Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-12-06

23 149875 S45 08 TLAB

So (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 167

Issuance Date:

December 6, 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):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

695 ORIOLE PARKWAY

COA File No.:

23 126310 MMY 08 MV (A0170/23NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

23 149875 S45 08 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

October 30, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member B. Martin

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

The Planning Agency Limited

Appellant

A. So

I. Flett

Expert Witness

C. Chan

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This was a hearing of an appeal by Agnes So (“Appellant”) from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto to refuse minor variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013 for the property at 695 Oriole Parkway.

2The variances requested would allow:

A rear deck projection;

A rear yard setback encroachment;

Adjustment to rear yard soft landscaping;

An increase in building length;

An increase in building depth;

An increase in Floor space index;

A reduced rear yard setback; and

A reduced side yard setback.

3The Appellant was represented by lawyer Ian Flett.

4Mr. Flett called Mr. Christian Chan from The Planning Agency Limited who was qualified during the hearing to give expert evidence in land use planning.

5No parties or participants attended the meeting either in opposition or support of the requested variances.

6The minor variances requested will permit the construction of a rear deck, on which there will be a 3.32m2 (36 square foot) utility shed.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

7Variance – 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 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

8Mr. Chan identified the geographic neighbourhood as the low-rise residential lots north of Eglinton Avenue West, Duplex Avenue to the east, Roselawn Avenue to the north, and Avenue Road to the west. The Immediate Context were the lots on Oriole Parkway, north of Eglinton Avenue and south of Roselawn Avenue.

9The Immediate Context included all the lots fronting onto Oriole Parkway on both sides of the street between addresses 564 -715 Oriole Parkway. The lots in the Immediate Context are developed with detached homes 1 to 3 storeys in height, many with front yard parking pads.

10The property is currently developed with a three-storey detached home. The property is rectangular in shape with an 8.38m frontage, a 34.16 m depth and a lot area of 282.45 m2. The rear portion of the property is influenced by a 4 to 5 m decrease in grade (approximately 30%). The lot line abuts Eglinton Park.

11Six (6) of the neighbouring properties north and 3 to the south of the property at 695 Oriole Pkwy have rear platform decks like what is being proposed.

12The variances requested with respect to rear yard projection, rear yard setback encroachment and soft landscaping respond to a unique site condition that is also experienced by neighbouring properties on Oriole Pkwy that back onto the northwest corner of Eglinton Park.

13The variances requested with respect to the shed, that is maximum building length, maximum building depth increased FSI, minimum rear yard setback and minimum side yard setback are required because although the shed is a separate structure, it must be calculated into all these performance standards.

14The proposed deck and shed do not create privacy impacts.

15Stormwater will flow through the decking material and therefore continue to act as soft landscaping.

16Mr. Chan concluded that it was his expert opinion in land use planning that the variances requested satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. Specifically, 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.
are minor.

General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan.

17Mr. Chan advised TLAB that areas of the city designated Neighbourhoods are stable, but not static. The Official Plan therefore expects and allows new development in areas designated Neighbourhoods provided the new development respects the existing physical character of the area and reinforces the stability of the area.

General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law.

18Mr. Chan advised TLAB that the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is to identify permitted uses, together with performance standards which, once applied to a building or property, will allow the types of land use, and built structures identified in the Official Plan.

19Mr. Chan was able to demonstrate that the proposed deck and shed were consistent with the existing physical character of properties in the area.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

20Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposed deck and shed achieves two key neighbourhood objectives: it is an investment in the property which adds to the stability of the single detached home neighbourhood; and it preserves an existing city street tree.

Are the variances requested minor?

21Mr. Chan’s opinion was that the variances requested were numerically minor, and both individually and cumulatively, do not create any adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the neighbourhood.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

22The impacts of the proposed deck and shed were TLAB’s biggest concerns with the requested variances. Through his evidence, Mr. Chan was able to adequately address both concerns to the satisfaction of TLAB.

CONCLUSION

23A hearing of TLAB to consider an appeal by Agnes So was conducted on October 30, 2023. Opinion evidence from Mr. Christian Chan was presented during the hearing. After consideration of the opinion evidence, TLAB was satisfied that the four statutory tests for approval of a minor variance had been satisfied.

DECISION AND ORDER

24The Tribunal will allow the appeal and approve the requested variances subject to the deck and shed construction be substantially in accordance with drawings SK -00 Site Plan (R7), SK -01 Deck Level Plan (as built) (R7), and SK – 02 Cross-Section (as built) (R7) as prepared by JS Barmi Architect.

REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law 569-2013

Platforms attached to or within 0.3m of a rear main wall, which are greater than

1.2m above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting

2.5m from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains access.

The proposed rear deck projects 10.36m from the rear wall.

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

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3m from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required rear yard setback 2.5m if it is no closer to a side lot line than 2.05m.

The proposed platform encroaches 8.63m into the required rear yard setback and is 0.29m from the south side lot line, and 0.1m from the north lot line.

3. Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

A lot with a residential building, other than an apartment building, must have a minimum of 50% of the rear yard for soft landscaping.

The proposed rear yard landscaping area is 28.98%.

4. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length is 17m. The proposed building length is 25.5m.

NOTE: shed on deck is now included.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth is 19.0m. The proposed building depth is 25.66m.

NOTE: shed on deck is now included.

6. Chapter 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.6 times the area of the lot. The proposed floor space index is 0.942 times the area of the lot.

NOTE: shed on deck is now included.

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

The required minimum rear yard setback is 8.74m. The proposed rear yard setback is 3.68m.

NOTE: shed on deck is now included.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 0.9m where the required minimum lot frontage is 6m to less than 12m.

The proposed south side yard setback is 0.29m. NOTE: shed on deck is now included.

B. Martin

Panel Member