Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2023-05-30

22 238767 S45 03 TLAB

3755 Lakeshore Holding Inc (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 97

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: May 30, 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): 3753-3755 LAKESHORE HOLDING INC.

Applicant(s): MHBC PLANNING LTD.

Property Address: 3753-3755 LAKE SHORE BLVD. W

COA File No.: 22 177597 WET MV (A0381/22EYK)

TLAB Case File No.: 22 238767 S45 03 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): April 26, 2023

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member S. Gopikrishna

Registered Parties:

Legal Representatives

Owner SPECTRE HOLDINGS INC.

Applicant MHBC PLANNING LTD.

Appellant 3755 LAKESHORE HOLDING INC. R. CHEESEMAN

Participant M. MC. KEON

Participant E. GOMEZ

Participant J. MACDONALD

Participant A. CHOLES

Participant A. DAVIS

Participant F. SOAVE

Participant J. MARSHALL

Participant J. GIBSON

Participant C. MERCADO

Expert Witness D. MCKAY

Expert Witness R. PERNICKY

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Proceeding respecting 3753-3755 Lake Shore Blvd W. ( the “Site’) commenced on April 12, 2023, and was completed on April 26, 2023. The TLAB heard from 6 (six) Witnesses:- Messrs. David McKay, and Richard Pernicky for the Applicant, Messrs . Mark McKeon, John McDonald, Andrew Choles, and Ms. Ester Gomez ( collectively the “Opposition”,) all of whom spoke in opposition to the Appeal. It is important to note that Mr. Choles represented the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA), which elected for Participant status, while the other members of the Opposition elected for Participant status in their individual capacity. Ms. Christine Mercado, another member of the LBNA, asked questions of clarification of the Applicants. In addition to the Witnesses who have been named earlier in this paragraph, the Applicant was also represented by Mr. Russell Cheeseman, a lawyer.

2Both Messrs. McKay, and Pernicky, who were qualified as Expert Witnesses in the disciplines of land use planning, and transportation planning respectively, spoke separately to various conditions that could be imposed on the approval of the Application in their Examination-in-chief.

3Mr. McKay was sworn in, and recognized as an Expert in the discipline of land use planning. He briefly described his retainer, before describing the Site. The subject lands have a lot area of 639 sq m, approximately 17 m of lot frontage (along Lake Shore Boulevard West) and a lot depth of approximately 36 m. The building on site was built in the 1950s, and occupies approximately 96% of the subject lands. The gross floor area of the building is approximately 1,200 sq m. The existing building is primarily a one storey building, with a small, two storey component at the immediate corner of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Thirty Ninth Street. The existing building has been built “nearly entirely to the property lines with the exception of the south yard “(0.85 m at the closest point) of the property (abutting 89 Thirty Ninth Street). Previously the building contained ground floor commercial uses, ground floor assembly uses (Loyal Order of Moose Lake Shore Lodge 392) and three existing apartment units on the second floor. The ground floor is currently vacant while the existing apartment units are occupied.

4Through a photo-tour of the community, Mr. MacKay described the surrounding community, and stated that the subject lands are part of a historic main street commercial area running along Lake Shore Boulevard West. Some mid-rise, mixed-use projects have developed along this area, however, many of the existing buildings remain. He said that he surrounding neighbourhood to the south consists primarily of single detached dwellings and that the area is “well served by public transit”.

5Mr. MacKay stated that the land is classified as “Mixed Use Areas” under the OP, and promote a broad range of uses including commercial and residential uses, all contained within single use or mixed use buildings of varying heights and scale, such that development within the Mixed Use Areas along Avenues will have a residential emphasis, and occur incrementally.

6In terms of Zoning, an “Avenue Study” was conducted by the City in 2004, which resulted in the adoption of Site and Area Specific Policy 21 and By-law 1055-2004. Under the former Etobicoke Zoning Code, the Site is covered by the Etobicoke Zoning Code and specifically By-law 1055-2004. Under By-law 155-2004, the subject lands are zoned “Commercial-Avenues Zone (C1-AV)” which permits retail, office and residential uses.

