Rinomato (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 81

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2023-05-01

22 239258 S53 07 TLAB 22 239262 S45 07 TLAB 22 239263 S45 07 TLAB

Rinomato (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 81

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: May 1, 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: LEO RINOMATO

Applicant: GPF DESIGN

Property Address: 58 MUIR AVE (former municipality of North York)

COA File Nos.: 21 240420 WET 07 CO, 21 240424 WET 07 MV, 21 240426 WET 07 MV

TLAB Case File Nos.: 22 239258 S53 07 TLAB, 22 239262 S45 07 TLAB, 22 239263 S45 07 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): April 14, 2023

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: April 18, 2023

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member Ron Kanter

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Appellant/Owner	L. RINOMATO	J. MEADER, JESSICA DE MARINIS
Primary Owner	M. RINOMATO
Applicant	GPF DESIGN
Expert Witness	F. ROMANO

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body ("TLAB") is seeking consent to sever 58 Muir Avenue (the "Site") into two lots, and to obtain variances to construct a new 2 storey detached house with an integral garage on each of the proposed lots.

2On November 22, 2021, GPF Design (the "Applicant") applied to the Committee of Adjustment to request a consent and variances for the Site (the "Application").

3The Application was scheduled to be heard by the C of A about a year later. Prior to the date it was heard, the C of A received a staff report from City Planning recommending refusal; a letter from the ward Councillor stating that he had no concerns with the Application; one letter of objection from a resident; and a petition from several residents in support.

4On November 24, 2022, the C of A issued a Notice of Decision refusing the applications for consent and minor variances (the "C of A Decision").

5On December 13, 2022, counsel for L. Rinomato (the "Appellant/Owner") appealed the C of A Decision to TLAB (the "Appeal").

6On April 14, 2023 I heard the Appeal. The Appellant/Owner was the only party which appeared at the hearing. Counsel for the Appellant/Owner, Ms. Jennifer Meader, advised that co-counsel Ms. Jessica De Marinis would be calling evidence in support of the Appeal. Neither the City of Toronto nor any resident appeared in opposition to the Appeal.

THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

7Provincial Policy – S. 3, Planning Act

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).

8Consent – S. 53, Planning Act

TLAB 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.

9Variance – S. 45(1), Planning Act

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

10Ms. De Marinis introduced the Appellant/Owner's Document Book as Ex. 1. I reviewed the education and experience of Mr. Franco Romano, and qualified him as an expert witness in the field of land use planning.

11Mr. Romano described the location of the Site within the Humber-Summit neighbourhood of the former municipality of North York. The Site is several blocks west of Islington Ave., east of the Humber River valley, and south of Steeles Ave. West.

12The Site is designated Neighbourhood in the Official Plan and zoned RD (fl15.0; a550) (x5) by Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the "ZBL").

13The severance would create two undersize lots, each with lot frontages of 10.06 metres. The ZBL requires lot frontages of 15.0m

14The new lots would each have an area of 281.4 m2. The ZBL requires each lot to have a minimum area of 550m2.

15In addition to variances for lot frontage and area, the proposed houses would require 3 additional variances:

• lot coverage: 38.24%, whereas 30% is required by the ZBL;

• side yard setbacks: 1.22m, whereas 1.8m is required; and

• rear yard setback of 7.03m, whereas 7.5m is required.

16Mr. Romano summarized the proposal as demolishing the existing detached dwelling and replacing it with two detached dwellings generally located on top of the footprint of the former dwelling on the lot.

17He described the broader geographic neighbourhood where the site is located, bounded by the Humber River valley to the west; Islington Ave. to the east; Riverside Drive to the north and Rowntree Mill Road to the south. The broader neighbourhood consists of 607 residential properties.

18Mr. Romano provided TLAB with a Lot Fabric Map showing many of the lots in the broader and immediate neighbourhoods were created by severances or small plans of subdivision (Ex. 1 Page 15). In his opinion, there is a mix of physical character, with more than one prevailing lot size and lot configuration in the broader neighbourhood.

19Lot frontages smaller than 15 m are found in 43.2% of the lots in the broader neighbourhood. Lot areas smaller than 550 m2 are found in 42.8% of the lots.

20Mr. Romano also described the immediate neighbourhood, consisting of 30 properties on Muir Ave. plus the subject site, between Apted Ave. to the west and Larchmere Ave. to the east. According to him, lot frontages smaller than 15m are found in 13% or 4 of the lots within the immediate context (Ex. 1 p. 74). Lot areas smaller than 550m2 are found in 83% or 25 of the properties within the immediate block (Ex. 1. p.73).

21Mr. Romano showed photos of existing homes in the broader and immediate area with frontages and lot sizes smaller than those required by the ZBL. In his opinion, the proposed lots with frontages of 10.06m would be virtually indistinguishable from existing homes at 55 and 57 Muir with frontages of 11.4m (Ex. 1 p. 44-45).

22Mr. Romano noted that the existing lot at 58 Muir had a frontage of 20.12m, making it one of the larger lots in the area.

23Mr. Romano referred to existing developments within and just north of his broader study area which have lot frontages of 9m, and which permit semi-detached homes. He also noted a new development on Muir just to the east of the broader area containing townhouses with smaller lot frontages.

24Mr. Romano stated that 73% of the lots in the immediate context are covered by existing houses which exceed the existing permitted lot coverage of 30%.

25He stated that the Site is situated in an urban area where side yard setbacks of less than 1.8 m are found.

26Mr. Romano explained that the reduced rear yard setback of 7.03 m. was found only at a "pinch point" due to the trapezoidal shape of the lot, and the majority of the Site would have a rear setback greater than the 7.5m required.

27The planner opined that the Application meets the tests for a consent to sever in S. 51 (24) of the Planning Act (the "Act") including conformity to the Official Plan "(OP"). He elaborated on his opinion by reference to the first test for a variance in S. 45 (12) of the Act.

28Mr. Romano opined that the Application meets the general intent and purpose of the OP. It respects and reinforces the existing physical character of the neighbourhood (OP Policy 2.3.1.1); fits its existing and planned context (Policy 3.1.3); and encourages intensification (Policy 3.2.1). In his opinion, the Application represents a gentle form of intensification.

29He further opined that the Application meets the general intent and purpose of OP Policy 4.1.5. Par. 72 of his Witness Statement (Ex. 1 page 26) stated that:

"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 in properties located in the immediate context area."

30Mr. Romano opined that the Appeal meets the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. The proposed lots are "modestly large" and fit well with those that are permitted and exist. The proposed setbacks and coverage maintain a suitable amount of open space for servicing, setbacks and amenity.

31In Mr. Romano's opinion, the Appeal is minor since it creates no unacceptable adverse impact, and is desirable since it represents a gentle form of intensification.

32Mr. Romano also opined that the proposal is consistent with the Settlement Area polices of the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conforms to the 2019 Growth Plan (Growth Plan), both of which encourage intensification within municipal boundaries.

33Mr. Romano also referred to an arborist report stating that a revised site plan would not result in any damage to City Trees.

34I asked Mr. Romano to elaborate on his opinion that the proposed lot frontages and lot sizes respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood. Both Mr. Romano and counsel for the Appellant/Applicant referred me to the case of Penmar Acquisitions Inc. v. Toronto, TLAB Case File 18 127924 S53 07 TLAB in support of their Appeal.

35Counsel De Marinis submitted that I should accept the uncontested evidence of Mr. Romano, and approve the Application, subject to conditions.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

36I agree that Mr. Romano's evidence was uncontradicted at the hearing. However, the Appellant/Owner must nevertheless convince me that the Application meets all of the tests in the Act.

a) Provincial Policy & Plans

37As stated above, Mr. Romano opined that the Application is consistent with the Settlement Area polices of the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan, both of which encourage intensification within municipal boundaries.

38Both the PPS and the Growth Plan define intensification as "the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through

a. redevelopment.

redevelopment is defined as "The creation of new units, uses or lots (emphasis added) on previously developed land in existing communities . . .¹

39I find that the creation of 2 lots at 58 Muir is clearly consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.

40The PPS states that the official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement. However, it also states that, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with this Provincial Policy Statement, and the policies of this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an official plan.²

b) Tests to Give a Consent

41TLAB 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. I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required, as the Application requests a division of one existing lot into two in a long-established urban neighbourhood with municipal services and amenities.

42In considering a consent, TLAB must also determine that "regard shall be had." to a number of general and specific criteria, pursuant to S. 51 (24) of the Act. In my view, this wording differs from, and is less prescriptive than, the requirement that TLAB's decision shall be consistent with policy statements and shall conform with provincial plans.

43In this case, my consideration will focus on whether the Application demonstrated that it had regard for two specific criteria:

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; … and

(f) the dimensions and shapes of existing lots.

