Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
22 175821 S45 08 TLAB
Kakarelis v. Mbelem, 2023 ONTLAB 38
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 7, 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): FRANK KAKARELIS
Applicant(s): URBANSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC
Property Address: 53 Celt Ave
COA File No.: 22 132593 NNY 08 MV (A0252/22NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 175821 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair Ana Bassios
Registered Parties and Participants:
Owner MARIA TRIMARCO
Owner FONTEM NJIFUA ATABONG
Applicant URBANSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.
Appellant FRANK KAKARELIS
Appellant’s Legal Rep. KAGAN SHASTRI LLP
Party LATEH MBELEM
Party’s Legal Rep. MARTIN MAZIERSKI
Expert Witness JONATHAN BENCZKOWSKI
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This Hearing arises from an Appeal by Mr. Kakarelis of the decision of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) to approve variances, with a condition, for the property known as 53 Celt Ave.
2The purpose of the application is to demolish the existing house on the property and construct a new two storey dwelling with an integral garage.
3The property is designated Neighbourhoods and zoned RD (f15.0;a550)(x5) under the City Zoning By-law 569-2013. It is located in the Lawrence Heights neighbourhood of Toronto.
4Prior to the scheduled hearing date, the Parties achieved a settlement. The settlement provides for a partial setback of the proposed north side wall. This revision does not change the requested variances as the front portion of the side wall still requires the original variance amount.
5Only the Owners’ representatives were in attendance and I heard from Mr. Benczkowski in support of the settlement.
6THE REQUESTED VARIANCES:
Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0 m or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 m. The proposed building length is 18 m.
Chapter 10.20.40.70.(4), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m where the required minimum frontage is 12.0 m to less than 18.0 m. The proposed north side yard setback is 1.52 m.
Chapter 10.20.40.70.(4), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m where the required minimum frontage is 12.0 m to less than 18.0 m. The proposed south side yard setback is 1.52 m.
7I advised those present at the Hearing that I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and that I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their evidence.
8In the interest of consensual resolution of disputes, deference will be given to a settlement, provided that the joint submission falls within the reasonable range of outcomes. I note that, as a settlement, this case has no precedential or referential value since any findings of fact are for the limited purpose of ensuring that the settlement is not contrary to the Planning Act.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
9Provincial 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’).
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
11Mr. Benczkowski identified a study area in accordance with the direction of the Official Plan (OP).
12Mr. Benczkowski described the geographic neighbourhood as follows:
- There is considerable diversity in terms of built form.
- Newer dwellings typically have integral garages.
- The neighbourhood is experiencing considerable regeneration of the housing stock.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
13I accept Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
OFFICIAL PLAN
14Mr. Benczkowski provided an analysis of applicable Official Plan policy. OP Policy 4.1.5 contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.
15Of the criteria set out in OP Policy 4.1.5, I consider criteria c) and g) to warrant further discussion in relation to the variances requested for building length and side yard setbacks.
c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;
16On the basis of the record of previous approvals for side yard setbacks and building lengths submitted by Mr. Benczkowski and the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the massing of the proposal and the side yard setbacks respect the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood and the Immediate Context.
17I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
ZONING BY-LAW
18Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence was that the general intent and purpose of the building length Zoning By-law is to ensure the appropriateness of a dwelling on a particular lot.
19On the south side, the proposed additional length over and above the maximum permitted by the Zoning By-law is located abutting a rear yard, and not a side yard.
20The general intent and purpose of the side yard setback provision in the Zoning By-law is to provide for appropriate separation between dwellings.
21The side yard setback to the north lot line has been adjusted for part of the length of the building via the settlement.
22I am satisfied that the proposed side yard setbacks maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND
23I find that there are no undue adverse impacts of a planning nature from the proposal. On the basis of the above findings, I find also that the proposal is desirable for the development of the land.
CONCLUSION
24This is an Appeal that has been settled between the Parties. I find that the revised proposal is not contrary to the Planning Act and is within the range of reasonable outcomes.
25I find that the variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
26The Appeal is allowed in part. The variances listed in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.
A. Bassios Panel Member
APPENDIX A
APPROVED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL:
VARIANCES:
Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0 m or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 m. The proposed building length is 18 m.
Chapter 10.20.40.70.(4), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m where the required minimum frontage is 12.0 m to less than 18.0 m. The proposed north side yard setback is 1.52 m.
Chapter 10.20.40.70.(4), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m where the required minimum frontage is 12.0 m to less than 18.0 m. The proposed south side yard setback is 1.52 m.
CONDITIONS:
The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan (drawing A0.1), Front and Rear Elevations (A2.1), and Side Elevations (A2.2) prepared by Urbanscape Architects dated November 17, 2022 attached hereto.
Where there are no existing street trees, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting 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: