Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-03-13
22 199898 S45 12 TLAB
22 199923 S45 12 TLAB
22 199925 S53 12 TLAB
Cottingham Financial Services Ltd., Splatt (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 30
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
March 1, 2023; Revised on March 13, 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):
S. SPLATT
COTTINGHAM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD
Applicant(s):
DAVID BRONSKILL GOODMANS LLP
RICHARD WENGLE ARCHITECT INC.
Property Address:
80 & 82 FOREST HILL RD.
Committee of Adjustment File Number(s):
22 118423 STE 12 MV (A0276/22TEY)
22 118857 STE 12 CO (B0019/22TEY)
22 118414 STE 12 MV (A0277/22TEY)
TLAB Case File Number(s):
22 199898 S45 12 TLAB
22 199923 S45 12 TLAB
22 199925 S53 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Martin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Applicant
D. Bronskill (Goodmans LLP)
Applicant
Richard Wengle Architect Inc.
Owner/Appellant
Cottingham Financial Services Ltd
Z. Fleisher
Owner/Appellant
S. Splatt
D. Bronskill
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1At is meeting on August 17, 2022, the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto refused an Application for Consent (File B0019/22TEY) for the property at 80 Forest Hill Road and refused Applications for Minor Variance (File A0277/22TEY) for the property at 80 Forest Hill Road and refused an Application for Minor Variance (File A0276/22TEY) for the property at 82 Forest Hill Road.
2The consent to sever application would have allowed a portion of the property from 82 Forest Hill Road (1.52 m of frontage, an area of 81.6 m) to be added to the property at 80 Forest Hill Road for the purpose of a lot addition. A new three-storey detached dwelling would be constructed.
3The Retained parcel of land at 82 Forest Hill Road would have a lot of frontage of 13.73 m and an area of 734.7 m2. A new three-storey detached dwelling would be constructed.
4On September 2, 2022, the decisions to refuse by the Committee of Adjustment were appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body by David Bronskill of Goodmans LLP on behalf of Sandra Splatt and Cottingham Financial Services Ltd.
5Zachery Fleisher of Goodmans LLP represented Sandra Splatt and Cottingham Financial Service Ltd. Mr. Fleisher called Ryan Guetter, a qualified expert to give opinion evidence in land use planning in support of the appeal.
6There were no other Parties or Participants to the hearing.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
7Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).
8Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
- are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- are minor.
9Consent to Sever – S. 53 (12)
TLAB in determining whether a provisional consent is to be given shall have regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act of Ontario.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
10Mr. Guetter’s expert land use planning opinion was:
- The requested minor variances and consent are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
- The minor variances requested individually and cumulatively satisfy all four rests of Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act for the approval of a minor variance.
- The provisional consent has regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act of Ontario.
- The development represents good planning.
11The subject properties are located on the west side of Forest Hill Road between Lonsdale Road to the north and Heath Street West to the south in the neighbourhood commonly referred to as Forest Hill.
12The subject properties are designated Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto Official Plan.
13The subject properties are zoned RD (f12.0; d0.35) (x961) under the Zoning By-law 6666-2013 and R1S ZO.35 under Zoning By-law 438-86.
14The Study Area used by Mr. Guetter’s to evaluate the variances and consent requested was bounded by:
- Lonsdale Road to the north (excluding properties fronting the north side of
- Lonsdale).
- Avenue Road to the east (excluding properties fronting on Avenue Road).
- St. Clair Avenue West to the south (excluding properties fronting on St. Clair
- West); and
- Parkwood Avenue to the west (excluding properties fronting the west side of
- Parkwood).
15Within the Study Area, all dwellings are single detached, although there is a mix of building scale given the differences in frontage throughout the study area. Notwithstanding, the scale of buildings in the study area are similar in that all are low-rise single detached dwellings of 2 and 3 storeys. The scale differs between older and newer dwellings, as is common throughout the City of Toronto, where newer replacement dwellings are at times larger.
16Lot size is varied throughout the study area. The immediate area proximate to the subject properties is generally characterized by narrow lots with large lot depths; however, the lot widths in the study area are not uniform.
17Lot depths and widths in the study area are generally greater than is typical for the City of Toronto, including those lots located outside of the study area to the west between Spadina Road and Parkwood Avenue. As a result of the varying lot widths, but the relatively uniform lot depths, the study area is characterized by a mix of lot areas, with the lots located near the subject properties smaller than other Forest Hill areas.
18Mr. Guetter’s expressed that the consent to sever was not creating a new lot, but rather it was creating a more uniform lot frontage for the property at 80 Forest Hill Road. It would also bring both lots into compliance with the Zoning By-law requirements as it relates to lot frontage, with the minimum lot frontage being 12.0 metres for the subject properties. Both lots, as adjusted, would continue to comply with the minimum lot area required by the Zoning Bylaw.
19Mr. Guetter’s stated that:
- The Neighbourhoods designation permits a full range of residential uses in low-rise. building forms. This designation is intended to accommodate lower scale residential built forms such as detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and walk-up apartments that are four storeys in height or less.
- The general intent and purpose of the Neighbourhoods designation is to ensure the stability of neighbourhoods through compatible redevelopment that respects and reinforces the overall physical character of the neighbourhood.
- The Proposed Development is consistent with this objective and will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the dwellings, streetscapes, and open spaces in the study area.
20Mr. Guetter’s in his direct evidence, and at my request, was able to identify several newly constructed and under construction detached houses that required similar minor variances to those requested.
21Mr. Guetter’s advised TLAB that there were no comments provided from any City Staff or departments, including the Planning Department, regarding the applications, which typically indicates that City Planning and other commenting agencies and departments have no objection to the proposed consent to sever and minor variance applications.
22Mr. Guetter’s also advised TLAB that no letters of objection were submitted by neighbours, and no one appeared before the Committee to oppose the applications.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
23I agree that the proposed consent simply seeks to adjust the existing property lines rather than create a new lot.
24I also agree that the minor variances will allow new dwellings that are sited appropriately, will reinforce the existing physical character of the study area, and will not cause any unacceptable adverse impacts to adjoining properties.
CONCLUSION
25TLAB has heard uncontested expert evidence from a qualified land use planner regarding the refusal of applications B0019/22TEY, A0277/22TEY and A0276/22TEY by the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment. The presiding Panel Member agrees with the evidence presented and is satisfied that:
- The requested minor variances and consent are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
- The minor variances requested individually and cumulatively satisfy all four rests of Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act for the approval of a minor variance.
- The provisional consent has regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act of Ontario.
- The development represents good planning.
DECISION AND ORDER
26The Tribunal will allow the Appellant’s appeal subject to:
- The owner satisfying the requirements identified in a report from the Manager of Development Engineering received by the Committee of Adjustment at 4:32 pm, May 25, 2022.
B. Martin
Panel Member