44Policy 4.1.5 of the OP requires development in established neighbourhoods to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including in particular:

c) prevailing size and configuration of lots; … and

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks

Policy 4.1.5 has been amended by OPA 320, which elaborates on the terms "geographic neighbourhood" and "prevailing physical character"

45I reviewed the Penmar case cited by Mr. Romano. In that case, Mr. D. Lombardi, (then TLAB member; now TLAB Chair), considered a severance application resulting in lot frontages of 11.4 m and lot areas of approximately 319 m2 at 81 Apted Ave, on the southeast corner of Muir and Apted, just south of the Site.

46Mr. Lombardi approved the severance and variances, stating that the proposed consent would respect and reinforce the general lot patterns in the neighbourhood. He found that the proposed lot dimensions would be compatible with the existing physical character, not represent anything anomalous, and fit the surrounding neighbourhood fabric.

47I agree with Chair Lombardi's reasoning, based on the Official Plan as it read in August 2018, when Penmar was decided. However, Penmar was decided before OPA 320, which amended the OPA when it came into effect in December 2018. I must consider whether this Application has regard for conformity to the OP as amended.

48OPA 320 added the following language to the end of Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan:

"While prevailing will mean most frequently occurring for purposes of this policy, this Plan recognizes that some geographic neighbourhoods contain a mix of physical characters. In such cases, the direction to respect and reinforce the existing character will not preclude development whose physical characteristics are not the most frequently occurring but do exist in substantial numbers (emphasis added) within the geographic neighbourhood, provided that the physical characteristics of the proposed development are materially consistent with the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood and already have a significant presence (emphasis added) on properties located in the immediate context or abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent block(s) in the geographic neighbourhood."

49I asked Mr. Romano to elaborate further on the impact of OPA 320, particularly in light of the amendment set out in the previous paragraph.

50Mr. Romano replied that the direction to respect and reinforce does not require replication of exactly the same physical characteristics. His evidence showed that smaller lot frontages and lots in this neighbourhood co-exist in a compatible manner. He submitted that I must consider the OP as a whole, and take into account the qualitative fit of the proposed development as well as its quantitative conformity with the OP.

51I agree with Mr. Romano's submissions that the geographic neighbourhood contains more than one prevailing physical character, since it contains a variety of lot frontages and areas. I further agree that the physical character of the proposed houses – detached homes with peaked roofs – are materially consistent with other houses in the neighbourhood. However, the detailed quantitative requirements of Policy 4.1.5 as amended by OPA 320 require further analysis.

52Mr. Romano also provided evidence that many rear yard setbacks were reduced from the requirements of the ZBL, and there are many houses with reduced side yard setbacks. Within the immediate context, 90% of the properties have at least one side yard setback lees than 1.8m than

53I find that the evidence of Mr. Romano, unchallenged by cross examination by an adverse party, had regard for conformity with the OP. He opined that the proposal contains physical characteristics for lot size, configuration and rear and side setbacks similar to those which exist in substantial numbers in the neighbourhood and have a significant presence within the immediate context area. In my view, it was not necessary for him to demonstrate that the proposal replicates the precise lot frontages, areas or setbacks to have regard to conformity with the OP. I further note Mr. Romano provided evidence that the proposed lot frontages and areas would be more generous than those required in nearby plans of subdivision.

54My decision is consistent with other recent TLAB decisions, such as 122248603 Canada Inc. (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 33, issued on March 3, 2023. In that case, Vice-Chair Bassios allowed a severance to create 2 lots, each with a minimum lot frontage of 7.62m and lot area of 292.6m2, when a lot frontage of 13.5m and lot area of area of 510m2 are required.

c) Tests to authorize Minor Variances

55The Act sets out a slightly different test concerning the relationship of the variances and the OP. According to S. 45 (1) of the Act, the variances must maintain "the general intent and purpose of the OP".

56It was Mr. Romano's evidence that development of a similar character with respect to lot frontages and areas is found in close proximity to the Site. Consequently, I find that the Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL

57I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that then proposed lot frontages and sizes fit in with lots of similar if not identical lot frontages and sizes, and result in modestly large lots with adequate frontages for detached single family homes. Consequently, I find that the variances for lot frontage and size maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

58The general intent and purpose of the lot coverage provision in the ZBL is to prevent overbuilding on a lot. I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposed two storey houses are of a modest size and each have lot coverage that is compatible with and indistinguishable from other houses in the neighbourhood.

59The general intent and purpose of the side yard setback provision in the ZBL is to provide access to the rear yards, allow maintenance and provide a degree of separation between adjacent houses. I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposed houses are located in an urban area where side yard setbacks of comparable and smaller dimensions exist, including side yard setbacks smaller than 1.8m.

60The general intent and purpose of the rear yard setback provision is to maintain a sufficient and suitable area for outdoor amenity, servicing and spatial separation. I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposed rear yards require a variance only for a small portion of the rear yard, and result in rear yards are sizeable, functional and suitable for amenity space, servicing and spatial separation..

