Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 185141 S53 03 TLAB 22 185142 S45 03 TLAB 22 185143 S45 03 TLAB
12248603 Canada Inc (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 33
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 3, 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): 12248603 Canada Inc
Applicant(s): In Roads Consultants
Property Address: 15 Rosemeade Ave
COA File No.: 21 145304 WET 03 CO (B0025/21EYK) 21 145306 WET 03 MV (A0261/21EYK) 21 145307 WET 03 MV (A0260/21EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 185141 S53 03 TLAB 22 185142 S45 03 TLAB 22 185143 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 11, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | In Roads Consultants | |
| Appellant | 12248603 Canada Inc | I. Andres |
| Expert Witness | F. Romano |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The purpose of the applications is to sever 15 Rosemeade Ave (the subject site) into two lots and construct a new two storey detached dwelling on each resulting lot, with multiple variances requested for each dwelling.
2The Owner has appealed the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of the applications and therefore the matter comes before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).
3There were no other Parties or Participants to the hearing of this matter.
4I advised those present at the Hearing that I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation of the hearing of their evidence.
5The property is designated Neighbourhoods in the Toronto Official Plan and zoned Residential Detached (RD) under By-law 569-2013.
6THE CONSENT REQUESTED
To obtain consent to sever the subject property into two residential lots.
7THE VARIANCES REQUESTED
Part 1 (South Lot)
Section 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 13.5 m. The new lot frontage will be 7.62 m.
Section 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 510 m². The new lot area will be 292.6 m².
Section 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.0 m. The new dwelling will have an exterior main wall height of 8.2 m.
Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.45 times the area of the lot (131.67 m²). The new dwelling will have a floor space index of 0.65 times the area of the lot (191.40 m²).
Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m. The new dwelling will be located 0.9 m from the north side lot line.
Section 10.5.40.60.(2)(B)(i), By-law 569-2013 A canopy, awning or similar structure may encroach in a front yard 2.5m, if it is no closer to a side lot line than the minimum required side yard setback. The proposed front canopy encroaches 0.45m into the front yard and is 0.15m closer to the south side lot line than the required setback.
Part 2 (North Lot)
Section 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 13.5 m. The new lot frontage will be 7.62 m.
Section 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 510 m². The new lot area will be 292.6 m².
Section 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.0 m. The new dwelling will have an exterior main wall height of 8.2 m.
Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.45 times the area of the lot (131.67 m²). The new dwelling will have a floor space index of 0.66 times the area of the lot (191.40 m²).
Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m. The new dwelling will be located 0.9 m from the south side lot line.
Section 10.5.40.60.(2)(B)(i), By-law 569-2013 A canopy, awning or similar structure may encroach in a front yard 2.5m, if it is no closer to a side lot line than the minimum required side yard setback. The proposed front canopy encroaches 0.45m into the front yard and is 0.15m closer to the north side lot line than the required setback.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
8Provincial 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’).
9Consent – S. 53
10TLAB 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 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;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(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).
Variance – S. 45(1)
11In 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
12Mr. Romano advised as follows:
- The subject property is located one block north of the Queensway, east of Royal York Rd in the Stonegate-Queensway neighbourhood of the former municipality of Etobicoke.
- Planning staff's report to the COA recommended refusal of the application on the basis that the proposal would be amongst the smallest in the immediate context, would create increased pressure for future severances on similar sized lots in the area and would weaken the established character of the neighbourhood and result in other applications of a similar nature.
- The Proposal before the TLAB has been revised from that which was refused by the COA. The revised plans result in smaller dwellings, with the following revisions to the plans:
- an increase in one side yard setback;
- the elimination of the other side yard variance, and the elimination of variances for lot coverage, building height, building length and stair width;
- a decrease in floor space index; and
- the addition of variances for wall height and canopy encroachment.
13A revised Zoning Notice was obtained and submitted as a supplemental witness statement. I admitted the late filing into the record.
14The lot frontage of the subject property is 15.24m and the lot area is 585.2m².
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
PROVINCIAL POLICY
15I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
CONSENT TO SEVER
16I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Planning Act as the proposal is a division of the existing legal lot in a long-established area. No adaptation or construction of public infrastructure is required.
