2

PORCH

45 SCARDEN

PART 1

PROPOSED 2 STOREY DWELLING

LIST OF DRAWINGS A0-0 SITE PLAN

A0-1 SITE STATISTICS-PART 1

A1-1 BASEMENT & FIRST FLOOR PLANS-PART 1 A1-2 SECOND FLOOR & ROOF PLAN-PART 1

A2-1 NORTH(FRONT) ELEVATION-PART 1 A2-2 SOUTH ELEVATION-PART 1

A2-3 WEST ELEVATION-PART 1 A2-4 EAST ELEVATION-PART 1 A3-1 BUILDING SECTION-PART 1

STORGAE

REC. AREA

OFFICE

FAMILY ROOM

BATH

MECH. ROOM

PORCH

NANNY ROOM 1

KITCHEN

LIVING/DINING ROOM

1 1

ENSUITE

WIC

BEDROOM#3

LAUNDRY

BEDROOM#2 ¹ ¹

FLAT ROOF

WIC

BEDROOM#4

MASTER BEDROOM

ENSUITE

1 1

188.75

185.66

182.27

181.47

180.34

179.97

179.46

178.22

188.75

185.66

182.27

181.47

180.34

179.97

179.46

178.22

188.75

185.66

182.27

181.47

180.34

179.97

179.46

178.22

188.75

185.66

182.27

181.47

180.34

179.97

179.46

178.22

LIST OF DRAWINGS B0-0 SITE PLAN

PORCH

45 SCARDEN

PART 2

PROPOSED 2 STOREY DWELLING

B0-1 SITE STATISTICS-PART 2

B1-1 BASEMENT & FIRST FLOOR PLAN-PART 2 B1-2 SECOND FLOOR & ROOF PLAN-PART 2 B2-1 EAST (FRONT)ELEVATION-PART 2

B2-2 WEST ELEVATION-PART 2 B2-3 SOUTH ELEVATION-PART 2 B2-4 NORTH ELEVATION-PART 2 B3-1 BUILDING SECTION-LOT B

PORCH

45 SCARDEN

PART 1

PROPOSED 2 STOREY DWELLING

BYLAW 569-2013

45 SCARDEN AVE. PART 2

SCARBOROUGH - ON M1T 1V8

NEW 2 STOREY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT

RD 926

REQUIRED

PROPOSED

LOT AREA

360 M2

308.4 M2

LOT FRONTAGE

12.0 M

13.34 M

BASEMENT AREA (EX. GARAGE)

84.59 M2

BASEMENT AREA (IN. GARAGE)

121.20 M2

FIRST FLOOR AREA

121.20 M2

SECOND FLOOR AREA

122.82 M2

GFA

244.02 M2

FOOT PRINT AREA

122.82 M2

FSI

0.79

COVERAGE

33%

39.8%

FRONT YARD SETBACK

6.00 M

4.50 M

SIDE YARD SETBACK (NORTH)

1.20 M

0.90 M

SIDE YARD SETBACK (SOUTH)

1.20 M

1.35 M

REAR YARD SETBACK

7.50 M

BUILDING LENGTH

17 M

10.83 M

BUILDING HEIGHT

9.00 M

8.41 M

MAX. FLAT ROOF

50%

100%

FRONT YARD AREA

58.5 M2

DRIVE WAY AREA

27.1 M2

TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA

31.4 M2

53.6%

SOFT LANDSCAPE AREA

22.4 M2

71.3%

HARD LANDSCAPE AREA

9.0 M2

28.6%

PORCH

PWDR

MECH. ROOM

/ STORAGE

GREAT ROOM

BATH ROOM

DINING

1 1 1 1

NANNY ROOM

KITCHEN

PANTRY

OFFICE

BATH

BEDROOM#2 BEDROOM#3

HIS WIC

HIS ENSUITE

WIC

FLAT ROOF

MASTER BEDROOM

1 1 1 1

LIN.

