Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 21 132360 S45 03 TLAB
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 31, 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): JOE VASSALLO
Applicant(s): HELEN W HE
Property Address: 19 & 21 Jutland Rd.
COA File Number(s): 20 135892 WET 03 MV (A0164/20EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 21 132360 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): March 6, 2023
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: March 20, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member S. Gopikrishna
Registered Parties:
Owner: 1793872 ONTARIO INC
Applicant: H. W He
Appellant: J. Vassallo
Appellant’s Legal Rep: M. Mazierski
Party: A. Santone
Expert Witness: T. Cieciura
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1Joe Vasallo is the owner of a business that operates from Municipal Addresses 19 & 21 Jutland Road (the “Site”, the “Subject Property”), located in Ward 03 (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) in the City of Toronto. He applied to the Committee of Adjustment (COA) for the approval of variances to legalize and maintain a one-storey addition (walk-in cooler) between the two existing industrial buildings, a one-storey south side addition and a new loading space.
2The COA heard the Application on March 9, 2021, and refused the Application in its entirety. The Applicant appealed the decision made by the COA to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) on March 26, 2021. Mr. Alessandro Santone, one of the neighbours, elected for Party status in opposition to the Appeal.
3The TLAB held Pre-hearing conferences on August 17, 2021, November 10, 2021 and December 15. 2022 to complete the Proceeding. At each of these Hearings, the Appellant was represented by Mr. Martin Mazierski, a lawyer, and Mr. T.J.Cieciura, a land use planner, while Mr. Alessandro Santone ( the “Opposition) represented himself. Adjournments were granted at the first two of the Hearings listed above, because the Parties stated that they were in Settlement Discussions, and mutually consented to adjournments. According to the information given to me, one of the contentious issues that the Parties had to address were drainage and flooding issues at the Site- what made the remediation of this issue is that it required the cooperation of a third party, which had not elected for Party or Participant status in the Appeal before the TLAB.
4At the last of the conferences held on December 15, 2022, Mr. Mazierski advised that given that he exhausted all possible solutions to the issues raised by Mr. Santone, and that the Appeal had to proceed forward by way of a contested proceeding. Given Mr. Santone was in agreement with the methodology proposed by Mr. Mazierski, I advised the TLAB that the Proceeding would require a 1(one) day Hearing. The TLAB set a Hearing date for March 21, 2023.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).
6Variance – 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
7At the Hearing held on March 6, 2023, I suggested to the Parties that instead of following the tradition of the Applicants present their evidence first, it would be advisable to reverse the order in which evidence is usually presented, and have the Opposition present its evidence first. I explained to the Applicants that given the issues on which Mr. Santone was opposed to the Application were limited in number and scope, an efficient way of completing the Hearing was to allow him to discuss his reasons for opposition to the Appeal, and have the Applicants address those concerns in a detailed fashion, while discussing the remainder ( the undisputed part) at a very high level. The Applicants were agreeable to this suggestion.
8Mr. Santone was affirmed and spoke briefly to his experience and knowledge of the issue. He said that he had been living at 76 Culnan Ave.since 1986, and described how the rear of his property bordered the rear of the Site. He said that as a result of construction at the Site and enlarging of the storage facility , there had been a considerable reduction in soft landscaping, which helped with the absorption of water into the soil, with the result that the water was running over onto his property. He described how he had installed a sump on his property, in order to pump out the water that was flowing onto his property from the Site.
9Mr. Santone also spoke to the noise and smell issues arising from parking trucks at the Site. He described how he and his family liked to spend significant amounts of time in their backyard during summer, and how they were disturbed by the noise of trucks pulling in and out, as well as the smell produced by the trucks, when left on at the Site. He remarked that while the disturbances could be tolerated in winter, they significantly impacted the quality of life of his family in summer.
10Through his cross-examination, Mr. Mazierski suggested to Mr. Santone that the amount of green space at the Site would increase appreciably as a result of the landscaping measures resulting from the variances, while Jersey Barriers would be installed at the front of the Site to minimize disturbance. Notwithstanding these measures, Mr. Santone complained that notwithstanding these measures, there would continue to be a very significant negative impact on his family.
11Mr. T.J. Cieciura, a land use planner, was sworn in, and recognized as an Expert in the discipline of land use planning, to give evidence on behalf of the Applicant. He said that the subject property is located on the south side of Jutland Road, west of Islington Avenue, east of Kipling Avenue. It is generally within the neighbourhood referred to as “Islington- City Centre West” within the former municipality of Etobicoke, now part of the City of Toronto. The subject property, is municipally known as 19 & 21 Jutland Road, is located on the south side of Jutland Road, in-between Islington Avenue and Kipling Avenue.