61Consequently I find that the proposed variances meet the tests under S. 41(1 & 12) of the Act.

d) Evolving Policy concerning Housing in Neighbourhoods

62Mr. Romano did not refer to evolving provincial polices with respect to housing and planning.³ Nor did he refer to City Council motions and resolutions, subsequent to the adoption of OPA 320, intended to implement evolving provincial policies and expand housing options in areas designated Neighbourhoods.

63Such policies were raised by the planner for the Appellant in another case considered by TLAB, Pasand v. Toronto (City) 2023 ONTLAB 3, issued on February 7, 2023.

64The Pasand site was also located in the former municipality of North York, designated Neighbourhoods, and zoned RD (f15.0; a550) (x5), the same as the subject Site. The applicant sought a consent to create 2 lots, each with a frontage of 7.62m, and an area of 255.5m2, in a zone where a minimum lot frontage of 15m and a minimum lot area of 550m2 is required.

65The City planner appeared at the Pasand hearing and submitted that undersize frontages did not have a "significant presence" in the immediate context of 98 Bogart Ave. as required by the additional wording added to Policy 4.1.5 resulting from OPA 320.

66Despite the City Planner's position, TLAB Member G. Swinkin approved a consent to create 2 lots, each with a frontage of 7.62 m; a lot area of 255.5 m2; and related variances.

67Member Swinkin referenced the presence of townhouse development close but not adjacent to 98 Bogart, similar to the townhouse development east of 58 Muir. He also referenced the increasing policy emphasis on intensification, at the City as well as provincial level. He also noted that City Council has been entertaining and gradually introducing amendments into the ZBL to accommodate the more efficient use of land and infrastructure in the areas of the City designated as Neighbourhoods, thorough an initiative known as Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods. ("EHON").

68According to Member Swinkin:

"In keeping with the Provincial policy imperative of intensification, City Council has been entertaining and gradually introducing amendments into the Zoning By-law to accommodate the more efficient exploitation of the land resource and infrastructure in the Neighbourhoods designation. This is being advanced through the initiative known as Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (“EHON”)." (Pasand Par. 59)

70Member Swinkin also cited an Updated EHON Report dated February 1, 2022, which stated that “Land division may create opportunities for additional new low-rise housing by increasing the stock of single detached houses, semi-detached houses, and townhouses. Policy amendments would be necessary to establish criteria to consider the severance of existing lots to utilize land within Neighbourhoods for additional new housing.” (Pasand Par. 60)

71I further note that on December 14, 2022, City Council adopted a 2023 Housing Plan. The Plan requires the City manager to report on various ways to increase housing within the City, including:

A. amending the City-wide Zoning By-law to be more permissive from a housing opportunities perspective; and to

b. complete the review of the City's Official Plan to ensure it aligns with the need for more housing in areas of the City identified for residential opportunities.⁴

72In my view, TLAB may consider current provincial and evolving City policy encouraging more housing to be built in areas designated Neighbourhoods. Policy 4.1.5 can be interpreted in the context of evolving housing policy. Any consideration of evolving policy encouraging additional housing should continue to have regard for neighbourhood character.⁵

73As stated earlier, City Planning staff recommended refusal of the Application, stating that the proposed lot frontages of 10.06m and lot areas of 281.4m would be the smallest lots on Muir Avenue and within a 100 metre radius of the subject property, and recommending refusal.

74The City's planner had regard for Policy 4.1.5, but did not appear to consider it in the context of provincial policy concerning intensification and housing, or evolving municipal policy concerning housing within areas designated for Neighbourhoods (Ex. 1 p. 109).

75OP Policy 4.1.5 should be considered in the context of existing and evolving provincial and municipal planning policies, particularly policies concerning housing within areas designated as Neighbourhoods.

CONCLUSION

76I will allow the Appeal, approve the consent to sever subject to conditions, and approve the variances subject to conditions.

DECISION AND ORDER

77The Tribunal ORDERS THAT:

A. The Consent Appeal is allowed, and provisional consent is granted on the Conditions set out below:

Conditions of Consent Approval

1. The Consent to sever the existing lot is approved in accordance with the plan of survey, attached as "Schedule A".

2. The following additional conditions are imposed on the consent to sever the existing lot:

3. 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.

4. Municipal numbers for the subject lots indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

5. One electronic copy of the registered 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.

6. One electronic copy of the registered 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.

B. The variances are approved as follows:

58 Muir Part 1 List of Variances

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

The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 m.

