Nardi (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 61

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-03-31

22 221245 S53 06 TLAB

22 221250 S45 06 TLAB

22 221251 S45 06 TLAB

Nardi (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 61

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

March 31, 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):

Julia Nardi

Applicant(s):

Mario Silva

Property Address:

60 Gilley Rd

COA File No.:

22 166935 NNY 06 CO (B0033/22NY)

22 166942 NNY 06 MV (A0438/22NY)

22 166943 NNY 06 MV (A0439/22NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

22 221245 S53 06 TLAB

22 221250 S45 06 TLAB

22 221251 S45 06 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 24, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

Name

Representative

Applicant

M. Silva

Appellant / Owner

J. Nardi

A. Stewart

Expert Witness

F. Romano

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1. Julia Nardi (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 60 Gilley Road (the “Property”). The Property is located in the area north of Wilson Avenue, west of Dufferin Street.

2. As the Property has a lot width wider than many properties in the neighbourhood, the Appellant filed an application for consent to sever the Property into two undersized lots and sought variance relief with respect to each of the resultant parcels in order to construct new two storey detached dwellings on each.

3. The Committee of Adjustment (the “Committee”) heard and refused the applications. The Appellant appealed those decisions and that brings the consideration of the applications to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”).

4. The Appellant was the only Party before the Tribunal in the appeal hearing. The Appellant was represented by counsel and the Tribunal heard expert evidence on the matter from a Registered Professional Planner called by counsel.

5. After hearing that evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the severance was appropriate and satisfied the criteria in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the requested variances satisfy the four tests in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6. Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Tribunal 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’).

7. Consent – S. 53

The Tribunal 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).

8. Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal 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

9. Ms. Stewart called Franco Romano to provide background and policy evidence as well as analysis of that evidence to the statutory tests which the Tribunal must consider on this appeal.

10. Mr. Romano has been a practicing professional planner for 34 years, with experience in both the public and private spheres. He has appeared before this Tribunal and this panel on numerous occasions. He was qualified to offer opinion evidence on planning matters in this proceeding.

11. The Property is located within what is known as the Downsview neighbourhood of the former municipality of North York.

12. The Property has the following dimensions: a) Lot frontage -19.85m. b) Lot depth - 40.19m. c) Lot area - 795.5m2.

13. Mr. Romano identified the following salient characteristics to explain that the Property’s location, lot size and configuration are unique: a) It is on the edge of the neighbourhood, beside the Downsview Airport lands. b) The Gilley Road immediate context, which includes the Property, abuts the Wilson Major Transit Station Area. c) It is within a segment of the neighbourhood where infill development resulted in the expansion of the neighbourhood, which expansion resulted in a doubling of the number of detached dwellings on the Property’s north side of Gilley Road. These new dwellings each have lot sizes which approximate one-half the present lot size of the Property. d) The Property is oversized relative to zoning by-law requirements for lot frontage and lot area. e) The Property is oversized relative to the surrounding lot fabric. f) The Property abuts a detached dwelling property that is one-half the Property’s lot area. g) The Property exhibits a double-lot character.

14. Mr. Romano advised the Tribunal that the minimum zoning standards for lot frontage and lot area under the applicable zone category are 15m and 550.0m2 respectively. The dimensions of the two proposed lots are that the west lot (Part 1) is proposed to have a lot frontage of 9.93m and the east lot (Part 2) is proposed to have a lot frontage of 9.92m. The west lot is proposed to have a lot area of 397.9m2 and the east lot is proposed to have a lot area of 397.6m2

15. The variances required for the proposed lots are as follows:

60 GILLEY RD – PART 1 (West Lot)

VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.0 metres.

2. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.22 metres.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 metres from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required front yard setback 2.5 metres if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The proposed platform encroaches 0.8445 metres into the required front yard setback and has an East side yard setback of 1.0 metres.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A canopy, awning or similar structure above a platform that complies with regulation 10.5.40.60(1) may encroach into a required building setback to the same extent as the platform it is covering. The proposed platform is over a platform that does not comply with regulation 10.5.40.60(1).

5. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres. The proposed lot area is 397.9 square metres.

6. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 9.93 metres.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing an East side lot line is 9.55 metres.

9. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a West side lot line is 8.13 metres.

10. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback is 1.22 metres.

11. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback is 1.0 metres.

12. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625

The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 metres. The proposed building height is 9.535 metres.

60 GILLEY RD – PART 2 (East Lot)

VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50 (2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.0 metres

2. Chapter 10.5.40.50 (2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.22 metres.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 metres from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required front yard setback 2.5 metres if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The proposed platform encroaches 1 metres into the required front yard setback and has a west side yard setback of 1.0 metres.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A canopy, awning or similar structure above a platform that complies with regulation 10.5.40.60(1) may encroach into a required building setback to the same extent as the platform it is covering. The proposed platform is over a platform that does not comply with regulation 10.5.40.60(1).

5. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres. The proposed lot area is 397.6 square metres.

6. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 9.92 metres.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all front exterior main walls is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the front exterior main walls is 8.187 metres.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all rear exterior main walls is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the rear exterior main walls is 8.187 metres.

9. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback is 1.22 metres.

10. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback is 1.0 metres.

11. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625

The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 metres. The proposed building height is 9.544 metres.

16. It is to be noted here that the enumeration of variance relief with respect to Part 1 lacks a number 8. This arises as the original application before the Committee sought relief for this proposed lot with respect to minimum front yard landscaping. Since the Committee hearing, the proposal has been modestly adjusted so that this head of relief is no longer required. It should also be pointed out that various setbacks were adjusted to be more in conformity with the by-law standard. Ms. Stewart did bring a motion to allow these modifications to the applications and as the Tribunal adjudged the modifications to be minor within the meaning of Section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that no further notice need be given, and the applications are modified accordingly for the purpose of this hearing.

17. Mr. Romano described the merits of the proposal as follows: a) The proposed site layout largely places the proposed Part 1 dwelling overtop where the existing dwelling is located, and the proposed Part 2 dwelling overtop where the existing driveway and detached garage are located. b) The proposed site layout provides for a front wall that aligns with neighbouring dwellings. c) The proposed site layout does not impact existing mature trees. d) The proposed building length and depth is located within the existing and planned context. It contributes to the existing diversity of building lengths and depths where dwellings are shorter or longer than neighbouring dwellings. This is consistent with the existing site condition where adjacent dwellings have longer building lengths and depths. e) The proposed rear yard is large, exceeding the minimum required by the planned context, and contains open landscaped space. The rear yard is consistent with the existing rear yard physical character which consists of open rear yards as well as being occupied by accessory structures of varying sizes. f) The proposed side yard setbacks ranging from 0.6m to 1.2m provide for suitable space to provide access along the side of each dwelling. The proposed side yard setbacks are consistent with the existing and planned context. g) In terms of building height, the proposed two storey dwellings comply with the zoning by-law with respect to the number of storeys, overall sloped building height and first floor height. The proposed height of the main walls fit in with the range of wall heights, including how they may fluctuate from property to property. The proposed building height is consistent with the existing and planned context. The North York zoning by-law numeric building height measurement is listed as a variance because it measures building height from the crown of road. The Ontario Land Tribunal’s November 2022 decision dispenses with the remaining building height appeals. h) The proposed development exhibits, for this neighbourhood, a vernacular, compatible form of detached residential. The dwellings occupy an appropriate amount of space upon each lot, with compatible site design, massing and scale characteristics which are consistent with the existing physical character and the planned context.

18. With respect to the circulation of the application, Mr. Romano advised that there were no community member objections and no objections or adverse comments from the circulated City departments and other usual agencies apart from a recommendation of refusal from the City Planning Department.

19. Mr. Romano critiques the City Planning Department comment on the basis that it takes a purely numeric approach to the application of policy and has insufficient regard for the aspects of policy which relate to fit and compatibility.