12The Subject Property is currently occupied by two (2) one-storey industrial buildings which are connected by a one-storey addition (walk-in cooler) as well as a a one-storey rear vestibule and a rear one-storey loading space. The proposal is to legalize and maintain the existing one-storey addition walk-in cooler between the two existing industrial buildings, the existing one-storey rear addition (walk-in cooler and vestibule), and an additional loading space at the rear. The subject property is rectangular in shape, with 30.48 metres of frontage along Jutland Road and a depth of 94.11 metres. The lot area of the subject property is 2871 square metres.
13The immediate land uses to the north, west and east include industrial buildings along Jutland Road. The immediate land uses to the south include residential neighbourhoods consisting of mostly single-detached dwellings. On the east, there are commercial buildings along Islington Avenue, as well as residential neighbourhoods on the east side of Islington Avenue. On the north, there are a number of industrial buildings which extend to the subway/rail tracks just south of Bloor Street West. Further south, there is a residential neighbourhood as well as commercial and mixeduse buildings adjacent and on the north side of the Gardiner Expressway.
14Mr. Cieciura said that close to the Site, employment properties which are adjacent to residential land uses have been distinguished from the rest of the area properties, for the sake of analyzing this proposal. He also pointed out The Official Plan Designation for the subject property is “Core Employment Areas”, though there is no General Employment Area adjacent to this Core Employment Area, which can act as a buffer between the Core Employment Area, and the Residential Areas. The subject property is zoned “E 1.0” Employment Industrial under the City-Wide Zoning By-law 569-2013, which permits a variety of industrial and commercial uses.
15Mr. Cieciura said that the purpose of the proposal is legalize and maintain the existing one-storey addition (walk-in cooler) between the two existing industrial buildings, a one-storey rear addition (walk-in cooler and vestibule) and an additional loading space. He added that the proposal has been built, and the purpose of the application to the COA was to legalize and maintain the existing addition(s) and loading space.
16Mr. Cieciura said that five (5) variances are requested to legalize and maintain the existing addition(s) to the existing industrial buildings and an additional loading space. He said that it is important to note that of the five (5) variances needed, four (4) of them are not caused by the additions that need to be legalized, but are caused by paving/landscaping, that is independent of the addition(s). The fifth variance is an additional loading space created by the addition(s). He added that the property and existing industrial buildings already have a rear loading space abutting the Residential Zone which has existed prior to the construction of the proposal. Mr. Cieciura said that it “appears that the existing loading space at the rear of 21 Jutland Road was approved in 2011”, and is therefore, likely legal, non-conforming to Zoning By-law 569-2013. Further, he said that the “new addition(s) are actually compliant with most By-law provisions, including the rear setback to a Residential Zone”.
17Mr. Cieciura then spoke to the relationship between the proposal, and the Official Plan (OP). He reviewed a number of variables such as Zoning, Lot Size and Configuration, on the basis of which he defined his “Study Area”, which consists of buildings on both sides of Jutland Area, from Kipling Avenue to Islington Avenue. He said that the proposal satisfies Policy 2.2.4 of the OP, because the proposal will intensify the existing physical form of the employment use on the Subject Property. On the basis of a review of the “relatively small” group of COA decisions addressing employment properties in this area, Mr. Cieciura demonstrated that many properties were approved for variances, similar to what is before the TLAB with respect to the Site. He added that four of the five variances are based solely on paving, before adding that because paving can be done without a building permit, it can be concluded that the properties may be non-legal non-conforming, “but did not get flagged by zoning examiners. As a result, they did not appear within the study area research table because the building department had never identified it as “non-conforming”.
18Mr. Cieciura then contrasted the efforts of the owners of the Site to provide a 1.02 metre wide soft landscaping strip along the entire front lot line, with other properties on the same stretch that had no landscaping strip- Mr. Cieciura interpreted this to mean that the owners of the Site were doing their best to increase soft landscaping, to address the drainage issue raised by the Opposition.
19He added that subject proposal represents a “modest alteration to the existing industrial buildings by increasing the usable floor space of the buildings, and providing more functionality within the industrial buildings”. According to Mr. Cieciura, the altered industrial buildings have been constructed to “modern standards to meet the needs of a modern business”, while observing the intent of the OP by maintaining the employment use and built form that is already present within the area.
