Teddington Park Residents Association Inc. v. Torokvei, 2023 ONTLAB 4

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2023-02-08

File No.: 22 142546 S45 15 TLAB

Citation: Teddington Park Residents Association Inc v. Torokvei, 2023 ONTLAB 4

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: February 8, 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: Teddington Park Residents Association Inc.

Applicant: Wayne Swadron Architect

Property Address: 160 Teddington Park Ave

COA File No.: 22 109958 NNY 15 MV (A0087/22NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 22 142546 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): September 29, October 28, November 8, 2022

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: December 8, 2022

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member Yao

Registered Parties and Participants:

People Type	Name	Representative
Applicant	Wayne Swadron Architect
Appellant	Teddington Park Residents Association Inc.	W. Roberts
Party	B. Kogut
Party	R. Ting	W. Roberts
Party	A. Durnford
Party	M. Torokvei	M. Helfand
Expert Witness	S. Mcgaffey	For M. Torokvei
Participant	V. Hand
Participant	D. Hopp

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1Mr. Torokvei wishes to tear down a bungalow at 160 Teddington Park and build a new two storey dwelling. To do so he seeks the variances in Table 1.

Table 1. Variances sought for 160 Teddington Park Ave

#	Feature	Required	Proposed
Variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013
1	Front yard setback	17.78 m (58.3 ft)	10.5 metres. (34.4 ft)
2	Sideward setback for portion deeper than 17 m (East)	7.5 m	2.71m
3	Sideward setback for portion deeper than 17 m (West)	7.5 m	2.71 m
4	Building height	10 m	11.73 m
5	Side exterior main wall heights	7.5 m	8.5 m
6	2nd floor rear balcony	4 m2 in area	10.2 m2 in area
7	Width of driveway	6 m	11.2 m
8	Floor space index	0.35 times the area of the lot.	0.522 times the area of the lot.
Variances from Zoning By-law 76251
9	Building height	10 m	12 m

2On April 14, 2022, the Committee of Adjustment authorized the variances. Teddington Park Residents Association Inc. appealed and so the appeal came to the TLAB.

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT

3The variances must conform to and be consistent with higher level policy documents such as the Provincial Policy Statement and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan². Mr. Mcgaffey made reference to aspects of these policies promoting good design³ but did not provide any analysis beyond setting out sections of those policies he thought might apply. He also mentioned TRCA regulation; this is not an issue in this hearing. Mr. Mills did not refer to these policies in any detail. I find they were too general to offer much guidance for this case, which is to remove an existing house and build a larger one in an established urban area. Because of this, and because the words "consistent with " and conform to" are general, I do not discuss these policies and I have made no negative or positive findings in respect to them.

4The variances must comply with s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and must cumulatively and individually:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
• be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
• be minor. ⁴

Right to develop

5The obligation is on Mr. Torokvei to demonstrate to the decision-maker that the tests are met on the balance of probabilities.

EVIDENCE

6I heard from the two planners, Mr. Mcgaffey and Mr. Mills, both of whom I qualified as able to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. In addition, the neighbours testified in opposition, to be described on page 12.

7I made a site visit. Although my views are not evidence, they give context to help me understand the testimony of the witnesses.

ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, REASONS

The variances

8Number 160 Teddington Park Ave is presently a bungalow, on an east west street, about three blocks east of Yonge. It abuts the Rosedale Golf Course, a ravine on the Don River system. The new house is proposed to be a "garage-forward" design, with two-storey wing that projects 7.28 m (23.9 ft) closer to the street than is allowed. This and some of the other important variances are shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Mills diagram showing some of the variances

9Although the building is more than 17 m long (the usual maximum length), length is governed by a zoning formula that requires the overlong portion to be "pinched in". Anything farther than 17 m from the front wall requires a 7.5 m sideyard on each side, result in in a "T-shaped" rear wall, (coloured red and marked "as of right line").

10In addition, Mr. Torokvei seeks variances for an overly large Floor Space Index⁵ (FSI), building height, driveway width and east and west side yard setbacks. The building height variance is shown in the darker polygonal shape beneath the roof in the lower cross section. The most important variances are the front yard setback and the FSI requests.

Figure 3. Mills’ diagrams submitted to Committee of Adjustment

The test of "fitting in"

11The main test in the Official Plan is whether the development "fits in", shorthand for the policy in Section 4.1.5. This test targets setbacks and density (and other parameters), all preceded by the word "prevailing":

12Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular: . . .

a) . . .