20. In this regard, he says that the Official Plan (“OP”) does not require new development to be the same as an existing physical character. From his review and analysis of the lot frontages, as described by the Planning Department comments, the prevailing lot frontage is smaller than the Property as it exists, smaller than 15.0m, being the zoning standard which applies to the Property (representing 59.5% of the lots surveyed) and smaller than the Property (97.2% of lots in the neighbourhood being smaller than the Property). He points out that the Property is located on Gilley Road where different lot sizes intermingle, with lot frontages ranging from 9.58m to 25.91m, and lot areas ranging from 342.81m2 to 895.21m2 . With respect to the Planning Department comments regarding side yard setbacks, he says that by his analysis, the proposal is consistent with the existing and planned context. Side yard setbacks lesser than the zoning standard are found in 76% of properties within the Gilley Road immediate context.

21. In accordance with the direction in Policy 4.1.5 of the OP, Mr. Romano identified and delineated a geographic (or broad) neighbourhood, an Immediate Context and an immediately adjacent context.

22. The broader context consists of 619 properties containing detached dwellings.

23. The Immediate Context, apart from the Property, contains 25 properties.

24. His conclusion from his review of the various contexts is that there is more than one prevailing lot size.

25. Further, he advises that numerically, the range of lot frontages is from 5.51m to 40.28m within the Broader Context, 9.58m to 25.91m within the Immediate Context and within the immediately adjacent lots along Gilley Road from 9.90m to 19.81m.

26. He advises that the Property is larger than 97.2% of properties within the Broader Context and 92% of properties within the Immediate Context, and 100% of properties within the immediately adjacent lots along Gilley Road.

27. He further focuses this by advising that lot frontages smaller than 15.0m are found on 59.5% of properties within the Broader Context, and 60.0% of properties within the Immediate Context, and 74.1% of properties within the immediately adjacent lots along Gilley Road.

28. Following this analysis with reference to lot areas, he advises that numerically, the range of lot areas is from 342.81m2 to 1406.15m2 within the Broader Context, 342.81m2 to 895.21m2 within the Immediate Context and, within the immediately adjacent lots along Gilley Road from 398.50m2 to 797.11m2 .

29. Similar to frontage, the Property is larger than 97.8% of properties within the Broader Context and 95.5% of properties within the Immediate Context, and 97.9% of properties within the immediately adjacent lots along Gilley Road.

30. Lot areas smaller than 550m2 are found on 51.5% of properties within the Broader Context, and 63.6% of properties within the Immediate Context, and 52.1% of properties within the immediately adjacent lots along Gilley Road.

31. Mr. Romano canvassed the form of development throughout the area and concludes by saying that the area is experiencing new development. This includes new buildings upon existing and new lots. The eastern part of the neighbourhood, including the Property’s Gilley Road block, Keswick Road, Home Road, Powell Road and Beffort Road, have developed since the early 2000’s as new plans of subdivision containing public road and laneways. The subdivision has introduced smaller lots within an existing lot fabric that contained a mixture of modest and larger sized lots. The frequency of new lot creation has occurred more so on lands and lots that are larger.

32. Mr. Romano isolated the relevant policies of the OP, which included the Healthy Neighbourhood, Built Form, Housing and Neighbourhoods policies. Without here detailing the various aspects of Policy 4.1.5, which identifies development criteria within Neighbourhood designated lands, Mr. Romano concludes that, in his opinion, the proposal contains physical characteristics which exist in substantial numbers and are materially consistent with the physical character of the broader context and have a significant presence on properties located within the immediate and adjacent contexts and, further, that in his opinion, the proposal represents a compatible physical character.

33. His opinion is that the proposal will be in keeping with how the Property’s surrounding area contributes to the overall physical character of the entire Neighbourhood. The proposal respects and reinforces the prevailing physical character in this regard. And thus, it is his view that the proposed severance and associated variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.

34. Mr. Romano then took the Tribunal through the various relevant aspects of the Zoning By-law and spoke to the various heads of relief which were being sought through this application.

