Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-05-09
22 205345 S45 04 TLAB
Karluna Apartments Ltd (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 87
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
May 9, 2023
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
KARLUNA APARTMENTS LTD
Applicant(s):
REZA SEKHAVATI
Property Address:
20 MAYNARD AVE
COA File No.:
22 142701 STE 04 MV (A0578/22TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
22 205345 S45 04 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
April 25, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
KARLUNA APARTMENTS LTD
Owner
KARLUNA APARTMENTS LTD
Applicant
R. SEKHAVATI
Party (TLAB)
T. IVANKOVIC
C. DESEREVILLE
Expert Witness
S. GALBRAITH
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This appeal arises from an Appeal by Reza Sekhavati of the decision of the Toronto and East York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment (COA) refusing an application for variances for the property known as 20 Maynard Avenue (subject property).
2The purpose of the application is to alter the existing 16-unit, three-storey multi-residential building by adding two (2) additional units for a total of eighteen (18) residential units (15 bachelor units and 3 two-bedroom units) - (Application).
3The subject property is designated ‘Neighbourhoods’ in the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential R (d1.0, x318) under the City’s harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013. The number 318 in parenthesis in the zone refers to an exemption under the prevailing Site-Specific Zoning By-law 426-2001 (By-law 426-2001).
4The subject property is located on the west side of Maynard Avenue, west of Jameson Street and north of King Street West, in the South Parkdale neighbourhood.
5The site is currently occupied by an existing older, first-generation 2.5-storey Multi-unit dwelling.
6REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW
- Chapter 900.2.10.(318) (E) (Exception R318, Section 2(c), By-law 426-2001), By-law 569-2013
No person shall erect or use a converted house on those lands outlined by heavy lines on Map 1 unless no more than 16 dwelling units, 15 of which may be bachelor dwelling units and 1 of which may be a dwelling unit containing 5 or more habitable rooms provided within the converted house.
In this case, the altered building will provide 15 bachelor dwelling units and 3 two-bedroom dwelling units, for a total of 18 dwelling units.
- Chapter 900.2.10.(318)(E) (Exception R 318, Section 2(d), By-law 426-2001), By-law 569-2013
No person shall erect or use a converted house on those lands outlined by heavy lines on Map 1 unless the average of the floor areas of the dwelling units is not less than 37 m2.
In this case, the average floor area of the dwelling units is 32.95 m2.
7Karluna Apartments Ltd., the owner of the subject property, appealed the decision of the COA and the TLAB set a Hearing date for April 25, 2023.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
8Provincial Policy – S. 3
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).
9Variance – 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
10The only Parties in attendance at the Hearing were Ms. Chantal Desereville (WeirFolds), the Owner’s legal representative, and Mr. Sean Galbraith, a land use planner. There were no other Parties or Participants who elected status in this matter.
11I advised those present at the Hearing that I had attended at the site and familiarized myself with the surrounding neighbourhood, and also reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the Hearing although it is the evidence to be heard that is of importance.
12I heard from Mr. Galbraith in support of the Application, whom I qualified to give professional opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
Proposal
13Mr. Galbraith explained that the existing building on the subject property is somewhat unusual in that it contains fifteen (15) residential “bachelor” units in the front half of the building (effectively a rooming house), equally spread across the basement, first, second, and third floors.
14The back half of the building consists of a single, large residential unit approximately 279 m2 (3,000 ft.2) in size, currently occupied by the owners of the property who also operate the front rental units. He referred to this rear portion of the building by characterizing it “as being maintained as a ‘caretaker townhouse’.”1
15He advised that the owners are elderly and are moving out because the unit is far too much space and maintenance for them.
16The proposal before the TLAB is to alter and divide the interior space of the large residential unit into three separate residential units, each 104.33 m2 in size, to be located in the basement, first and second floors.
17He advised that the only external modification to the existing building will be the addition of an external staircase for emergency egress on the rear (west) face of the building, south of the porch. The staircase is not proposed to be enclosed or to create balconies/platforms.
18He confirmed that the proposal and the two variances sought will result in no external changes to the size of the existing building or the 15 bachelor units in the front part of the building, and no current tenants will be displaced as a result of the proposed development.
Neighbourhood Study Area (NSA)
19For the purposes of evaluating the ‘physical character context, Mr. Galbraith identified a study area in a manner that provides a reasonable assessment unit that is consistent with Official Plan policy 4.1.5 considerations related to zoning, dwelling type and scale, lot fabric, and street pattern, with the following characteristics:
The area consists primarily of first-generation 2.5 to 3-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings, multiplexes, small apartments and other low-rise multi-residential dwellings.
The neighbourhood exhibits common characteristics of a stable residential area although not ‘static’, as the area is experiencing new construction and re-investment through renovations, additions, or entirely new builds consistent with the character of the area.
The neighbourhood is ‘eclectic’ and has long been home to a very diverse array of low-rise, multi-unit residential buildings, including ‘rooming houses’ as well as traditional dwelling units.
The vast majority of lots in the neighbourhood contain dwellings with at least 2 - 4 residential units and several properties exceed 20 units per lot.
Except for two tall apartment buildings (Nos. 21 and 32 Maynard Ave.), all 15 remaining properties on Maynard Ave. are 2.5 to 3-storey detached dwellings with the number of residential units per lot varying between 3 and 36 units, with the average being 12 units per property.
20Concerning Section 2 of the Planning Act (Act), Mr. Galbraith opined that the proposal appropriately addresses matters of provincial interest in the following manner:
The proposal is appropriately located in an established built-up area of the City where growth and development are promoted through the OP;
The proposal represents development that is designed to be sustainable, and supports public transit and is pedestrian oriented. The building is in an area well-served by nearby transit options including the King Street and Queen Street streetcars and the Jameson/Landsdowne bus line, and no new parking spaces are provided or required;
Concerning the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing, the variances requested will facilitate new housing stock through the update of an older building thereby increasing the availability of housing in the City; and,
Although the new proposed residential units may not result in “affordable housing” in the literal sense, the three smaller residential units to be created would be reasonably more affordable than the larger dwelling unit that currently exists.
Consistency with the PPS and Conformity to the Growth Plan
21Under Sections 3(5)(a) and (b) of the Planning Act, a decision of the TLAB is required to be consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan. These are high-level planning policy documents that establish a framework for all planning matters in Ontario.
22The PPS encourages intensification and redevelopment in existing built-up areas where municipal infrastructure can accommodate such development and encourages a range and mixes of housing types and densities.
23Mr. Galbraith opined that the proposed variances will expand the existing residential uses on the subject property and contribute to a mix and range of housing options in the area.
24The Growth Plan sets out broad policies for development in urban areas in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including Toronto, and promotes compact urban form through the intensification in those areas to achieve a diverse mix of residential uses.
25Mr. Galbraith submitted that the proposal is located within a built-up area that has access to a range of existing public services, including transit, and will result in a compactly built form that will diversify the mix of housing options available in the area for different households and income levels.
26I accept Mr. Galbraith’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
27In addressing the four statutory tests in the Planning Act, Mr. Galbraith opined that the variances requested will facilitate the construction of additional dwelling units within an already existing residential building, thereby increasing the range of housing through additional “affordable residential units,” that is in keeping with the planned context for the property and neighbourhood.
28He highlighted OP Policies 3.1.2 and opined that the proposal will add to the existing rental housing stock in the area while also retaining the existing affordable rental units (and their tenants).
29In this regard, he specifically highlighted Policy 3.1.2.3 which encourages “…investment in new rental housing, particularly affordable rental housing,” and noted that the existing residential dwelling on the subject property was the result of a previous city-initiated effort to “help slow the loss of affordable rooming houses in the Parkdale neighbourhood…through rezonings that recognize the existing residential uses and unit sizes in numerous buildings across the neighbourhood, including the subject property.”2
30Mr. Galbraith asserted that the variances requested would “…in no way jeopardize the result of this previous City initiative," and submitted that, in fact, the subdivision of the single, large residential unit into three smaller rental units would provide the owners of the subject property with “…a revenue opportunity that would maintain the existing affordable units …remain financially viable into the future.” 3
31He addressed the list of considerations in OP Policy 4.1.5 (Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods) to determine whether the proposal ‘fits’ within the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and whether it will respect and reinforce that existing character.
32Of most relevance were criteria 4.1.5 c) – prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type, and d) – prevailing building type(s). Mr. Galbraith opined that the proposed development will fit with the height, dwelling type, and scale of nearby residential properties and the additional units can be easily accommodated within the existing building without impact on the neighbourhood.
33He submitted that the proposal is located within an area which is intended for low-rise, multi-unit residential development and that it will be compatible and co-exist within its surroundings.
34Finally, Mr. Galbraith opined that the proposal is not out of the ordinary for this eclectic neighbourhood area and that the proposed internal renovation of the existing building is compatible with the adjacent community.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
35A hearing before the TLAB is a hearing ‘de novo’ under s. 45(18) of the Planning Act, meaning the entire application that was before the COA is to be considered anew.
36The burden is on the Applicant to prove its case and to satisfy the TLAB that the application before the Tribunal meets the four statutory tests mandated by s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
37For variances requested to be approved, the TLAB must be satisfied that all four tests are met even when an applicant is the only Party in the Hearing.
38The only professional planning assessment evidence heard on this appeal came from Mr. Galbraith, an accredited land use planner. His credentials were reviewed, he was qualified to give expert opinion evidence within the discipline of land use planning, and his detailed Expert Witness Statement was admitted as Exhibit 2.
39I found his assessment to be reasonably thorough, balanced, objective and credible, and I accept the generated opinion evidence on compliance with applicable policy and statutory tests in the Legislative Framework section, above.
40I also accept Mr. Galbraith’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
41More specifically, I find that the proposed renovation of the multi-unit residential building represents measured and compatible intensification of the subject property that will contribute to the mix and range of housing options in the area.
THE STATUTORY AND LEGISLATIVE TESTS
OFFICIAL PLAN
42I agree with Mr. Galbraith that the Official Plan, and City policies generally, are supportive of increasing housing options in Toronto and specifically supportive of maintaining and increasing the supply of affordable housing units in various sizes.
43I also concur with his assertion that the neighbourhood will more directly benefit from the subdivision of the existing 3,000 sq.ft. unit at the rear of the subject building, which is considered an anomaly in the area, into three “generally sized, rental units.” 4
44On the basis of Mr. Galbraith’s evidence, I find that the proposed renovation and the variances requested represent a modest form of residential intensification that will not result in destabilizing the neighbourhood in the immediate or broader geographic context; therefore, I find that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan are met.
ZONING BY-LAW
45Mr. Galbraith’s evidence was that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is to provide performance standards to ensure the orderly development of the land in accordance with the policies and principles outlined in the Official Plan.
46The property is subject to Site Specific Zoning By-law 426-2001, which legalized what then existed on the subject property, as part of a broader City initiative to permit and retained rooming house units in buildings in the Parkdale neighbourhood.
47The proposed renovation of the rear larger unit in the building on the subject property triggers variances to the following two provisions of By-law 426-2001.
VARIANCE 1: NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
48By-law 426-2001 legalized the existing number of residential units on the subject property to a maximum of 16 in total, comprised of 15 bachelor units and 1 larger unit.
49I find that subdividing the larger rear dwelling unit into three separate rental apartments, thereby increasing the overall number of residential units on the property to 18, without expanding the size of the existing building, is appropriate and represents orderly development within its context.
50It also does not result in variances for any other performance standards of building massing, parking, or landscaping in either the parent Zoning By-law 569-2013 or By-law 426-2001.
51Therefore, I find that the proposed number of dwelling units maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
VARIANCE 2: AVERAGE SIZE OF DWELLING UNITS
52By-law 426-20001 restricts the average size of dwelling units within the building on the subject property to not less than 37m2 (398 sq.ft.), whereas the proposed size is 32.95 m2 (355 sq.ft.).
53As Mr. Galbraith’s evidence confirms, none of the existing bachelor units achieve even half of the average size in the By-law because the average is significantly skewed upward due to the size of the considerably large, single rear dwelling unit at the rear.
54I agree with Mr. Galbraith that the intent of By-law 426-2001, which was adopted as a way to afford these units a degree of protection in terms of size and use, is maintained. The proposal will have no impact on the size of the existing bachelor units which will remain at the same size.
55The variance for the average size of dwelling units is required because the rear unit is being divided into three reasonably sized apartments, which skews the calculation of the average size of the floor area of the dwelling units lower to 32.95 m2.
56Therefore, I find the proposed variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of both the parent and Site Specific Zoning By-laws.
MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND
57Case law has generally established that the test for ‘minor’ focuses on the scale and nature of perceived impacts caused by the variances. The test is not that there be no impact, but that the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature.
58I agree with Mr. Galbraith that various forms of multi-dwelling unit buildings are permitted on the subject property and the neighbourhood has long been the home to a diverse array of low-rise, multi-unit residential dwellings, including rooming houses. Therefore, granting the variances requested will not destabilize the neighbourhood.
59The proposal for two additional units is not an overdevelopment of the site given that the two proposed additional units are contained within the existing building and the other existing bachelor units will be unaffected. Therefore, I find that adding two moderately sized dwelling units to a building currently containing 16 units is minor.
60I find that the proposal and the variances sought by the Applicant represent an appropriate level of intensification and a form of development that is supportive of both Provincial and City policies to expand the range of housing options and reinvestment in the existing stock.
61I also find the proposal compatible with the adjacent community and in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
CONCLUSION
62The Applicant has provided evidence to satisfy that the proposal and requested variances meet the four statutory tests in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
63I find the variances are in keeping with the existing and planned character of the neighbourhood and will facilitate the development of two additional residential units on a site that is well suited to the use, and in support of provincial and city housing goals generally.
64I also find that the variances sought, individually and cumulatively, are appropriate and desirable, minor and in keeping with the intent and purpose of the City Official Plan and Zoning By-law, for the reasons reviewed, and therefore the variances should be granted.
DECISION AND ORDER
65The Appeal is allowed; the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 31, 2022, is set aside.
66The two variances listed in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the condition contained therein.
D. Lombardi
Panel Member
APPENDIX A
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAWS
- Chapter 900.2.10.(318) (E) (Exception R318, Section 2(c), By-law 426-2001), By-law 569-2013
No person shall erect or use a converted house on those lands outlined by heavy lines on Map 1 unless no more than 16 dwelling units, 15 of which may be bachelor dwelling units and 1 of which may be a dwelling unit containing 5 or more habitable rooms provided within the converted house.
In this case, the altered building will provide 15 bachelor dwelling units and 3 two-bedroom dwelling units, for a total of 18 dwelling units.
- Chapter 900.2.10.(318)(E) (Exception R 318, Section 2(d), By-law 426-2001), By-law 569-2013
No person shall erect or use a converted house on those lands outlined by heavy lines on Map 1 unless the average of the floor areas of eth dwelling units is not less than 37 m2.
In this case, the average floor area of the dwelling units is 32.95 m2.
CONDITION(S) OF APPROVAL
- The proposed development shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Plans prepared by RECON Consulting, including Drawing A01 (Existing Site Plan), Drawing A-06 (Existing Front Elevation - East), Drawing A07 (Existing Side Elevation - North), Drawing A08 (Existing Side Elevation – South), Drawing A09 (Existing Rear Elevation – West), dated May 18, 2022, and attached as Appendix B to this decision. Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized.
APPENDIX B – Site Plan and Elevation Drawings