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;

d) . . .

e) prevailing location, design . . . 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.

13The first task is to ascertain the prevailing front yard setbacks and FSIs in the neighbourhood. I conclude in the case of front yard setback, the prevailing setbacks are shown by Mr. Mill’s "yellow line" in Figure 4, page 8, and for prevailing FSIs these are shown in the chart in Table 6, page 10. The latter are compiled from Mr. Torokvei’s planner’s (Mr. Mcgaffey’s) data.

Ascertaining the boundaries of the relevant neighbourhood

14The usual first step is to define the geographic context. In this case the choices are:

• Mr. Mcgaffey proposed this should be Teddington Park Ave east and west of Mount Pleasant, plus Golfdale;
• Mr. Mills: only the 22 properties in the immediate block( page 9).

15I prefer Mr. Mills’ neighbourhood. To draw the boundaries, the Official Plan lists nine criteria: "zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features". Mr. Mills’ neighbourhood "ticks most of the boxes":

• Lot sizes, zoning: These 22 lots are distinctively sized in terms of area; from 150% to 200% larger than Golfdale lots. The zoning of the immediate block is also distinctive; a minimum frontage of 22.5 m (73.8 ft) whereas the other properties are zoned minimum frontage of 15 m (50 feet).
• Scale. The scale is bigger. The subject lot is 22.81 m wide (almost 75 feet) and has a lot area of 1351 m2 (14,500 sq ft or about 0.3 acres). The maximum permitted 0.35 density would allow a house with a GFA of 5090 sq ft, which is also large, even by nearby Golfdale standards.
• Street pattern and pedestrian connectivity. I heard voluminous evidence that Teddington has a "park-like" atmosphere, owing to the pedestrian-only path at the end of the block, the grassed central strip from Bocastle to about the Torokvei house, treed front yards and low traffic volumes. In effect, the street functions as a long, internal driveway for the 22 residents.
• The "chicane", a jog in the street pattern with narrowing of the road surface, adding interest to pedestrian vistas. The "closed-in’ space also encourages social cohesiveness amongst dog walkers and strollers drawn from the larger community. The other Mcgaffey areas, while also composed of upscale residences, do not have these features.
• "Natural and human-made dividing features". As well as the features just mentioned, the block is adjacent to the private Rosedale Golf Course, whose management permits public cross-country skiing in the winter. Its ravine lands permit unique opportunities to "design with nature"; for example, the house at #180 appears to be a bungalow, but its rear façade is two stories, with opportunities for views. The other Mcgaffey properties do not back onto a ravine.

16In short, I find that the immediate block is the appropriate neighbourhood for the determination of neighbourhood characteristics.

Front yard setback

17Mr. Mcgaffey justified the front yard setback by saying that this is a common design feature in the neighbourhood and preferable to a circular garage.⁶ An argument that the variance is "less bad" than a permitted circular driveway is not the test. The test is: does the variance fit into the pattern of prevailing front yards of nearby residential properties? This is represented succinctly in Mr. Mills’ "yellow line" in Figure 4.

18Mr. Mills’ line follows a discernable pattern on both sides of Teddington. He supported it with references to Goad’s Atlas, showing this pattern developed before the zoning by-law,⁷ and continues with recent new construction, including # 180, the angled house (built circa 2011).

Figure 4. Mills pattern of prevailing front yard setbacks

19Evan a single exception to this "yellow line" will produce a ripple effect, a process Mr. Mills called "destabilizing". I agree that the proposal does reduce the legal front yard setback requirements for the two adjacent houses by about 3.5 m.⁸ If these houses were to take advantage of this, the next adjoining houses could also see their setback reduced.

20I find the proposed projection does not respect and reinforce this neighbourhood character and thus fails the Official Plan and zoning by-law intent tests Because the 7.3 m setback is numerically large and impacts the front wall uniformity, it affects the public realm and therefore I find the impact is unacceptably adverse. This variance is not minor or desirable for the appropriate development of the land and so, the front yard setback variance cannot be granted.

21The failure of one variance means the entire application fails, since each of the variances must individually and cumulatively meet the four tests. Nonetheless, I now go on to consider FSI because if it fails, this will also cause the entire application to fail.

Figure 5. Immediate block with Mr. Mcgaffey’s FSIs

22Mr. Mcgaffey stated that there was a pattern of Committee of Adjustment decisions demonstrating that an FSI of 0.522 was "appropriate". ⁹ He based this on a chart of 32 decisions. I discard those outside the immediate block. This leaves six decisions (the seventh arrow with 0.522 is the decision for the subject, which was granted by the Committee of Adjustment).

23In disputing the "appropriate" conclusion, Mr. Mills made the case that lot frontage should also be factored into the comparison. I agree. The block contains FSIs for frontages that range from 15 m or so to the high twenties, with one property at 32 m (105 ft). Mr. Mills said either a 0.47 FSI was characteristic (treating all decisions as a single set) or 0.41 (excluding narrower lots). The idea is that the intent of the zoning is to allow for the same four-bedroom, four-bath house, which leads to a higher FSI on a narrower lot. Applying the Mills numbers to #160’s area (14,537.8 sq ft), this gives the following:

• at an FSI of 0.47, the internal size of the house would be 6832 sq ft; or
• at 0.41, just under 6000 sq ft.

24Mr. Torokvei seeks 7388 sq ft; larger than either of Mr. Mills estimate of a reasonable FSI. Calculations for all seven properties in his subarea are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Frontages and FSIs, sorted by FSI¹⁰

Address	frontage (m)	FSI	GFA (sq ft)
120 Teddington	19.2	0.41	4879
137 Teddington	27	0.46	5714
179 Teddington	27	0.47	5838
160 Teddington	22.81	.522	7388
91 Teddington	15	0.54	3726
183 Teddington	16	0.54	4369
177 Teddington	32	0.43411 (2009, neighbour S) 0.5499 (June 2018, CM) 0.413 (Nov 2018, Detail Architect)	7392 (2009) 9366 (June 2018) 7067 (Nov 2019)

25The only property that is helpful for Mr. Mcgaffey is #177 Teddington, with an FSI of 0.5499 — similar to what is sought, and clearly not a narrow lot. However, Mr. Mcgaffey did not have the benefit of Mr. Kogut’s information that this 0.5499 FSI was never built. Mr. Mills calls this situation the "fun one"¹²: Owner CM, who obtained the higher FSI, sold to a new purchaser, Neighbour X, who switched to Detail Architect and relied on CM’s variance but not her plans. In making its award to CM, the Committee did not impose a "substantial compliance" condition but the new owner Neighbour X did not use this loophole to build to this FSI. Detail Architect’s FSI "site statistics" (difficult to read in this reproduction because it is jpeg) reads:

Allowable	870.16 m2	9356.3 sq ft
Proposed	656.6 m2 =0.41 x Total Lot Area	7067 sq ft

26That is, 0.5499 is wrong and 0.41 is right.

Figure 7. Site Statistics, Detail Architect, dated November 2018 (Note: Figures 7 and 8 are part of the same page)

27This rebuts the sole exception and Mr. Mill’s conclusions are consistent with Neighbour X’s actual building. I find that a FSI of 0.552 does not respect and reinforce the prevailing densities of nearby residential properties (0.47 for larger lots) and therefore this variance does not meet the Official Plan and zoning tests. For reasons already explained the entire application fails.

Can the residents' testimony be discounted?

28I now move to an issue raised by Mr. Helfand, Mr. Torokvei’s lawyer, who has raised the issue of whether neighbours’ testimony should be discounted solely on their lack of professional planner status.

29Mr. Helfand characterized the evidence of all persons except for Mr. Mills as "passion" and suggested that I should distrust their lack of objectivity. He conceded pejoratively that citizens "should be allowed" to have opinions.¹³ A second criticism was that I should disregard anecdotal evidence of the 21 other residents usually reaching a commonly accepted FSI standard of 0.47. This was criticized as "planning by plebiscite".¹⁴

30I disagree with these submissions. The neighbours’ evidence, like that of the two planners’, should be scrutinized in the usual way. On two key issues, I have accepted neighbours’ testimony, not because I am swayed by passion but because the evidence was internally consistent and corroborated by other written evidence.

31I have just described how Mr. Kogut’s oral evidence of an 0.41 FSI for Neighbour X is corroborated by their site plan. I also accept Dr Ting’s oral evidence to the effect of an informal consensus for larger lot FSIs of 0.47. In support, he contended his neighbour at #137, Neighbour F, reduced their FSI to below this number and he then supported F’s development, at the Committee of Adjustment, although it was "already a very, very large house".¹⁵ I accepted this evidence, not because I was conducting a "plebiscite", but because Dr. Ting’s assertion is supported by other written evidence. At page 147 of Mr. Helfand’s document disclosure are Ms. F’s plans, signed by her lawyer, Ms. Pepino, and dated just four days before the Committee of Adjustment decision. This is highly suggestive that the two neighbours agreed on an FSI of 0.46, corroborating Dr. Ting’s assertion.

32In short, I reject Mr. Helfand’s criticism of Mr. Kogut’s and Dr. Ting’s testimony.

Listed property at 174 Teddington (next door)

33The next-door property, (locally called "the castle") is listed under the Ontario Heritage Act. The "listing document" states:

Residential Cowan House; 1929-31, John M. Lyle -adopted by City Council on Aug. 18, 1976 174 TEDDINGTON PARK AVE

34John Lyle was the architect for Union Station, Royal Alexandra Theatre, and the Royal Canadian Yacht Club. Council listed it in 1976.

35The joint Memorandum giving me background on the Ontario Heritage Act states:

The Register may also include property that has not been designated by by-law, but that Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. . . .A municipality is not required to undertake a robust individual heritage analysis of a property in order to list the property on the Heritage Register. . . .If a non-designated property is listed on the City's Heritage Register, the owner of the property must provide municipal council with written notice 60 days prior to demolishing or removing the building or structure, thus giving municipal Council the opportunity to consider whether the property should be designated. . . .

36The Official Plan requires that if development is adjacent to a listed property, the developer must ensure the property’s heritage value is retained to the satisfaction of the City".¹⁶

37Mr. Helfand submitted¹⁷ that the opponents had failed to sufficiently show the reasons for listing, what was the heritage or cultural heritage value, or that the City’s failure to attend at the hearing constituted a waiver of those issues by persons of expertise.

38I reject those arguments, because the obligation is on the proponent to demonstrate Official Plan compliance, and there was no evidentiary basis laid out for these submissions. Mr. Mcgaffey and Mr. Mills, quite properly, refused to venture into an area that was not the subject of their expertise, as was appropriate under their Acknowledgements of Expert’s Duty. I decline to make the findings urged upon me by Mr. Helfand.

Trees

39Mr. Helfand argued that tree removal is beyond my purview because tree removal does not trigger a variance directly. I agree that tree protection is not a neighbourhood characteristic that is targeted specifically in 4.1.5. However, the Official Plan does mention trees and I am required to read all of the Plan to determine its intent.

40S. 9(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that TLAB may attach a condition which is "fair in the circumstances".¹⁸ I find that front yard trees are so important to the character of this neighbourhood that it is fair in the circumstances to require a condition to preserve at least one tree, if the variances are granted.

41There are two tree policies in the Plan, one of which explicitly mentions front yard setbacks. The policies are:

• "preservation of trees "wherever possible";¹⁹ and
• promotion of green initiatives, subject to the regulation regime in the Municipal Code chapter 813.²⁰

42Both tree policies require a balanced approach, but the first also deals with front yard setbacks, one of the key variances. It states new development will be located generally "parallel to the street . . .with a consistent front yard setback", and the background preamble uses the language of a "common wall". ²¹ I interpret "wherever possible" narrowly, and find that it should be possible to preserve at least some existing mature trees at the front of the house, if a lower FSI etc. had been sought.

Figure 8 Tree Protection plan for Neighbour X, 177 Teddington Park

43This is a large lot with many design options. This may be seen from Neighbour X’s and Mr. Kogut’s site plans, that they specifically "notched" their front walls to preserve a European beech (Figure 8). As set out previously both neighbours’ FSIs (0.413 and 0.47) are below the informal FSI; and in so doing both objectives were met.

44Mr. Torokvei did attempt to respond to tree preservation policies by introducing a revised landscape plan during the hearing. It adds three trees to the front yard and four to the rear yard, but does not attempt to preserve mature trees. I am not satisfied with this proposal. Replacement plantings are not the equivalent of mature trees and this is a well treed neighbourhood.

45Mr. Mills submitted a TLAB decision by former Member Leung (1356 Mount Pleasant) imposing a condition of a mandatory exploratory "dig" with Urban Forestry to "fine tune" the placement of a foundation wall.²² I find this could have been done here if there was a willingness on the proponent’s part to redesign the parts of the house nearest the mature trees. As stated, in any event, trees are a moot issue, given the findings with respect to front yard setback and FSI.