HER ENSUITE

189.03

185.73

182.38

181.12

180.42

180.23

179.79

178.17

189.03

185.73

182.38

181.12

180.42

180.23

179.79

178.17

189.03

185.73

182.38

181.12

180.42

180.23

179.79

178.17

189.03

185.73

182.38

181.12

180.42

180.23

179.79

178.17

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

M BEHAR PLANNING AND DESIGN INC C/O CHRIS PEREIRA

25 VALLEYWOOD DR UNIT 23 MARKHAM ON L3R 5L9

Zoning Notice

Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2023

Zoning Certificate (ZZC) Review No: 21 242350 ZZC 00 ZR FolderRSN: 5029714 House - New Building

Proposed Use: sfd

at 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT A

Ward: Scarborough-Agincourt (22)

Examination of your Zoning Certificate application has revealed that certain requirements of the applicable City Zoning By-law(s) have not been satisfied. The attached Notice provides details of the review.

Should compliance with the applicable City's Zoning By-law(s) not be possible, you may apply to amend the Zoning By-law by way of a Zoning Amendment or Committee of Adjustment application. For more information on either of these Planning processes, you may visit the City of Toronto Web site @ www.toronto.ca/developing-toronto or discuss the matter with City staff by calling (416)396-3223.

A Zoning Certificate will be issued only when it has been determined that the drawings and information submitted comply with the City Zoning By-law(s). Where there has been no activity on this application and six months has lapsed the file may be closed without notification. Please inform us of progress towards achieving compliance.

In order to get the fee paid under this application credited towards a "Complete" Building Permit application it must be accompanied by a "Zoning Certificate". You are required to obtain your "Zoning Certificate" before your submit for a "Complete" Building Application.

Please refer your Zoning Certificate application number when you phone or submit any pertinent information.

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

3338163 Page 1 of 3

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

Folder Name: 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT A

Application Number: 21 242350 ZZC 00 ZR

Zoning bylaw Notice

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Your property is subject to the City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended. Based on By-law No. 569-2013, your property is zoned

RD 926 HT 9M COV 33%

NO TRCA, NO RAVINE, NO METROLINX

(926) Exception RD 926

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) The minimum lot frontage is that which existed on the day of the enactment of this By-law;

MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE IS 21.86M PROPOSED LOT FRONTAGE IS 20.22M LOT FRONTAGE DOES NOT COMPLY.

(926) Exception RD 926

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(B) The minimum lot area is that which existed on the day of the enactment of this By-law;

MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 761.89M2 PROPOSED LOT AREA IS 453.31M2 LOT AREA DOES NOT COMPLY.

(926) Exception RD 926

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(ii) 6.0 metres in all other cases;

MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 6M. PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 4.45M

FRONT YARD SETBACK DOES NOT COMPLY.

(1462) Exception RD 1462

The lands, or portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) The maximum floor space index for a lot with a dwelling unit in a permitted building type is:

(ii) the lesser of 0.5 times the lot area or 279 square metres, if the lot area is 408 square metres to 697 square metres;

MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA IS .5 X LOT = 226.66M2 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS .66 X LOT = 296.92M2

FLOOR AREA DOES NOT COMPLY.

10.20.40 Principal Building Requirements

10.20.40.1 General

(2) Number of Residential Buildings on a Lot

A maximum of one residential building is permitted on a lot in the RD zone.

MAXIMUM PERMITTED NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PER LOT IS ONE.

PROPOSED NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PER LOT IS TWO. DOES NOT COMPLY. SEVERANCE IS REQUIRED.

3338163 Page 2 of 3

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

Folder Name: 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT A

Application Number: 21 242350 ZZC 00 ZR

Zoning bylaw Notice

ITEM DESCRIPTION

10.20.40.10 Height

(4) Maximum Height of Main Walls of a Detached House with a Flat or Shallow Roof

Subject to regulation 10.20.40.10(1), if a detached house in the RD zone has a roof with a slope of less than 1.0 vertical units for every 10.0 horizontal units for more than 50 percent of the total horizontal roof area:

(A) despite regulation 10.20.40.10(2), the permitted maximum height of all main walls is the higher of 7.2 metres above established grade or 2.5 metres less than the permitted maximum height in regulation 10.20.40.10(1);

and

(B) despite (A) above, additional main walls are permitted to be located above the maximum height of all main walls permitted in (A) above, provided all the additional front main walls and rear main walls located above the main walls permitted in (A) above are set back a minimum of 1.4 metres from the front main walls and rear main walls permitted in (A). [ By-law: 1277-2022(OLT) ]

MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF MAIN WALLS IS 7.2M. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF MAIN WALLS IS 8.41M. DOES NOT COMPLY.

10.20.40.10 Height

(5) Exemption for Parapet on a Detached House with a Flat or Shallow Roof

A parapet on a detached house in the RD zone may exceed the permitted maximum height of a building in regulation 10.20.40.10(4) by a maximum of 0.3 metres.

MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF PARAPET WALLS IS 7.5M. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF PARAPET WALLS IS

8.71M. DOES NOT COMPLY

10.20.40.70 Setbacks

(2) Minimum Rear Yard Setback

The required minimum rear yard setback in the RD zone is the greater of:

(A) 7.5 metres; or

(B) 25% of the lot depth.

MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS 7.5M.

PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK IS 3.56M. DOES NOT COMPLY

PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL ITEMS OF THIS NOTICE ARE ADDRESSED BEFORE PDF DRAWINGS ARE RESUBMITTED.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ZONING REVIEW, OR WOULD LIKE TO SCHEDULE A PHONE

MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT Derek.Small@toronto.ca.

3338163 Page 3 of 3

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

M BEHAR PLANNING AND DESIGN INC C/O CHRIS PEREIRA

25 VALLEYWOOD DR UNIT 23 MARKHAM ON L3R 5L9

Zoning Notice

Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2023

Zoning Certificate (ZZC) Review No: 21 242356 ZZC 00 ZR FolderRSN: 5029722 House - New Building

Proposed Use: sfd

at 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT B

Ward: Scarborough-Agincourt (22)

Please refer your Zoning Certificate application number when you phone or submit any pertinent information.

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

3338156 Page 1 of 5

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

Folder Name: 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT B

Application Number: 21 242356 ZZC 00 ZR

You must present a copy of this Zoning Certificate along with the necessary 'Applicable Law' approvals other than any of the fees or charges identified above, at the time of your building permit submission.

Building permit applications without Zoning Certificates and these approvals will be considered incomplete submissions and will not be subject to prescribed timeframes in Article 1.3.1.3. of Division C, Part 1 of the Ontario Building Code.

Applicable Law Notice

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Applicable Fees

DC(Development Charges) Charges will be calculated at the time of processing the Building Permit

Authority: O.B.C. Div A - 1.4.1.3.(1)(b)(ii) under Reg 332/12, or Div A - 1.4.1.3 (1)(b)(i) under Reg 350/06 (as applicable): Sections 28 and 53 of the Development Charges Act, 1997

Form of Approval: Development charges are calculated, due and payable on the date that a building permit is actually issued in respect of the above noted Building Permit Application Number. Development charge rates are subject to change due to indexing, phase-in, and by-law amendment, or changes to your development proposal.

Contact: Toronto Building

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_97d27_e.htm

EDC(TCDSB Education Dev. Charge) Charges will be calculated at the time of processing the Building Permit Authority: O.B.C. Div A - 1.4.1.3.(1)(b)(iii) under Reg 332/12, or Div A - 1.4.1.3 (1)(b)(ii) under Reg 350/06 (as applicable): Sections 257.83 and 257.93 of the Education Act

Form of Approval: Development charges are calculated, due and payable on the date that a building permit is actually

issued in respect of the above noted Building Permit Application Number. Development charge rates are subject to change due to indexing, phase-in, and by-law amendment, or changes to your development proposal.

Contact: Toronto Building

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm

3338156 Page 2 of 5

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

Folder Name: 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT B

Application Number: 21 242356 ZZC 00 ZR

Zoning bylaw Notice

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Your property is subject to the City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended. Based on By-law No. 569-2013, your property is zoned

RD 926 HT 9M COV 33%

NO TRCA, NO RAVINE, NO METROLINX

(926) Exception RD 926

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) The minimum lot frontage is that which existed on the day of the enactment of this By-law;

MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE IS 21.86M PROPOSED LOT FRONTAGE IS 13.34M LOT FRONTAGE DOES NOT COMPLY

(926) Exception RD 926

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(B) The minimum lot area is that which existed on the day of the enactment of this By-law;

MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 761.89M2 PROPOSED LOT AREA IS 308.39 LOT AREA DOES NOT COMPLY.

(926) Exception RD 926

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(ii) 6.0 metres in all other cases

MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 6M. PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 3.85M

FRONT YARD SETBACK DOES NOT COMPLY.

(1462) Exception RD 1462

The lands, or portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) The maximum floor space index for a lot with a dwelling unit in a permitted building type is:

(I) the lesser of 0.6 times the lot area or 204 square metres, if the lot area is less than 408 square metres;

MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA IS .6 X LOT = 185.034

PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS .7925 X LOT = 244.4M2. FLOOR AREA DOES NOT COMPLY.

3338156 Page 3 of 5

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

Folder Name: 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT B

Application Number: 21 242356 ZZC 00 ZR

Zoning bylaw Notice

ITEM DESCRIPTION

10.20.30.40 Lot Coverage

(1) Maximum Lot Coverage In the RD zone:

(A) if a lot in is in an area with a numerical value on the Lot Coverage Overlay Map, that numerical value is the permitted maximum lot coverage, as a percentage of the lot area; and

(B) if a lot is not in an area with a numerical value on the Lot Coverage Overlay Map, no lot coverage applies.

10.5.30.40 Lot Coverage

(1) Lot Coverage Exclusion for Permitted Encroachments

In the Residential Zone category, any part of a building or structure that is permitted to encroach into a required minimum building setback in Clause 10.5.40.60, is not included in the calculation of lot coverage.

(2) Parts of Platforms that are Not Permitted Encroachments

In the Residential Zone category, any part of a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure that does not encroach into a required minimum building setback, and any roof,

canopy, awning or similar structure above the platform, is not included in the calculation of lot coverage, if:

(A) it is attached to or less than 0.3 metres from a building; and

(B) the lot area covered by these structures is no more than 5% of the lot area [ By-law: PL130592 Mar_2018 ]

MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE IS .33 X LOT = 101.77M2 PROPOSED COVERAGE IS .398 = 122.82M2

COVERAGE DOES NOT COMPLY.

10.20.40 Principal Building Requirements

10.20.40.1 General

(2) Number of Residential Buildings on a Lot

A maximum of one residential building is permitted on a lot in the RD zone.

MAXIMUM PERMITTED NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PER LOT IS ONE.

PROPOSED NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PER LOT IS TWO. DOES NOT COMPLY. SEVERANCE IS REQUIRED.

10.20.40.10 Height

(4) Maximum Height of Main Walls of a Detached House with a Flat or Shallow Roof

and

MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF MAIN WALLS IS 7.2M. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF MAIN WALLS IS 8.44M. DOES NOT COMPLY.

10.20.40.10 Height

(5) Exemption for a Parapet on a Detached House with a Flat or Shallow Roof

A parapet on a detached house in the RD zone may exceed the permitted maximum main wall height in regulation 10.20.40.10(4) by a maximum of 0.3 metres. [ By-law: 1277-2022(OLT) ]

MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF PARAPET WALLS IS 7.5M. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF PARAPET WALLS IS 9M. DOES NOT COMPLY.