20Mr. Cieciura then spoke to how the proposal fulfilled Employment related policies in the OP, by virtue of expanding the existing usable floor area within the existing industrial buildings to create a more functional and efficient work space, resulting in a more “intensive” use of the lands in Employment Areas, such that the Policy intent of better use of a limited supply of lands is operationalized.
21The relationship between the proposal, and Policy 3.1.2 was discussed next, with a focus on how the proposal fits in, “respecting and improving the character of the surrounding area”, as stated in the Policy. Mr. Cieciura discussed how the proposal would result in the addition(s) to the existing industrial buildings and an additional loading space, and opined that the proposal will fit in with the surrounding area which consists mostly of employment industrial buildings that are typically 1 (one)-storey in height, resulting in a consistent built form pattern with a fairly consistent architectural style in the study area.
22Discussing Policy 3.1.2.3 specifically, Mr. Cieciura said that the proposal is has been designed such that it does not impact the privacy of the residents of adjacent buildings, through the provision of providing adequate setbacks and separation distances from neighbouring properties, specifically the adjacent residential dwellings to the south of the subject property. He pointed out that the proposed addition(s) to the existing industrial buildings and additional loading space are setback a total of 33.39 metres from the rear (south) property line, which is an adequate and appropriate setback/separation distance from the adjacent residential dwelling to the south. He contrasted the actual separation on the ground with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw, which requires a 15 metre setback to the Residential Zone, and then stated that the intention of the Zoning By-law is to implement the Official Plan.
23Mr. Cieciura then spoke to the relationship between the proposal and Section 3.5.1 of the OP, and stated that the proposal satisfied the Policy, because it represents an opportunity for expansion and growth to the existing employment industrial operation on the Subject property. He also opined that the proposal is a more intensified form of development on the subject property which is within the designated “Core Employment Areas” of the City.
24The relationship between the proposal, and the Site’s designation as a “Core Employment Area”, on the basis of Section 4.6.1 of the OP, was addressed next by Mr. Cieciura. He said that the addition(s) to the existing industrial buildings, and additional loading space, in an area that contains industrial and other employment uses, directly implements the policies of this Section, while maintaining the existing use on the Subject property- storage by itself is a permitted within the “Core Employment Areas” designation.
25Policy 4.6.7 was addressed next- Mr. Cieciura stated that the proposal will satisfy this Policy by virtue of its providing additional functionality to the existing industrial buildings on the Subject property thereby supporting, preserving and protecting employments uses and the integrity of the “Core Employment Area”, in which it is situated.
Based on this evidence, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the proposal satisfied the intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
26Speaking next to the relationship between the proposal, and the Zoning By-law, Mr. Cieciura emphasized that under By-law 569-2013, the Site is zoned “E 1.0”, which is an Employment Industrial zone that permits employment industrial buildings, on a lot with a maximum total density of 1.0 times the area of the lot. He then addressed the relationship between each of the variances, and the intent and purpose of the By-law.
27Discussing the variance requesting a 1.2 metre soft landscaping strip along a lot line abutting a Street, instead of the recommended 3 metres, Mr. Cieciura said that the intent of the By-law is to create an attractive streetscape to provide on-site storm water management. He said that the proposed 1.2 metre strip satisfies this intent, because it improves the existing situation, where there is no landscaping through the provision of green landscaping strip that is 1.2 metre wide. He specifically discussed how this strip would address the overflow issues raised by the Opposition.
28Mr. Cieciura next addressed the variance requesting a 4.17 metre landscaped strip, along a Lot Line, abutting a Residential Zone. He said that the intent of the requirement for a 7.5 metre landscaped strip along a lot line abutting a Residential Zone is in large part, to ensure adequate and appropriate buffering is provided to mitigate any potential adverse impacts related to an employment industrial use which is adjacent to residential uses.
29Mr. Cieciura opined that the introduction of a 4.17 metre landscaped strip is a significant improvement over the existing situation, because such a strip did not hitherto exist on the Subject property, because a major part of the rear yard consisted of dirt, and has been used for parking purposes.