46Teddington Park is a desirable and stable neighbourhood, a product of Official Plan and zoning policies. Trees, a uniform front yard setback, and a willingness on developer/neighbours to temper "above -0.35 FSI" requests, form part of this stability. Mr. Torokvei’s design does not maintain the intent of those policies, nor are the variances minor or desirable. I find the variances do not meet the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

47The Residents’ Association’s appeal is allowed, and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is set aside. The variances are not authorized.

T. Yao Panel Member

Um, there are 6 conditions of circular driveways within the north side within the immediate context, and even here with a minimum required frontage of 22.5 meters in zoning bylaw 569, a circular driveway is a permitted condition on this property.

And so, this comes back to my point earlier about understanding what the bylaws allow for, versus what the OP objectives are, and how they may compete with each other. Introducing a circular driveway on this property while on a lot of this size it might otherwise be permitted and negate the need for variance. Does it result in a better condition for the character and streetscape of Teddington Park for lot of this size? I, I wouldn't agree. I think, in my opinion, sometimes the by law is, is it's a blunt instrument that needs to be appropriately scaled and understood how it relates to the individual properties. (Mcgaffey oral testimony)

10.5.40.70 Setbacks (1) Front Yard Setback - Averaging In the Residential Zone category, if a lot is: (A) beside one lot in the Residential Zone category, and that abutting lot has a building fronting on the same street and that building is, in whole or in part, 15.0 metres or less from the subject lot, the required minimum front yard setback is the front yard setback of that building on the abutting lot; and (B) between two abutting lots in the Residential Zone category, each with a building fronting on the same street and those buildings are both, in whole or in part, 15.0 metres or less from the subject lot, the required minimum front yard setback is the average of the front yard setbacks of those buildings on the abutting lots.

Now these are all, ah the request is for 0.52. We come to the matter of number 177. Now the fun one here is that there was an application made to do an addition on the property, and it was granted at 0.55, and in the end that was never built. And instead, a ah a new application was made for a replacement, which never came up at Committee of Adjustment because, it was within the 0.55, and the architectural plans for that property at 177 show 0.41 as being the FSI and it also acknowledges that there had been a prior Committee of Adjustment on another set of drawings that ah granted 0.55.

So, you know when I’m starting ta, try to look at it what is a reasonable FSI for the immediate area, one way of looking at it is to deal with them all, recognizing two of them are very narrow lots, and one of them, 177, is an approval that was never consummated, if you want to say, never built.

And on the other hand, the other way to look at it would be to exclude the small ones and exclude 177 and instead look at it as being the 0.41 FSI that was the replacement house that was built. And If you do that, then you’re looking at, you know an FSI for a development within the immediate block that would be most appropriate, desirable as being some number that is not ah greater than 0.4, FSI. So that, but in this case, going through, you know, using data, you know, the Committee of Adjustment did approve an addition on that property at 0.55, which was never built. In fact, it was immediately after that decision, they proceeded to, instead, to come up drawings, with drawings for a replacement house that came in at .41.

So really to use that 0.55, to say that is representative of a, you know the intensity of development on the street; you know, that’s a "non-event" number. So, in my opinion, you know, if you exclude the situations -- the development there on narrower lots, and I agree that you find on narrower lots for instance on Golfdale, that are that 16 m, 15 m kind of frontage, you do see development numbers that come in, you know in the mid-50s, FSI. And then on the other hand, on these larger properties we see a lower FSI, in the 40s range. . And we see this again even appearing in some of them on the outside in adjacent areas you know. . 0.38, 0.45, 0.43 and the like. So, you know the 0.52 in my opinion actually isn’t reflective of the character of development that’s occurring in the immediate block, if you correlate that the size of the property involved.

6. The planning process is a public process. People are allowed to have their opinions, and express their opinions, on what they wish to see in their neighbourhood. The [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), and the four tests established under subsection 45(1), represents a legal imperative to insert an element of objectivity, that can be applied by the approval authority, in determining whether variances ought to be approved. (Helfand Written Submissions)

9 (2) The Tribunal may include in an order conditions that it considers fair in the circumstances, including a condition that the order comes into force at a future fixed time or on the performance of terms imposed by the Tribunal. (Ontario Land Tribunal Act)

d) preserving and enhancing the urban forest by:

i. providing suitable growing environments for trees;

ii. increasing tree canopy coverage and diversity, especially of long-lived native and large shade trees; and

iii. regulating the injury and destruction of trees;. . .(Official Plan The Natural Environment)

I note that in connection with the "competitive economy", #174 was purchased by the owner of a large European software company, who researched houses in Boston before selecting 174 Teddington Park.