17Of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, I consider criteria (c) and (f) to warrant further discussion in this Decision.
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;" and
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.
18As the Official Plan contains policy about dimensions of lots, I have folded consideration of both criteria c) and f) above into the discussion of the Official Plan.
THE OFFICIAL PLAN
19Mr. Romano provided an overview of relevant Official Plan policies. OP Policy 3.1.2.1 provides a helpful overarching statement of the intent of the Official Plan with respect to built form: Development will be located and organized to fit with its existing and planned context.
20OP Policy 4.1.5 provides direction for assessing the "fit" of development within a Neighbourhood. The policy contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.
4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:
a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites; b) prevailing size and configuration of lots; c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; d) prevailing building type(s); e) prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages; f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space; h) continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.
21The majority of the development criteria listed in OP Policy 4.1.5 relate to the built form compatibility of the proposal and are pertinent to the requests for variances that follow the request for consent to sever. Of the criteria listed, I consider criterion 4.1.5 b) prevailing size and configuration of lots to be the criterion most relevant to the creation of new lots (the consent).
22In order to meet the criteria set out in the Planning Act for the severance to be approved, regard must be had as to whether the proposal conforms to the Official Plan, and specifically to the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.
23Conformity with the Official Plan for the consent to sever would include demonstrating that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan has been met with respect to the prevailing size and configuration of lots (OP Policy 4.1.5 b)).
OP Policy 4.1.5 b) Prevailing Size and Configuration of Lots
24Mr. Romano identified the Geographic Neighbourhood, the Immediate Context and the Immediately Adjacent Blocks in accordance with the directions of OP Policy 4.1.5.
25It was Mr. Romano's evidence that the surrounding lands are developed with low rise detached residential. The existing physical character is represented by an assortment of numeric site standards, many of which are at variance to the Zoning By-law provisions.
26A summary table of lot sizes was included in Exhibit 1. It shows a range of lot sizes from 6.86m to 23.20m in the geographic neighbourhood. According to Mr. Romano's evidence, "there is no one prevailing lot size". The lot sizes table shows a fairly even distribution of lot frontages between the smallest and the largest lot frontage.
27I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that while lot frontages of the length proposed in this application are not "prevailing", they are represented in sufficient numbers that, as per OP Policy 4.1.5, the development should not be precluded from consideration. I note that there are a number of lots with similar frontages in the Immediate Context and the Immediately Adjacent blocks.
28The summary table of lot sizes shows that lot areas in the geographic neighbourhood and in the Immediate Context are also distributed over a fairly wide range. 34 out of 195 lots (11.4%) in the geographic neighbourhood and 3 out of 19 in the Immediate Context (15.8%) are equal to or less than the 292.6m² area that is proposed for the two severed lots.
29I concur with Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposed lot frontages and lot areas of the two severed lots respect and reinforce the prevailing size and configuration of lots in the geographic neighbourhood and in the Immediate Context.
30With respect to the requirements of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, I therefore find that the requested consent to sever has had due regard for criterion (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.
OP Policy 4.1.5 c) Prevailing Heights, Massing, Scale, Density and Dwelling Type
31The remaining criteria of OP Policy 4.1.5 address site plan matters and built form. In this application, the variances requested for main wall height and floor space index (FSI) engage criterion c).
4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular: …
c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;
Massing
32Mr. Romano described the neighbourhood character as a "conventional City suburban physical character". Residential development reflects the era of construction as well as "architectural expressions of choice".
33A review of Mr. Romano's photographic evidence shows a wide range of individualistic expressions of architectural style and design with some recent redevelopments in modern style.
34The absence of a cohesive "look and feel" to the neighbourhood makes it harder to define the "physical character" of the neighbourhood as described in the OP policy.
35The design of the proposed houses is not typical of the neighbourhood, and yet there is not another single typology that represents the prevailing massing of buildings in the neighbourhood. The massing of the proposed houses would add two more, smaller, detached houses on smaller lots, to the already diverse built form in the geographic neighbourhood.