The lot frontage will be 10.06 m.

2. Section 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 550 m2.

The lot area will be 281.4 m2.

3. Section 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area (84.42 m2).

The proposed dwelling will cover 38.24 % of the lot area (107.6 m2).

4. Section 900.3.10(5)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 1.22 m from the east and west side lot lines.

5. Section 10.20.40.70.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required rear yard setback is 7.5 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 7.03 m from the rear lot line.

58 Muir Part 2 List of Variances

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

The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 m.

The lot frontage will be 10.06 m.

2. Section 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 550 m2.

The lot area will be 281.4 m2.

3. Section 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area (84.42 m2).

The proposed dwelling will cover 38.24 % of the lot area (107.6 m2).

4. Section 900.3.10(5)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 1.22 m from the east and west side lot lines.

5. Section 10.20.40.70.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required rear yard setback is 7.5 m.

The proposed dwelling will be located 7.03 m from the rear lot line.

3. The conditions imposed on the approval of the variances of the two lots are as follows:

Conditions of Minor Variance Approval

1. The proposed dwellings shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by GPF Design Services Inc, and attached as "Schedule B":

Part 1:

• Site Plan (AO) dated 23-03-01

• Front Elevation (A5) dated 21-07-30

• Rear Elevation (A6) dated 21-07-30

• West Elevation (A7) dated 21-07-30

• East Elevation (A8) dated 21-07-30

Part 2:

• Site Plan (AO) dated 23-03-01

• Front Elevation (A5) dated 21-07-30

• Rear Elevation (A6) dated 21-07-30

• West Elevation (A7) dated 21-07-30

• East Elevation (A8) dated 21-07-30

2. The requirements of the Engineering and Construction Services Division and Transportation Services Division:

i. The applicant shall submit revised site plan(s) with the following revisions and notations to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Construction Services and Transportation Services, at no cost to the City:

a. Illustrate the existing and proposed grades at all corners along the property boundary and severed lots;

b. 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 the proposed garage door entrance to the curb line of Muir Avenue;

c. The site plan shall be revised to include the following notation: "All new driveways shall be designed and constructed according to City standards and at no cost to the municipality" to the satisfaction of Transportation Services.

d. Explicitly identify on each Site Plan drawing the limits of the proposed driveway and proposed curb cut for each lot, both of which must match the width of the respective integral garage.

e. Explicitly dimension and identify on each applicable Site Plan drawing all portions of the existing site driveway and curb cut that will no longer required and will be closed.

f. Illustrate, on each Site Plan drawing, the location of the existing trees within the municipal boulevard of Muir Avenue and provide clarification as to whether it is intended to remove or retain the trees.

g. Illustrate on the Site Plan the existing location of the hydro pole within the Muir Avenue Part 1 Lot frontage and ensure that it is located a minimum of 1.0m away from the edge of the proposed driveway. If re-location of the hydro pole is required to satisfy this requirement, the Site Plan drawing must illustrate and identify the existing and new location of the hydro pole, with the appropriate clearance.

h. The following notations must be included on revised Site Plan drawings:

i. "All portions of the existing site driveway and curb cut that are no longer required must be closed and restored in accordance with applicable City standards to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services Division, and at no cost to the City of Toronto.”

ii. "The owner must obtain all required permits from the Permits and Enforcement unit of Transportation Services prior to commencing construction, which may include but not be limited to permits associated with payment of a Municipal Road Damage Deposit, re-location of any utilities, etc. The owner must contact the Permits and Enforcement unit of Transportation Services in order to obtain exact details regarding all required permits.”

iii. "All work within the Muir Avenue public right-of-way must be done to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services Division, and at no cost to the City of Toronto."

iv. "The owner will be required to obtain and submit written approval from the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division with respect to any applicable tree removal and/or tree protection requirements."

v. "The owner will be required to obtain and submit written approval from the applicable utility company which confirms that any new location for the hydro pole within the Muir Avenue frontage of the Part 1 Lot is satisfactory."

R. Kanter

Panel Member

SCHEDULE A

SCHEDULE B

Footnotes

1. 1PPS, Section 6 Definitions pages 45 & 50; Growth Plan S.7, Definitions p. 73 & 80
2. 2PPS S. 4 Implementation and Interpretation, p. 35
3. 3Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022
4. 4https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.CC2
5. 5The Ontario Land Tribunal has also recognized evolving planning policy not yet in force in consent and variance appeals. See Jobin v Georgian Bay (Township), 2021 CanLII 72203 (ON LT) and 2772839 Ontario Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town), 2021 CanLII 134146 (ON LT)