30Speaking next to the variance which request a 4.17 metre setback for a paking space from a lot line, which abuts a lot in a Residential Route, Mr. Cieciura drew parallels between this variance, and the previous variance discussed in Paragraphs [28] and [29] above. He said that the intent and purpose of this variance is to ensure appropriate separation distances between the industrial buildings, and nearby residential uses, to mitigate any potential impacts associated with the movement and parking of vehicles in close proximity to residential uses. He said that the variance satisfies the intent and purpose of this By-law, because the proposal will improve the existing condition on the Subject Property, by providing appropriate buffering in the form of a landscaped strip along the entire lot line, abutting the Residential Zone to the south. He stated that this approach provides appropriate separation distances to the parking area in the rear yard, that is in-keeping with the existing character of many employment industrial properties in this area which abut a Residential Zone.
31Mr. Cieciura then spoke to the relationship between the variance pertaining to the location of a loading space, because this application asks for a variance to permit a proposed loading space in a yard abutting a Residential Zone, notwithstanding the By-law not permitting a loading zone in such a location. He said that the intent of such a restriction is to mitigate any potential impacts on adjacent residential uses, associated with loading activities for an employment industrial use on a property.
32He explained how a loading space has existed in the rear yard of the Subject property which abuts the Residential Zone to the south prior to the construction of the proposal. The proposed loading space will be an addition to the existing loading space, which has previously existing on the subject property. Mr. Cieciura explained how mitigation measures, such as an existing fence enclosure around the rear yard of the Subject property, as well as the proposed landscaped buffer strip along the entire lot line abutting the Residential Zone to the south, and appropriate setback distances will help mitigate any potential impacts associated with the existing industrial buildings, and loading activities. Lastly, Mr. Cieciura reiterated how the existence of loading yards in a yard located on Employment Lands, adjacent to a residential Zone, is a common feature in this area.
33The relationship between the request for a variance of 1.02 metres for the minimum required setback, from the front lot line, when the Zoning By-Law prescribes it to be at least 3 metres from the lot line, was discussed next by Mr. Cieciura.
34He said that the intent of requiring a minimum setback for a parking space located in a street yard is in large part, to ensure that parking is provided in an appropriate manner, so as to avoid parking in the public right-of-way. It is also to maintain a consistent pattern of parking and streetscape along the street. Mr. Cieciura then explained that the proposed parking spaces will be an improvement from the existing condition on the Subject property considering that the proposal will be providing a soft landscaping strip along the entire front lot line, which will clearly delineate and separate the proposed parking spaces in the front yard from the public right-of-way. He opined that this will contribute to avoiding parking in the municipal right-of-way, maintaining a consistent pattern of parking, and creating a more pleasant and attractive streetscape. Mr. Cieciura then reverted to the COA decision table to demonstrate that previous requests for a reduction on the minimum required setback for a parking space in a street yard from the front lot line between 0 metres and 3.05 metres have been approved over the last 10 year in this neighbourhood.
Based on this discussion, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the requested variances meet the intent, and purpose of Zoning By-law 569-2013.
35Addressing the test of appropriate development, Mr. Cieciura stated that the proposal is desirable because” it makes for better and more efficient use of the land which is the result of combining two existing lots, and two buildings which currently exist”. Reiterating that similar developments have been permitted in the Study Area, adjoining the Site, he said that the new developments within the Study Area have provided examples of both modest redevelopment, as well more intensified development that respects the character of the area, and those new developments now form a part of the character of the area, known as “Islington City Centre West”.
Based on this evidence, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the proposal satisfied the test of appropriate development.
36Speaking to the test of minor, Mr. Cieciura stated that will be little to no impact on the adjacent properties, and the Study area other than what might have been experienced prior to the construction of the proposal and what would be experienced if the land was developed in accordance with the as-of-right Zoning. He asserted that the approval of these variances would not create a noticeable difference, compared to what might have been experienced prior to the construction of the addition(s).
Based on this evidence, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the proposal satisfied the test of minor.
37Speaking to the conditions that may be imposed, should the variances he approved, Mr. Cieciura recommended the following conditions.
a) The Site Plan must be revised to illustrate the installation of south-facing signs on the west wall of 19 Jutland Road and the east wall of 21 Jutland Road, located just south of the north wall of each building, indicating the following: "Watch for Reversing Vehicles."
b) Jersey barriers, measuring approximately 0.86m in height, shall be placed along the northern boundary of the landscaping strip, at the rear of the lot, substantially in accordance to the site plan dated March 16th, 2023.
38I thanked the Parties for their evidence, and gave the Applicants two weeks to submit a list of the variances to be ruled on by the TLAB, accompanied by recommendations for the conditions to be imposed on the approval of the variances, as well as the Plans and Elevations to be relied upon, should the variances be approved. I also informed the Parties that these submissions are standard submissions required of all Applicants, in Appeals where I am the Presiding Member, and that no inferences should be drawn from the request for the submission of Plans and Elevations.