Heights
36The proposal refused by the COA required a variance for the maximum permitted height for a flat or shallow roofed dwelling. The proposal has been amended to a peaked roof design and as a result, the revised proposal does not require a variance for overall height. This revision, however, triggers a new variance for the main wall heights.
37For historic reasons, there are few variances noted in the Decision Table provided in Exhibit 1 for main wall heights, however evidence of taller main wall heights can be found in the photographic evidence submitted.
38In the context of the eclectic character of the house styles, I find that the proposed main wall height does not offend the existing physical character and that the massing presented by the two houses will not destabilize the character of the neighbourhood.
Density
39The Decision Table in Exhibit 1 shows that approximately 71% of variance applications include an FSI variance. 20.5% of FSI variance approvals are for FSI of 0.65 or larger.
40In this context, the proposed houses are appropriately scaled for the lots that they will occupy.
41I find that the proposed houses respect and reinforce the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties.
OP Policy 4.1.5 g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks …
42The prevailing patterns of side yard setbacks in the neighbourhood are largely zoning compliant.
43The previously requested side yard setbacks on the north and south sides of the subject property have been eliminated from the request. The side yard setback variances that are requested are located between the two new proposed houses.
44I find that the reduced side yard setbacks between the two new proposed houses continue to allow for access to the generous rear yards and do not adversely affect the existing streetscape.
45I find that the proposed consent to sever and the variances requested meet the first test, and that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan has been maintained.
THE ZONING BY-LAW
Lot Frontage and Lot Area
46In the context of my findings regarding the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots under the first test above, I agree with the evidence of Mr. Romano that the proposed lot frontages and lot areas meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
47The proposal achieves lot sizes that are represented in the geographic neighbourhood and are appropriately sized in the context.
Wall Height
48The first floor and revised overall height of the proposed houses are zoning compliant and require no variances.
49The inclusion of a peaked roof on the proposed houses in place of a tall flat roof design is an adaptation that reflects a more common roof design. Mr. Romano's evidence was that the general intent and purpose of the wall height performance standard in the By-law is to ensure that dwellings incorporate appropriate slopes, thereby achieving a sloped roof building within the overall building height parameters.
50In my opinion, Mr. Romano's statement of the general intent and purpose of the main wall height provision in the Zoning By-law is incomplete. At least part of the intent of this provision is to regulate massing beyond the purpose of including "appropriate slopes".
51As I have found previously that the massing of the proposed houses meets the requirements of OP Policy 4.1.5, I find also that, in the Immediate Context and broader neighbourhood, the proposed wall heights meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as well.
Floor Space Index
52The general intent and purpose of the FSI provision in the Zoning By-law is to prevent overbuilding on a lot.
53Mr. Romano's evidence was that the two storey detached buildings have an FSI that is compatible with and indistinguishable from other dwellings.
54I find the proposed FSI's to be appropriate in the context.
Side Yard Setback
55I have found that the proposed side yard setback meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
56The general intent and purpose of the side yard setback provision in the Zoning By-law is to maintain the rhythm of the streetscape, to provide access to the rear yard and to maintain a degree of separation between adjacent houses.
57There is no distinct rhythm to the streetscape as the homes are not regularly spaced, with no clear pattern of driveway locations and side yard setbacks.
58In this context, I find the proposed side yard setback to be sufficient to meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Canopy Encroachment into Front Yard
59The Applicant sought an updated Zoning Notice following the revisions to the application (Applicant Disclosure Plans). The new Zoning Notice identified a front canopy side yard setback variance for each proposed house which was not previously required.
60The variances relate to moulding which is proposed to extend 45cm into the front yards and 15cm into the side yards on the north side and the south side of the subject property.
61This moulding is a design element that is beneficial to the design and is located more than 5m above the established grade. This embellishment on the façade of the houses will not impede access or introduce any untoward impact into the side yards.
62I find that the proposed canopy encroachments maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
63I find that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND
64For the same reasons as outlined above regarding the first two tests, I find also that the proposal is desirable for the development of the land.
MINOR
65There were no Parties or Participants at the Hearing besides the Applicant. I heard no evidence regarding adverse impact of the proposal. I find, therefore, that the Application meets the test of "Minor".