3338156 Page 4 of 5

Derek Small Zoning Examiner

Toronto Building

William M. Johnston, P. Eng., Chief Building Official and Executive Director

150 Borough Drive Third Floor

Toronto, ON M1P 4N7

Phone: Fax: Email:

(416) 396-8223

(416) 696-4165

Derek.Small@toronto.ca

Folder Name: 45 SCARDEN AVE - LOT B

Application Number: 21 242356 ZZC 00 ZR

Zoning bylaw Notice

ITEM DESCRIPTION

10.5.40.60 Permitted Encroachments

(1) Platforms

Despite regulation 10.5.40.50(2), in the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or less than 0.3 metres from a building, are subject to the following:

(A) in a front yard, a platform with a floor no higher than the first storey of the building above established grade:

(i) may encroach into the required front yard setback the lesser of 2.5 metres or 50% of the required front yard setback, if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback; and

(ii) there may be enclosed space below this platform;

MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR FRONT PORCH IS 3.5M. PROPOSED SETBACK FOR FRONT PORCH IS 2.99M.

DOES NOT COMPLY

PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL ITEMS OF THIS NOTICE ARE ADDRESSED BEFORE PDF DRAWINGS ARE RESUBMITTED.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ZONING REVIEW, OR WOULD LIKE TO SCHEDULE A PHONE

MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT Derek.Small@toronto.ca.

3338156 Page 5 of 5

45 Scarden Avenue, Toronto

Final List of Variances Sought Lot 1 – Corner (A0216/22SC)

Exception RD 926.(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 21.86 m. The proposed lot frontage is 20.22 m.
Exception RD 926.(B), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 761.89 m². The proposed lot area is 453.31 m².
Exception RD 1462.(C)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The minimum building setback from a front lot line is 6.0 m.

The proposed front yard setback is 4.45 m.

Exception RD 1462.(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted floor area is 0.5 times the lot area. (226.65 m²)

The proposed floor area is 0.66 times the lot area. (296.92 m²)

Chapter 10.20.40.1.(2), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted number of dwellings on a lot is one.

The proposed number of dwellings on the lot is two. Severance is required.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height of main walls is 7.2 m.

The proposed height of main walls is 8.41 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

A parapet on a detached house may exceed the maximum height of a building by a maximum of

0.3 metres (7.5 m).

The proposed height of parapet walls is 8.71 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.70.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required rear yard setback is 7.5 m.

The proposed rear yard setback is 3.56 m.

Lot 2 – Interior (A0218/22SC)

Exception RD 926.(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 21.86 m. The proposed lot frontage is 13.34 m.
Exception RD 926.(B), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 761.89 m². The proposed lot area is 308.39 m².
Exception RD 926.(C)(ii), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required front yard setback is 6 m. The proposed front yard setback is 3.85 m.
Exception RD 1462.(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted floor area is 0.6 times the lot area. (185.034 m²).

The proposed floor area is 0.7925 times the lot area. (244.4 m²)

Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 33% of the lot. (101.77 m²)

The proposed lot coverage is 39.8% of the lot. (122.82 m²)

Chapter 10.20.40.1.(2), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted number of dwellings per lot is one.

The proposed number of dwellings on the lot is two.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height of main walls is 7.2 m.

The proposed height of main walls is 8.44 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

A parapet on a detached house may exceed the maximum height of a building by a maximum of

0.3 metres (7.5 m).

The proposed height of parapet walls is 9 m.

Chapter 10.5.40.60(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback to a front porch is 3.5 m.

The proposed setback to the front porch is 2.9 m.

Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback to a front porch canopy is 3.5 m.

The proposed front yard setback to the front porch canopy is 2.99 m.