39The submissions referred to in [38] above were completed on March 20, 2023, enabling me to come to a Decision based on the completed record for this Appeal.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
40As stated in the Evidence Section, I find that where the Opposition has a relatively narrow range of objections to the proposal, allowing them to state their case at the beginning, before the Applicants take the stand, is helpful in the interests of efficiency, because it then allows the latter to address the narrow range of concerns raised by the Opposition in detail, while restricting themselves to high level information on other issues pertaining to their Application, that are not in contention.
41The alternative would be to let the Applicants state their case first, because the onus is on them, followed by the Opponents who speak to a small fraction of the issues raised by the Applicant. The challenge in such cases is that not only do the Applicants’ answers precede the questions, but vastly outnumber the Opposition’s concerns since the Applicants cannot be sure of what causes Opposition to their proposal. It becomes confusing to connect the answers to the questions, because the questions follow the answers, as opposed to the intuitive process of answers following questions. The net result is that it becomes difficult to compare and contrast the evidence of the two Parties, in order to find whose evidence is to be preferred.
42This proposal is interesting because it requests variances on a development, which has already been constructed, and which the Applicants themselves describe as” being legal, non-conforming”, in an Core Employment Area, directly bordering a Residential Area. The lack of a buffer zone in the form of a “General Employment Area” between the former and the latter, precludes a gradual transition from Industrial uses to Residential uses. I find that the resulting “collision” between Employment and Residential Zones, can result in sudden and drastic changes, notwithstanding the OP’s recommendations for gradual transitions..
43I find that the Opposition has a trio of objections about the proposal in terms of its impact on their quality on life; the three factors being the noises made by the trucks, the smell of gasoline, and the drainage/storm water runoff issues respectively. The questions to be answered by this Decision are whether it has the jurisdiction to address the issues raised by the Opposition, and whether the cumulative impact of these issues rises to the level of unacceptable, adverse impact in planning terms, as opposed to adverse impact.
44It is also important to note that seen purely from a jurisdictional perspective, none of the causative factors, drainage, noxious fumes, and sounds, are planning issues. When such issues arise in Appeals before the TLAB, they are addressed by way of conditions imposed on the approval of variances, should the latter be approved. Given that the Opposition did not bring forward any evidence to demonstrate that these issues fall within the jurisdiction of the TLAB, I find that these issues cannot be analyzed by way of this Decision, though I take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the predicament of the Opposition. I have however, taken the liberty of commenting on the efforts made by the Applicants to address the Opposition’s complaints, in the process of operationalizing the requested variances, should they be approved.
45I find that the evidence provided by the Applicant’s Witness, who was qualified as an Expert in the area of planning, clearly explains how the variances satisfied all the relevant policies in the Official Plan, starting with Policies in Chapter 2 of the OP, which demonstrates that approving the variances, will result in more intensive use of lands in Employment Areas for business and economic activities, and make better use of a limited supply of lands available for these activities.
46The evidence from the Applicants demonstrates how the proposal satisfies the intent and purpose of Section 3.1.2 by demonstrating that the built form does not result in negative impacts on the neighbourhood. I find that the impact of the proposal on the neighbourhood is evident since it has already been built, and no complaints have resulted about its impact on the community, including the opposition As a result, I find that the requested variances satisfy Section 3.1.2 of the OP. I am also satisfied that the evidence satisfies Policy 3.5 of the OP, on the basis of how the proposal contributes to a broader range of employment opportunities than what exists presently.
47Lastly, I find that the proposal satisfies the Employment Lists in Policy 4.6.1 of the OP, because it helps operationalize an additional loading space to an existing storage facility, whose use fulfills the “storage” use mentioned in the Policy.
48On the basis of the findings listed in Paragraphs [45]- [47] above, I find that the requested variances satisfy the intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
49The evidence put forward by the Applicant clearly explained the relationship between the variances and the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, with specific reference to how the performance standards are satisfied. It is important to note that notwithstanding the direction from the By-Laws for a soft landscaping strip along a lot line abutting a street, none exists today. While the provision of a 1.02 metre landscaping strip in this proposal, falls short of the 3 metre landscaping strip recommended by the Zoning By-law, it is an improvement on what exists now, which consequently fulfills the By-law’s intention of creating an attractive streetscape, and address, however modestly, the complaint raised by the Opposition about storm water management.