NOTICE
66s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act allows the Tribunal to waive notice for a decision on an application that has been amended from the original application, on the condition that the amendment to the original application is minor, in the Tribunal's opinion.
67The application before the TLAB has been significantly revised from that which was refused by the COA.
68I consider the elimination of the variances requested for two side yards, variances for lot coverage, building height, building length and stair width to be beneficial, and an improvement to the proposal.
69The remaining side yard setbacks,between the two houses, have been increased. The requested maximum floor space for each house has been decreased. These revisions have decreased the magnitude of the variances required for both of the variances.
70Two new variances have been requested following a Zoning Review of the plans contained in the Applicant Disclosure.
71A variance for wall height replaced a previously requested variance for overall height for a flat roofed dwelling. While an additional variance that was not previously circulated is generally not considered a "minor" change in terms of s.45(18.1.1), I find that in this case, in these circumstances, a variance for wall height is an improvement to the previous variance for overall height. It is my opinion that the amendment that introduces the variance for wall height is a minor change from the previous application that requested a variance for overall height for a flat roofed dwelling.
72The variances requested for canopy encroachments are small, minor and have no impact on the functionality of the front or side yards nor to any aspects of overlook and privacy.
73I find that the cumulative revisions to the applications are improvements to the application, beneficial to the public interest and less impactful than the variances that were previously refused by the COA.
74I find no further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.
CONCLUSION
75I find that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
76I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and that they are desirable for the development of the land and are Minor.
77I find that no further notice is required.
DECISION AND ORDER
78The Appeal is allowed.
79The application for consent to sever is approved subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A
80The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix B are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.
A. Bassios Panel Member
APPENDIX A
Schedule A: Standard Consent Conditions
The Consent Application is approved on Condition
The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB therefore consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that before 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) 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.
APPENDIX B
APPROVED VARIANCES:
Part 1 (South Lot)
Section 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 13.5 m. The new lot frontage will be 7.62 m.
Section 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 510 m². The new lot area will be 292.6 m².
Section 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.0 m. The new dwelling will have an exterior main wall height of 8.2 m.
Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.45 times the area of the lot (131.67 m²). The new dwelling will have a floor space index of 0.65 times the area of the lot (191.40 m²).
Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m. The new dwelling will be located 0.9 m from the north side lot line.
Section 10.5.40.60.(2)(B)(i), By-law 569-2013 A canopy, awning or similar structure may encroach in a front yard 2.5m, if it is no closer to a side lot line than the minimum required side yard setback. The proposed front canopy encroaches 0.45m into the front yard and is 0.15m closer to the south side lot line than the required setback.
Part 2 (North Lot)
Section 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 13.5 m. The new lot frontage will be 7.62 m.
Section 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 510 m². The new lot area will be 292.6 m².
Section 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.0 m. The new dwelling will have an exterior main wall height of 8.2 m.
Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.45 times the area of the lot (131.67 m²). The new dwelling will have a floor space index of 0.66 times the area of the lot (191.40 m²).
Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m. The new dwelling will be located 0.9 m from the south side lot line.
Section 10.5.40.60.(2)(B)(i), By-law 569-2013 A canopy, awning or similar structure may encroach in a front yard 2.5m, if it is no closer to a side lot line than the minimum required side yard setback. The proposed front canopy encroaches 0.45m into the front yard and is 0.15m closer to the north side lot line than the required setback.
CONDITIONS:
Part 1 (South Lot)
The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Proposed Site Plan (A1a), Front Elevation (A7), Rear Elevation (A8), Side (North) Elevation (A9), and Side (South) Elevation (A10), prepared by Giancarlo Garofalo Architect, revision date 2022/10/12.
Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the sites involved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.
Part 2 (North Lot):
The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Proposed Site Plan (A1b), Front Elevation (A17), Rear Elevation (A18), Side (North) Elevation (A19), Side (South) Elevation (A20), prepared by Giancarlo Garofalo Architect, revision date 2022/10/12.
Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the sites involved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.
DRAWINGS PART 1
DRAWINGS PART 2