Footnotes

1. 1The current by-law still has an outstanding appeal with respect to building height. Therefore, the plan examiner tests proposals against the former by-law 438-86 as well as the current one. This results in a duplication of the height variances, and there are technical differences between the manner in which height is measured under the two by-laws. The Examiner has added two notions to this variance: Height NOTE: height measured from 158.68 NOTE: roof contains flat areas (less than 10.5 degrees), and is measured to the top
2. 2These often deal with matters such as the preservation of agricultural land, existence of common sewer and water etc. that are not usually issues in Toronto.
3. 3There is a Provincial interest in ] the promotion of built form that; i. is well designed; ii. encourages a sense of place; and iii. provides for public spaces that are high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant (Mcgaffey Witness Statement)
4. 445 (1) . . . [the TLAB] may authorize such minor variance from the provisions of the by-law, in respect of the land, building or structure or the use thereof, as in its opinion is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, if in the opinion of the [TLAB] the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan, if any, are maintained.
5. 5Floor space index is gross floor area divided by lot area and is the same as "density".
6. 6The proposed development has an integral garage that’s located within the front yard area, projects approximately 5 or so, 5 to 6 meters [the plan examiner says 7.3 m -- my interpolation] from beyond the minimum required front yard setback. And it does this by flipping the orientation of the garages so that they actually face this internal courtyard area of the of the proposed development. What I've referred to as the parking forecourt in my witness statement. And this configuration as we went through the photo tour the idea of the garage as a separate volume from the main residential dwelling served by a parking forecourt, or a large circular driveway is a common theme within this neighbourhood. . . .(Mcgaffey oral testimony)
7. 7According to the 1924 version of Goad’s Atlas, 160, 177 179 and 185 were the first homes to be built on this section of Teddington Park. No 160, the Hand residence, is somewhat behind this line.
8. 8290) Front Yard Setback means a horizontal distance on a lot measured at a right angle from the front lot line to the nearest main wall of a building or structure. . .
9. 9110. With respect to the proposed floor space index of 0.522 times the area of the lot, I have reviewed available public information including prior Committee of Adjustment, Ontario Municipal Board (now the Ontario Land Tribunal) and Toronto Local Appeal Body decisions in order to establish residential densities of existing properties where possible. Unfortunately for many homes in the Neighbourhood Study Area, existing residential density information is not available (and surmising from municipal mapping or aerial photography is inaccurate). My analysis in Table 1 to this Witness Statement demonstrates that there is a pattern of relief being granted within the Neighbourhood Study Area to permit residential densities that exceed the Zoning By-law permissions, and that the proposed FSI of 0.522 times the area of the lot is appropriate in the Immediate Context and broader Neighbourhood Study Area (properties within the Immediate Context Area are shaded in grey). (Mcgaffey Witness Statement)
10. 10The source for frontages is from Ariss (Mr. Mill’s company), p15. For 120 Teddington, I have calculated it to be 19.21 m assuming it has the same depth as the subject, which is slightly varying. Mr. Mills states this is "approximately 20 m frontage" on p 14. For 17,7 I used the site statistics block from Detail Architect with a frontage of 32.007 m. All figures are approximate.
11. 11The Svastal (owner of 177) decision is in Mr. Helfand’s brief of documents, but not in Mr. Mcgaffey’s table. The GFA numbers (column 4) are calculated by me. I use italics because of the "fun one" evidence described in the main body of this decision.
12. 12So, ah you know, to a degree I would expect to see a higher density there [for the narrower, 16 m lots]. The ah, now I’ve got myself totally confused here. Hang on. [searching for place in the share screen]. For the larger properties, we see in the neighbourhood, you know at #120, what was it? 0.41; #137, was what? 0.47; and I’m going to skip [#177] for a second here, #179 is at 0.4.
13. 13The TLAB notice of Hearing states: "MAKING YOUR VIEWS KNOWN The notice has been provided to you, as required by the Planning Act, to ensure that, as an interested person, you may make your views known by filing your submissions in accordance with the Rules".
14. 145. Mr. Scott, on behalf of the Appellant, said with no uncertainty that the neighbors would prefer a consensus approach to planning in this street, and each of the neighbors cited examples where they reached "compromise", with an applicant. Consensus is not the test. Ontario does not have a system of planning by plebiscite.