50Likewise, with respect to the request for a 4.17 metre wide landscaped strip abutting the Residential zone, instead of the 7.5 metre strip recommended by the By-law, the situation progresses in the right direction from nothingness at this point in time, to a landscaping strip at least 4.17 metre wide, which is a positive step in terms of fulfilling the By-law’s intention, to mitigate any potential adverse impacts, such as storm water management. As an interesting corollary to this variance, the separation of the parking spaces from the rear lot line, of 4.17 metres, may not quite satisfy the Zoning By-law’s recommendation for a 7.5 metre separation setback, but does satisfy the intention of the By-law, by attempting to mitigate the impact associated with the movement and parking of vehicles in close proximity to residential uses.
51With respect to the variance for the permitted location of a loading space, I agree with the Applicant’s argument that mitigation measures that will be put in place to reduce the impact of the extra loading space, such as an existing fence enclosure around the rear yard of the Subject Property, a proposed landscape buffer strip, and the setback distance, will help mitigate the impact of the proposed loading space on the residential properties next door.
52I find that the request of required setback for a parking space located in a Street Yard of 1.02 metres, instead of 3 metres from the front lot line, will help satisfy the By-law’s aim of avoiding parking in the public right-of-way, through the provision of a soft landscaping strip, that clearly delineates, and separates the proposed parking spaces in the front yard from the public right-of-way.
53The above discussion highlights how the variances satisfy the intent and purpose of the specific By-Laws, by taking steps in the right direction to mitigate the impact of the requested variances, which is central to Section 45.1. As can be seen from the discussion above, I have relied on the wisdom of “something being better than nothing”, to give the Applicants credit for making a genuine attempt to mitigate the impact of what exists presently at the Site- in other words, approval of the variances results in the mitigation of the impacts that result in objections to the Appeal.
54As a result of the above discussion, I find that the variances satisfy the test of fulfilling the intent and purpose of By-law 569-2013.
55I find that the variances satisfy the test of appropriate development because they don’t introduce a hitherto unknown use into the Employment district, and are desirable by making more efficient use of the land which is the result of the combining of the two lots and two buildings which currently exist.
56My finding is that the variances satisfy the test of minor, because there is no increase in terms of demonstrable adverse impact, when compared to the impact that is experienced currently. I find that the situation with water drainage should improve as a result of the proposed landscaping.
57On the basis of the analysis above, I find that the proposed variances satisfy all four tests under Section 45.1 of the Planning Act, and should consequently be approved. This means that the Appeal should be allowed, and that the decision made by the COA on March 9, 2021, should be set aside. I find that the two conditions suggested by the Applicants, recited in Paragraph [61] below are reasonable, and should be imposed on the approval of the variances.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
58The Appeal respecting 19-21 Jutland Avenue is allowed, and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 9, 2021, is set aside.
59The following variances are approved:
Section 60.20.50.10.(1), By-law 569-2013 Any lot abutting a street must have a minimum 3 m wide strip of soft landscaping along the entire lot line. The proposed landscaping strip will be 1.02 m wide.
Section 60.5.50.10.(2), By-law 569-2013 A minimum 7.5 m wide landscaped strip is required along a lot line abutting a Residential Zone or Residential Apartment Zone category. The proposed landscaping strip abutting the Residential Zone will be 4.17 m wide.
Section 60.5.80.20.(3), By-law 569-2013 A parking space and drive aisle must be at least 7.5 m from a lot line that abuts a lot in the Residential or Residential Apartment Zone Category. The proposed parking space will be located 4.17 m from the rear lot line that abuts the Residential Zone
Section 60.20.90.10.(1)(C), By-law 569-2013 A loading space may not be in a yard that abuts a lot in the Residential Zone or Residential Apartment Zone Category. The proposed loading space will be located in a yard that abuts the Residential Zone.
Section 60.5.80.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 A required parking space in a street yard must be at least 3 m from the front lot line. The proposed required parking space will be located 1.02 m from the front lot line.
60No variances, other than the ones recited in the paragraph above, are approved.
61The following conditions are imposed on the approval of the variances:
The Site Plan must be revised to illustrate the installation of south-facing signs on the west wall of 19 Jutland Road and the east wall of 21 Jutland Road, located just south of the north wall of each building, indicating the following: "Watch for Reversing Vehicles."
Jersey barriers, measuring approximately 0.86m in height, shall be placed along the northern boundary of the landscaping strip, at the rear of the lot, substantially in accordance to the site plan dated March 16th, 2023.
So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body.
S. Gopikrishna Panel Member