7By way of an editorial comment, Mr. MacKay’s Witness Statement refers to the By-law governing the Site as By-law 155-2004. The By-Law number is 1055-2004, as opposed to 155-2004, as stated both in the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, as well as the Witness Statement of Mr. Pernicky, the Applicant’s Transportation Witness. I refer to the pertinent By-Law as “1055-2004” throughout this Decision.

8The Zoning Examiner identified the following variance, with respect to By-Law 1055-2004, would be required to facilitate the proposal:

The By-law requires a minimum of 18 parking spaces be provided on site (15 for residents, 3 for visitor). 0 parking spaces are being provided on site.

9Describing the relationship between the proposal, and the higher level Provincial Policies, Mr. MacKay said that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the Growth Plan, because it optimizes the use of land in a Settlement Area, which has the additional advantage of being well served by public transport. The Growth Plan specifically calls for alternative development standards “such as reduced parking standards” to support transit usage.

10Mr. MacKay said that the proposal before the TLAB contributes to a vibrant and complete community by broadening the range of residential options within the Long Branch area. Based on this evidence, he concluded that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

11Speaking to the relationship between the proposal, and the test respecting the Official Policy (OP), Mr. MacKay spoke about Policy 2.2.1.3 of the OP, which speaks to gradual redevelopment, and intensification along Avenues. He said that the proposed variance will provide for additional residential uses within an existing building that are proximate to transit services and supportive of the Avenue and transit policies of the Official Plan.

12Speaking to Policy 3.1.2 ( the Built Form Policies), Mr. MacKay stated that the building at the Site has been built, and that there would be no change to its impact on the neighbourhood, with an emphasis on there being no proposal for additions, or external alterations.

13Mr. MacKay then spoke to the relationship between the requested variance, and Policy 4.5.2, which discusses development in Mixed Use areas. He said that the variance supports Policies 4.5.2(a) and (b) by allowing for the reuse of an existing building with a modest intensification of usage (12 new residential units) in an area well served by public transit

14He explained how the variance satisfies Policy 4.5.2 (h) because it supports the use of transit service by providing additional residential units in proximity to both frequent local transit (bus and streetcar) services and rapid transit (GO rail service).

15Speaking to the relationship between the requested variance, and the Zoning By-law, Mr. MacKay emphasized that the variance deals with a reduction in the provision of on-site parking as no space is physically available on the subject lands to provide for parking, and that this variance applies to the new units only. He said that the intent of parking provisions is facilitate parking, “where automobile usage by patrons of a land use occurs”. He added that he relied on the reports provided by Mr. Pernicky, the transportation expert to come to conclusions about the variance’s ability to satisfy the tests under Section 45.1 of the Planning Act.

16Speaking to the test respecting the test of minor, Mr. MacKay said It is important to understand that the test for development is not a test of “no impact”, but impact that rises to the level of being unacceptable adverse impact of a planning nature. Mr. MacKay said that there is sufficient parking in the immediate area based on the analysis by Mr. Pernicky, and interpreted this to mean that the reduction in parking requirement does not create any undue adverse impacts on the streetscape or adjacent streets.

17Mr. MacKay concluded that the “real deficiency” is only two parking spaces when one considers the direction on parking taken by City Council through By-law 89-2022. He opined that this reduction, in the context of the larger area, is not significant, and that the variance satisfies the test of minor because is no undue impact on the site, or surrounding neighbourhood.

18Speaking to the test of appropriate development, Mr. MacKay said that given the geometry and size of the subject lands, the variance is desirable so as to ensure that the subject lands can be developed with an appropriate amount of density and employment uses to suit the current planned function for the lands within an Avenue He spoke to the advantages of reinvestment, and how the approval of the requested variances will allow for the proposed reuse of the existing structure on the subject lands. On the basis of this evidence, Mr. MacKay concluded that the variance satisfied the test of appropriate development.

19By way of an editorial note, both Messrs. MacKay and Pernicky spoke to the relationship between the proposal, and the Zoning By-Law. The entire evidence relevant to the Zoning By-Law is included under Mr. Pernicky’s evidence, for the sake of convenience.

20Mr. Pernicky was sworn in, and recognized as an Expert in the discipline of traffic management. The highlights of his parking study are summarized below as follows

• 22 spaces along the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard West

• 4 spaces along the west side of 39th Street

• 4 spaces along the east side of 39th Street

• 12 spaces along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West Thirty Eighth Street and Thirty Ninth Street (i.e. in front of the subject site)

• 15 spaces along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West between Thirty Ninth Street and Fortieth Street

• 17 spaces along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West between Thirty Seventh Street and Thirty Eighth Street

• 8 spaces along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West west of Fortieth Street

Mr. Pernicky highlighted that these spaces are all within a four minute walk from the Subject Lands, and that there are 82 vehicular parking spaces within a five (5)-minute walk from the Subject site.

21Mr. Pernicky then highlighted the results of a Parking Study completed by , NexTrans Consulting Engineers to determine peak demand characteristics for the Subject site. The parking utilization surveys were conducted on Friday, February 24, 2023, Saturday, February 25, 2023 from 6:00 PM to 1:00 AM and Sunday, February 26, 2023 from 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM. The Study concluded that the peak parking demand of 42.7% (35 vehicles out of 82 available stalls), which occurs at 7:00 PM on Friday, February 24, 2023. On this basis, there is an available parking supply of 47 spaces in order to address any visitor parking demand generated by the proposed uses.

22Mr. Pernicky then focused on TTS (Transportation Tomorrow Survey) data, and described how approximately 21% of people in the vicinity utilize alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, walking and cycling. Relying on TTS data, Mr. Pernicky described how 16% of households within the Ward do not own a vehicle. Parking management could help increase the number of households that do not own a vehicle as parking management is the best Transportation Demand Management measure that assists in the reduction of single-occupant-vehicle trips to and from the proposed development, which is consistent with the City of Toronto Official Plan policies and sustainability objectives.

23Mr. Pernicky then spoke to the City of Toronto’s Official Plan (OP), with specific reference to Section 2.2, which states:

“The integration of transportation and land use planning is critical to achieving the overall aim of increasing accessibility throughout the City. Accessibility has two components: mobility (transportation) and proximity (land use). Increasing mobility by providing modal choice, and/or increasing the speed of travel allows more trips to be made within a given time, whereas increasing proximity through greater mixing of uses and/or higher densities achieves the same effect by shortening trip lengths. The policies of this Plan reflect the importance of mutually supportive transportation and land use policies that combine the mechanisms of mobility and proximity to maximize accessibility.”

On the basis of this analysis, Mr. Pernicky concluded that that there is a need to reduce automobile trips by managing parking in the City in order to reduce single-occupant-vehicle trips and to support other modes of transportation such as public transit and active transportation.

He noted that the proposal includes a reduction of the parking supply, “which is inline with the existing mode share in the area”. On the basis of this evidence, Mr. Pernicky concluded that the proposal meets the objectives and directions of the Official Plan (OP).

24Mr. Pernicky spoke to the needs imposed by City of Toronto’s By-Law 1055-2004, the site requires a minimum of 18 parking spaces (15 resident spaces, and three (3) visitor spaces). In comparing the By-Law requirements with the proposed supply of zero (0) spaces, the subject site has a shortfall of 18 parking spaces. He opined that By-law 1055-2004 was “conservative”, and was the “wrong standard to use”. He spoke to By-law 89-2022, which he described as “representing City Council’s latest direction on parking requirements which would only require two visitor parking spaces”, and added that” Visitor parking can be readily accommodated in the adjacent area”.

25He recommended that the City of Toronto By-Law 89-2022 should be used for the following reasons, before concluding that existing zero (0) parking spaces on site are adequate to accommodate for the minimum amount of visitor parking required by the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 89-2022

• There are comprehensive transit services in the area. The Subject Site is less than a five (5)-minute walk from seven (7) bus routes, which service both Mississauga and Toronto, and is approximately seven (7)-minute walk from Long Branch GO Station, which provides service to neighbouring municipalities, including, Mississauga, Hamilton and Niagara Falls and more;

• The subject site is surrounded by a complete network of sidewalk and essential amenities are within 5 minute- walk;

• There are a variety of on-street parking within a five (5)-minute walking distance to and from the subject site;

• The results of the parking utilization surveys indicate a peak parking demand of 42.7% (35 vehicles out of 82 available stalls);

• The existing non-auto modal split in the area is 21% based on the 2016 TTS data;

• As indicated from the review of 2016 TTS data for Ward 6, which includes the Site , 16% of households within the Ward do not own a vehicle

On the basis of the application of the updated By-law 89-2022 to the parking on the Site, Mr. Pernicky concluded that the proposal satisfied the intent, and purpose of By-Law 1055-2004.