35. Again, without detailing that analysis in this Decision, Mr. Romano observes that the overall general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is to achieve development that is organized and located to be compatible, orderly and context suitable. The proposal maintains the overall general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. The detached dwelling development will maintain an appropriate organization and location of development for the Property. Similarly, the proposal is capable of co-existing in harmony with the diversity of dwellings and land uses located within the Property’s physical context. He further says that the proposal will also maintain appropriate spacing, servicing and amenity areas.

36. On the strength of his analysis, he offers the opinion that the granting of the variance relief here requested would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

37. Mr. Romano addresses the test of minor by saying that, the proposed residential buildings occupy space on appropriately sized lots that are context suitable and positioned on the lots where development is reasonably anticipated to occupy the parcels.In his opinion, the proposal creates no unacceptable adverse impact, and the order of magnitude of the variance requests is minor.

38. On the question of whether the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Property, Mr. Romano offered his opinion that the proposal represents an appropriate, gentle form of development which minimizes impacts on the property and surroundings. It improves the existing housing stock, which is consistent with the housing goals of both City and Provincial policy. It results in a compatible, appropriate two storey detached dwelling site design and built form which is in the public interest.

39. As obliged by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, Mr. Romano touched upon relevant policies from the PPS and the Growth Plan and expressed his view that the proposed severance and associated variances here are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan. The Tribunal accepts that opinion.

40. Mr. Romano advised the Tribunal that it was his view that the land division here proposed does not necessitate a plan of subdivision and he took the Tribunal through the criteria in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act with respect to the proposed severance.

41. With respect to those criteria the proposed severance will be consistent with Provincial planning policy, conform with the City OP, result in appropriate lot configurations and have necessary servicing available. None of the criteria present an inhibition to the requested grant of provisional consent.

42. Mr. Romano therefore recommended that the Tribunal allow the consent appeal and grant provisional consent on standard conditions which will be documented below.

43. Mr. Romano also recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeals with respect to the variance applications, as modified before this Tribunal, and suggested certain conditions of approval which will also be documented below.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

44. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Romano assembled the relevant lot and area data, and established study areas as mandated by the OP.

45. The Tribunal is also of the view that Mr. Romano canvassed all of the relevant and appropriate OP and Provincial policy relating to the proposed severance and associated variances.

46. The Tribunal accepts his opinion evidence with respect to the appropriateness of the proposed severance and its compliance with the requirements of the Planning Act.

47. The Tribunal also accepts Mr. Romano’s opinion evidence with respect to the four tests of Section 45 of the Planning Act being met for both applications for variance relief for the resultant lots of the severance.

48. The Tribunal, having considered the evidence of Mr. Romano, understands the analysis to come down principally to the issue of compatibility. As the prevailing characteristics of development in the neighbourhood are mixed, the question becomes one of whether the Property as it exists would be more compatible with the neighbourhood or whether creation of the two lots and the proposed construction thereon would be more compatible.

49. The Property presently is considerably larger than its neighbours. The neighbourhood has been undergoing an evolution over the last two decades and the proposal is in keeping with the characteristics of that evolution.

50. Based upon the entirety of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal will bring a result that is more compatible with the neighbourhood character than the existing state of the Property.

CONCLUSION

51. The Tribunal will allow the consent appeal on the conditions noted below and will allow the variances appeals, as modified, on the conditions noted below (which reflect conditions requested by City departments in Conditions 1 and 2).

DECISION AND ORDER

52. The Tribunal ORDERS that: A) the appeal with respect to the consent application is allowed and provisional consent is granted on the conditions stipulated in paragraph 54 below; and B) the appeals with respect to the variance applications, as modified before the Tribunal, are allowed and the following variances are approved subject to the conditions below:

60 GILLEY RD – PART 1 (West Lot)

VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.0 metres.

2. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.22 metres.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 metres from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required front yard setback 2.5 metres if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The proposed platform encroaches 0.8445 metres into the required front yard setback and has an East side yard setback of 1.0 metres.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A canopy, awning or similar structure above a platform that complies with regulation 10.5.40.60(1) may encroach into a required building setback to the same extent as the platform it is covering. The proposed platform is over a platform that does not comply with regulation 10.5.40.60(1).

5. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres. The proposed lot area is 397.9 square metres.

6. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 9.93 metres.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing an East side lot line is 9.55 metres.

13. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a West side lot line is 8.13 metres.

14. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback is 1.22 metres.

15. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback is 1.0 metres.

16. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625

The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 metres. The proposed building height is 9.535 metres.

60 GILLEY RD – PART 2 (East Lot)

VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50 (2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.0 metres

2. Chapter 10.5.40.50 (2), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a non-encroaching platform is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback for the non-encroaching rear yard platform is 1.22 metres.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 metres from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required front yard setback 2.5 metres if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The proposed platform encroaches 1 metres into the required front yard setback and has a west side yard setback of 1.0 metres.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A canopy, awning or similar structure above a platform that complies with regulation 10.5.40.60(1) may encroach into a required building setback to the same extent as the platform it is covering. The proposed platform is over a platform that does not comply with regulation 10.5.40.60(1).

5. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres. The proposed lot area is 397.6 square metres.

6. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 9.92 metres.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all front exterior main walls is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the front exterior main walls is 8.187 metres.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all rear exterior main walls is 7.5 metres. The proposed height of the rear exterior main walls is 8.187 metres.

9. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed East side yard setback is 1.22 metres.

10. Chapter 900.3.10(5) Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 metres. The proposed West side yard setback is 1.0 metres.

11. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625

The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 metres. The proposed building height is 9.544 metres.

Standard Consent Conditions

The Consent Application is approved on the following Conditions

The Tribunal has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The Tribunal therefore grants provisional consent to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the Tribunal 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 deposited 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 deposited 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 deposited 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.

Conditions of Minor Variance Approval

1. The requirements of Engineering and Construction Services Division and Transportation Division: a) The applicant shall submit revised site plan(s) overlaid on the survey, with the following revisions and notations to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Construction Services and Transportation Services, at no cost to the City: i. Illustrate the existing and proposed grades at all corners along the property boundary; ii. Revise the site plan to illustrate a positive slope of a minimum 2% to a maximum 4% that will be maintained on each of the proposed driveways, as measured between curbline of 60 Gilley Road to the proposed garage door entrance. iii. Show and label the footprint of the existing house and driveway. Label any portion of driveway to be removed within the right-of-way as to be restored with sod. iv. Show all the existing/ proposed corner elevations for all severed lots. v. The site plans must be revised to clearly indicate the restoration of the redundant portion of the former driveway with sod, which shall be designed to municipal standards; vi. Add the following notations to the Site Plan: a. "The applicant is required to restore any redundant section of the existing driveway that is being closed with sod and a poured raised concrete curb within the municipal boulevard according to City of Toronto Design Standard; b. "The proposed new driveways shall be constructed to the applicable City of Toronto Design Standards at no cost to the municipality"; c. "The applicant shall also submit a Municipal Road Damage Deposit (MRDD) prior to obtaining a Building Permit." The applicant is advised to contact Franca Mollo of our Right-of-Way Management Section at (416) 395-6266 regarding municipal road damage deposit requirements;" and, d. "The applicant shall obtain the necessary authorizations and permits from the City's Right-of-Way Management Section of the Transportation Services before excavating within or encroaching into the municipal road allowance";

2. The requirements of the Parks and Recreation, Urban Forestry Division: a) 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 $583.00/tree.

3. The dwellings shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following plans: a) Part 1: Site Plan (A1.1), Front/South Elevation (A6b), Side/West Elevation (A7b), Rear/North Elevation (A8b), Side/East Elevation (A9a), prepared by Silva & Associates and dated Oct./21, revised 2022-12-23. b) Part 2: Site Plan (A1.1), Front/South Elevation (A6a), Side/East Elevation (A7a), Rear/North Elevation (A8a), Side/West Elevation (A9a), prepared by Silva & Associates and dated Oct./21, revised 2022-12-23.

G. Swinkin

Panel Member