15. 15It’s {Mr. Torokvei’s proposal] a voluminous house, it’s a 75 by 188 lot , but what they’re proposing to build, square footage-wise is actually more than what has been built at 137 and 137 for me is already a massive house. I did agree to support it [#137] but to me it is a ready a verry very large house for the neighbourhood…… If you go for an FSI of .523, I calculate their house is going to be over 8,000 sq ft [Mr. Mcgaffey says 7389 – my interpolation] and 137 is 7700 sq feet on a 90-foot lot, whereas 160 is a 75-foot lot. I would support it if it were 0.47, which would bring it to about 6800 to 7000 sq ft. [I calculate 6329 – my interpolation] I think the problem is, sir, every time we allow people to go higher and higher, it sets the bar the next and everyone wants to build bigger and bigger and bigger. I say if you want to build a big house, buy a lot on the Bridle Path and build there. But on a street like Teddington, which is really a heritage street, it’s really a special street, we don’t want houses that built to the max, max, max. No pun intended. (Ting oral testimony)
16. 163.1.5.5 Proposed alterations, development, and/or public works on or adjacent to, a property on the Heritage Register will ensure that the integrity of the heritage property’s cultural heritage value and attributes will be retained, prior to work commencing on the property and to the satisfaction of the City. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment is required in Schedule 3 of the Official Plan¹⁶, it will describe and assess the potential impacts and mitigation strategies for the proposed alteration, development or public work. (Official Plan)
17. 17• Mr. Mills has no evidence about why this property was listed, or what its identified heritage attributes are. Any heritage attributes of 174 Teddington Park Avenue that Mr. Mills asserts are simply his own speculations, and should be given no weight. • Mr. Mills asserts that trees on 160 Teddington Park "bracket" the heritage property at 174. This is demonstrably incorrect. It is clear that the trees on 160 that are proposed to be removed do not "bracket" the listed property. They are instead adjacent to a large parking area, and a new garage, that Mr. Mills admitted under cross examination were likely constructed after the property was listed on the register. • It strains credulity that the trees on 160 Teddington Park are in any way part of that heritage attributes. When asked by the chair during his evidence in chief about the heritage attributes of 174 he failed to even mention the trees on 160. • There is no evidence that the proposed garage will block views of 174 Teddington Park, given the orientation of the buildings, and the significant landscaping which already obstructs the view when looking at 174 from in front of 160. But in any event, obstruction of a view of 174 does not constitute an impact on 174, and is no reason to refuse that variance. • It is also worth noting that the owner of 174 Teddington Park, who we heard from Mr. Ting does not live at the house, did not participate in this proceeding to raise any objections. (Helfand Submissions)
18. 18Conditions
19. 193.1.2.1 New development will be located and organized to fit with its existing and/or planned context. It will frame and support adjacent streets, . . .to improve the. . . pedestrian interest and casual views to these spaces from the development by: a) generally locating buildings parallel to the street or along the edge of a park or open space with a consistent front yard setback. .3.1.2.1.d preserving existing mature trees wherever possible and incorporating them into landscaping designs. (Built Form)
20. 20s. 3.4.5 To support strong communities, a competitive economy and a high quality of life, public and private city-building activities and changes to the built environment, including public works, will be environmentally friendly, based on:
21. 21Toronto’s streets, parks and open spaces are defined by the façades of many buildings. The façade presents the building to the public, telling people about the building, what it is, where to enter, and what the character and functions of interior uses are. The individual façades of buildings that form the edge of a street or a park are read together as a common wall that defines the public realm and are part of the physical expression of Toronto’s collective vision, identity and history. Developments must be conceived not only in terms of the individual building site and program, but also in terms of how that site, building and its façades fit within the existing and/or planned context of the neighbourhood and the City. Each new building should promote and achieve the overall objectives of the Plan. (3.1.2 Built Form, Official Plan)
22. 22Urban Forestry staff who did not raise issues with the substantive elements of the report, however, did recommend a condition that the substantial conformity condition (as noted as Condition No. 1) not apply to the north portion of the property so that excavation work can be done to determine where the foundation wall should be placed so as to minimize impact on the trees in that portion of the property. Here, Mr. Rendl contends that this Report clearly demonstrates that there are sufficient protection and mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize impact to the trees on site.