Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-02-13
22 203121 S45 08 TLAB
Catzman (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 8
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
February 13, 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):
David Catzman
Applicant(s):
Square Design Consulting
Property Address:
150 Dunblaine Ave
COA File No.:
22 135862 NNY 08 MV (A0319/22NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
22 203121 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
February 2, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Applicant
Square Design Consulting
Appellant
D. Catzman
I. Andres
Expert Witness
M. Rendl
For D. Catzman
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This appeal hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal") arises by way of the appeal of David Catzman (the "Appellant") due to the refusal decision of the Committee of Adjustment (the "Committee") to authorize certain variance relief sought by the Appellant.
2The Appellant is a registered owner of the property municipally known as 150 Dunblaine Avenue (the "Property"). The Property is improved with a detached dwelling of recent vintage.
3The Appellant and his spouse wished to alter the rear yard of the Property by installing an inground pool, replacing the rear deck and creating an open pavilion or gazebo in the northeast corner of the rear yard.
4Installation of the pool itself does not require zoning relief and, accordingly, the Appellant secured the required pool permit and installed the pool this past summer.
5The Appellant filed the application for variance relief with the Committee in February of 2022, which held its hearing on the application on August 25, 2022.
6The Committee heard submissions from the Appellant's agent and from a neighbour to the north. There were two letters of support from the Appellant's immediately abutting neighbours to the east and west. There were no City departmental comments.
7The Committee refused the application. The Appellant appealed that decision to the Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Variances - Section 45(1) of the Planning Act
8In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal 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
9The Tribunal heard evidence from Martin Rendl, a well experienced land use planning consultant who was retained by the Appellant. Mr. Rendl was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters in the proceeding.
10Mr. Rendl advised the Tribunal of the required variances, which are as follows:
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013 - Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a rear main wall, which are greater than 1.2m above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting 2.5 m from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains. The proposed rear deck projects 4.267 m from the rear wall.
Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 - The permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 m. The proposed building length is 21.02 m.
Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 -The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 m. The proposed building depth is 21.34 m.
Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 - The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 36.5 % of the lot area.
Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 = A lot with a residential building, other than an apartment building, must have a minimum of 50 % of the rear yard for soft landscaping. The proposed rear yard landscaping area is 37 %.
Chapter 10.5.60.20(10)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013 - The required minimum side yard setback for pool pad equipment shall be 0.9 m. The proposed side yard setback for pool pad equipment is 0.306 m.
11Mr. Rendl explained that the pavilion itself as an ancillary structure was fully compliant with the Zoning By-law requirements with respect to maximum area, height and setbacks from lot lines. However, its area does contribute to lot coverage, which together with the rear deck extension triggers a need for relief from the lot coverage maximum.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
12The Property is within the Neighbourhoods designation under the City Official Plan ("OP"). The Property is zoned RD(f12.0; a370; x1463) under Zoning By-law 569-2013, a detached dwelling zone, the exception provision dealing with the Airport Hazard zone.
13With respect to Provincial planning policy, Mr. Rendl offered the view that the proposal does not raise any issues of Provincial significance and can fairly be treated as being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and conforming with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019. The Tribunal accepts this assertion.
14In addressing the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as transcribed above, Mr. Rendl dealt with those tests in sequence.
15With respect to whether the variances were in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the OP, Mr. Rendl took the Tribunal through the Urban Structure and Neighbourhoods policies, with particular focus on the dictum that development is to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in the Neighbourhoods.
16With reference to this policy, Mr. Rendl advised that the physical pattern of this neighbourhood does include rear yards with inground swimming pools and ancillary buildings.
17Mr. Rendl spoke to the provisions of Policy 4.1.5 of the OP, most particularly clause (g) thereof, which deals with prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.
18Mr. Rendl pointed out that the existing rear deck measures 4.03m in depth. The new deck will extend 4.267m from the rear wall. And although the deck will extend beyond the 2.5m permitted encroachment into the rear yard by 1.767m, this will not materially impact the rear yard amenity area.
19With respect to building length and depth, the existing house length of 16.75m is not being altered, nor is the rear main wall. The length and depth variance is triggered due to the introduction of a washroom under the new deck, a convenience feature favoured by many homeowners.
20The existing house has a lot coverage of 34.1%, which exceeds the Zoning By-law maximum of 30%. The lot coverage variance here will acknowledge the additional footprint of the pavilion, which is relatively minimal, and will regularize the total coverage.
21The pool equipment (pump/heater) has been located in the west side yard. Although the equipment obstructs the yard, the photographic evidence makes plain that there is passage around it and it is of low height. The main building remains appropriately separated from the lot line and the neighbouring building. The east yard is 1.22m wide and compliant with the Zoning By-law. The photographic evidence again makes plain that as the Appellant and the neighbouring owner to the east have not erected a fence on the mutual lot line, there is a very clear passage from the street to the rear yards along this yard.
22The Appellant seeks variance relief with respect to minimum rear yard soft landscaping. The standard is 50% of the rear yard is to be soft landscaped. In this instance, 37% of the area will qualify as soft landscaping. The area around the pool will be finished with patio stones and will lend to the use of the rear yard as an amenity area suited to the use.
23On questioning by the Tribunal as to the objective of stormwater infiltration, which is part of the rationale for soft landscaping, the Tribunal was informed by the Appellant that a drainage system underlies the finished areas which will capture stormwater and conduct it to a perforated drainage pipe which will disperse that water to the subsoil.
24Mr. Rendl concluded on the matter of whether the general intent and purpose of the OP was being maintained by offering his opinion that the proposal does not threaten the stability or character of the area and is therefore appropriate.
25Mr. Rendl then proceeded through an assessment of each variance request against the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The analysis was very similar to the aspects which he spoke to regarding OP policy and he concluded with the view that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law was being met.
26It was Mr. Rendl's opinion that rear decks, inground swimming pools and ancillary structures are all features permitted by the Zoning By-law in rear yards and that these features are found in many rear yards in this neighbourhood and can be treated as desirable for the development and use of the Property.
27On the premise that the test of minor is whether the proposed variances are likely to cause an undue adverse impact on neighbouring properties or the neighbourhood, he found no such likelihood and thereby concluded that the variances can fairly be considered as minor.
CONCLUSION
28On the uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Rendl and the Appellant and in the absence of any countervailing evidence, the Tribunal will accept the opinions and conclusions of Mr. Rendl that the requested variances satisfy the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the appeal of the Appellant should be allowed to authorize those variances. This is coupled with Mr. Rendl's advice that the variances will be consistent with and conforming to the applicable Provincial planning policy.
DECISION AND ORDER
29The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the following variances are authorized for the Property:
APPROVED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013 - Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a rear main wall, which are greater than 1.2m above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting 2.5 m from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains. The proposed rear deck projects 4.267 m from the rear wall.
Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 - The permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 m. The proposed building length is 21.02 m.
Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 -The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 m. The proposed building depth is 21.34 m.
Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 - The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 36.5 % of the lot area.
Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 = A lot with a residential building, other than an apartment building, must have a minimum of 50 % of the rear yard for soft landscaping. The proposed rear yard landscaping area is 37 %.
Chapter 10.5.60.20(10)(B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013 - The required minimum side yard setback for pool pad equipment shall be 0.9 m. The proposed side yard setback for pool pad equipment is 0.306 m.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member