26Mr. Pernicky recommended that the Appeal be allowed, because the variance satisfied all four tests under Section 45.1, before recommending the following conditions be imposed:

• Reduce parking rate to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips to and from the subject site for land use scenario;

• Include a clause in the rental agreement that parking is limited;

• Provide an information package to residents which includes TTC schedules, community and cycling maps, where appropriate;

• Provide one-time pre-loaded PRESTO Cards with the starting value of $50 (inclusive of the registration fee) for each unit. This will help the future employees consider taking transit as a primary mode of transportation, instead of driving. The pre-loaded PRESTO Cards can be distributed in conjunction with the Information Package through the property management office

27Ms. Gomez, Mr. Johnson, Mr. McDonald ,and Mr. Choles spoke in opposition to the proposal. By way of an editorial comment, their addresses have not been included in the interests of ensuring their privacy, though it would be reasonable to state The highlights of the evidence of Messrs McDonald and Johnson, and Ms. Gomez are recited below:

• If the proposal is approved, there is a deficiency of parking spaces, that will accommodate 12 additional residential units for a total of 15 residential units, and 1 commercial unit, which will have a negative impact on the street perpendicular to the property, 39th Street.

• There are 25 parking locations on 39th Street with 36 residences, which can be reduced due to poor parking, blocked locations, piled snow etc. The residents drew my attention to particular part of Thirty Ninth Street, which they claimed would take the “overflow” of the parking resulting from the approval of the project.

• By-law 1055-2004 implies that for the 12 additional residences, there should be 12 additional parking spots. If half of this number were to be “allocated” to Thirty Ninth Street, this would represent one fourth of the available spots between Lake Shore Blvd and James Street.

• The general intent of By-laws is not met as the parking does not conform to Parking By-Laws.

28Mr. Choles spoke in opposition to the proposal on behalf of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA). He said that this application is located on an Avenue and is designated as a Growth area, before asserting that a “proposal of zero parking on a large scale for residential building in this location is premature and not in the best interest of the neighbourhood considering the growth designation”, and referred to the City of Toronto’s Official Plan Map 26 Site and Area Specific Policies, to support his analysis.

29Describing demographics of Long Branch, Mr. Choles said that Long Branch has an aggressive Growth Plan and has its increased population by 13.1% since 2016, far exceeding the City’s increase of 2%. According to the 2021 Census Reports, more than 50% of this Population is 50% rental. He asserted that there “is no pressure, to increase density that is not thoughtful, or will unfairly impact the neighbourhood”.

30Mr. Choles described the building at the Subject Property as being “located in a City Council approved PMTSA with a minimum density of 1.5 FSI and 6 Stories”, and stated that proposal before the TLAB “ is well below that”. According to Mr. Choles, the Growth Plan contemplates extra height, and therefore more density, because “this lot exceeds 35m”. He asserted that the approval of a zero parking variance can be applied as legal as-of right when the full density is realized providing further impacts to the neighbouring streets, relying on the following sources of information (Our Plan Toronto: City-wide 115 Proposed Major Transit Station Area/Protected Major Transit Station Area Delineations - Final Report, Schedule "11" to Amendment 544 SASP 646. Protected Major Transit Station Area – Long Branch Station and Chapter 7 – Site and Area Specific Policies)

31Mr. Choles then referred to By-law Amendment 89-2022, which sets out minimum requirements for new developments for parking, including visitor parking and electric vehicle charging stations. He noted that this proposal does not provide parking for residents or visitors, including vehicles that will need to service and support the building and the residents. He contrasted the “no parking spoaces” feature, with other developments on Lake Shore, and asserted that “ In all proposed residential applications on Lake Shore today, there is no pattern of zero parking”.

