Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-12-06
23 183378 S45 08 TLAB
Noce (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 168
DECISION AND ORDER
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):
C. NOCE
Applicant(s):
J. COGLIATI
Property Address:
156 GLEN PARK AVENUE
COA File No.:
23 1136499 MMY 08 MV (A0285/23NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 183378 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
November 16, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Marin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
J. COGLIATI
Appellant
C. NOCE
A. SURIANO
Participant
E. DE VIDO
Participant
D. ALBERT
R. JANSEN
Participant
N. TEODORO
Expert Witness
A. FERANCIK
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This was a hearing of an appeal by Carla Noce (“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 156 Glen Park Avenue.
2The variances requested would allow:
A reduction to the rear yard soft landscaping from a minimum of 50% of the rear yard to 27.55% of the rear yard; and
An increase in lot coverage from 35% of the lot area to 43.25% of the lot area.
3The Appellant was represented by lawyer Alexander Suriano.
4Mr. Suriano called Mr. Andrew Ferancik who was qualified during the hearing to give expert evidence in land use planning.
5Two participants attended the hearing. Ms. Dayna Albert in opposition and Ms. Nancy Teodoro in support.
6The minor variances requested will bring into compliance, an existing rear yard patio, existing in-ground pool, and existing cabana. The three-sided cabana is 3.72 metres high and has a floor area of 32.4 square metres.
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
8Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the City of Toronto Official Plan, Mr. Ferancik’ s Neighbourhood Study Area was the Englemount-Lawrence neighbourhood as the Broader Context, and the low-rise residential neighbourhood bordered by Glencairn Avenue, Allen Road, Coldstream Avenue, and Englemount Avenue as the Immediate Context.
9The Immediate Context area is zoned Residential Detached – RD, which allows lot frontages ranging from 9.0 metres to 15.0 metres. The properties on the north side of Glen Park Avenue (including the property at 156 Glen Park Avenue) require a 12.0 metre lot frontage, while properties on the south side require a 9.0 metre lot frontage. The property at 156 Glen Park Avenue has a lot frontage of 12.19 metres and a lot depth of 89.97 metres.
10The property is currently developed with a three-storey detached home. In the rear yard is an in-ground pool, a hard a soft surface patio and a cabana. The cabana as constructed will house mechanical pool equipment, an indoor storage area and provided weather protection. The soft surface areas generally boarder the pool from the west and north lot lines. The cabana as constructed meets all the zoning by-law performance standards related to building height and lot line setbacks. The cabana is however considered a structure and therefore contributes to the lot coverage calculations pursuant to the zoning by-law.
11The property has been graded to direct rainwater from the property at 156 Glen Park Avenue, and from neighbouring properties to the soft surface areas in the rear yard.
12The layout of the pool, the percentage of hard surface landscaping to soft surface landscaping and the construction of a cabana can already be found in the Immediate and Local Context areas of the Neighbourhood Study Area.
13The requested minor variances do not conflict with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020.
14The requested minor variances do not conflict with the policies of the Growth Plan, 2020
15Mr. Ferancik 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.
16Ms. Dayna Albert is the owner of the property at 148 Shermount Avenue. From her property she has a direct view of the rear yard of the subject property. Under examination by Mr. Suriano. Ms. Albert conceded that she did not have a concern about the minor variance related to lot coverage. Her main concern was the variance related to soft surface landscaping, and the precedent that would be established if the requested reduction was granted.
17Ms. Nancy Teodoro, the owner of 155 Glen Park Avenue, appeared in support of the requested minor variances. She stated that the variances would not have an impact on the enjoyment of her property.
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan.
18Mr. Ferancik 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.
19Mr. Ferancik 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.
20Mr. Ferancik was able to demonstrate that the amount of soft surface landscaping provided and the lot coverage percentage were consistent with the existing physical character of properties in the Neighbourhood Study Area.
Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
21Mr. Ferancik’s opinion is that the existing patio, soft surface landscaping and cabana is an investment in the property, which adds to the stability of the single detached home neighbourhood.
Are the variances requested minor?
22Mr. Ferancik’s opinion was that the variances requested were numerically minor, both individually and cumulatively, and do not create any adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
23The impacts of the reduced soft surface area in the rear yard and the increase in lot coverage because of the existing cabana were TLAB’s biggest concerns with the requested variances. Through his un-contested evidence, Mr. Ferancik was able to adequately address both concerns to the satisfaction of TLAB.
CONCLUSION
24A hearing of TLAB to consider an appeal by Carla Noce was conducted on November 16, 2023. Un-contested opinion evidence from Mr. Andrew Ferancik was presented during the hearing. After consideration of the un-contested expert opinion evidence in land use planning, TLAB was satisfied that the four statutory tests for approval of a minor variance had been satisfied.
DECISION AND ORDER
25The Tribunal will allow the appeal and approve the requested variances provided the improvements are in accordance with drawings A1 Site Plan (March 31, 2023), A2 Statistics (March 31, 2023), A3 Cabana Foundation Plan (March 31, 2023), A4 Cabana Ground Floor Plan (March 31, 2023), A5 Cabana Roof Plan (March 31, 2023), A6 Cabana Front Elevation (March 31, 2023), A7 Cabana Rear Elevation (March 31, 2023), A8 Cabana Side Elevation (March 31, 2023), A9 Cabana Side Elevation (March 31, 2023) as prepared by Jeff Cogliati Architect.
APPROVED REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
1. Chapter 10.20.30.40(1)(A), By-law 569-2013
The permitted maximum lot coverage is 35% of the lot area
The proposed lot coverage is 43.25% of the lot area.
2. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(C), 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, if the lot frontage is greater than 6.0m.
The proposed rear yard soft landscaping area is 27.55%.
B. Martin
Panel Member