32Mr. Choles asserted that “this area” ( i.e. Long Branch) is not served by higher order transit now, nor will it be in the near future. It is served by Regional Rail and Streetcar, “that moves primarily to the Downtown Core, not in a north south path”. According to Mr. Choles, “this area has excellent access to 400 series highways and expressways, which makes it appealing to car owners”, and added that “Elimination of parking does not correspond with Long Branch transit improvements”.

33Mr. Choles said the Site in question has a history of limited parking for existing residents and visitors to the neighbourhood, and referred to Marie Curtis Park as an example. He discussed how the park attracted many families , but “There is limited public parking at the park and it is underserved by transit”, and that “Lack of sufficient parking is evidenced on the weekends in the summer with cars lining the streets in proximity to the park including Forty First, Fortieth, Thirty Ninth, Thirty Eighth Streets and Lake Promenade”.

34Mr. Choles stated that the Transportation report “only addresses short term visitor parking, and fails to address that parking on Lake Shore is limited for businesses”. He alluded to the “No Parking” signs on one side adjacent streets (Thirty Ninth and Thirty Eighth) and 3 hour limited parking otherwise. He added that Transportation Services recommendations have not been included in this application, nor does the transportation report include travel times along transit routes to employment areas

35Mr. Choles stated that while the LBNA supports reinvestment on the Avenue that correspond with the Official Plan, it had concerns about this proposal , because this application proposed reduced parking accommodation with immediate and long term implications to residents. He opined that “Some mitigation needs to be proposed by the Applicant to ensure illegal parking be deterred, and won’t have undue impact to the adjacent neighbours and businesses”.

36I thanked the Applicants, and Participants for giving evidence, and instructed the Applicants to submit the list of variance(s), elevations and plans, and recommendations for conditions to be imposed, if the Application were approved, and gave them two weeks to complete the submissions. I also advised them that the requested submission was a standard submission, required of all applicants, and that no inferences were to be drawn about the Decision, based on the instructions for submissions. The submissions were completed in a timely fashion, within the time period for the completion of the same by the TLAB.

ANALYSIS AND REASONS

37The Application put forward by the Applicants asks for the approval of a single variance, which acknowledges the need for 18 on-site parking spots on the basis of By-law 1055-2004, but requests for a waiver of new on-site parking places- in other words, the 12 new dwelling units proposed for this Site will have no access to on-site parking spots.

38Given that By-law 89-2022 was introduced by the City of Toronto in 2022, to “update” the former Etobicoke By-Law 1055-2004, it was relied upon by the Applicants to justify the need for no new parking spots. It is interesting to note that the evidence provided by the Applicants did not explain why a variance had to be sought with respect to By-Law 1055-2004, and not from By-law 89-2022. I can only surmise that the Site is not covered by By-Law 569-2013, because By-law 89-2022 was introduced to modify the previously existing parking standards in By-Law 569-2013, and cannot apply to sites which are exempt from the latter. While this information may not be relevant to the findings to be made by this Tribunal, the availability of the information about the applicability of By-Law 89-2022 to the Site would have strongly contributed to the fulsomeness of evidence.

39I take this opportunity to acknowledge the evidence given by all the Participants in opposition to the Applicant’s proposal to eliminate new on-site parking spots to the Site, and find that their concerns were genuine, and that they all spoke straight from their hearts. The main concern that was expressed over and over again, was that the elimination of extra parking places at the Site, notwithstanding the creation of 12 new housing units, would result in increased parking pressure on the streets in the vicinity of the Site, with specific reference to 38th and 39th Streets. The residents complained about the lack of reliable public transportation in their neighbourhood, its distance from TTC subway stations on Bloor Street, and how the frequency of the buses alluded to by the Applicants to make their case for reduced dependence on the car, wasn’t “realistic”- my understanding of the Opposition’s evidence was that while the buses ought to come and go at a stated frequency based on TTC schedules, the reality is that the buses don’t come as frequently as the TTC Bus schedules say they should. The Opposition’s evidence demonstrated the variance and divergence between theory and practice, whose lack of alignment is best described by the following quote, attributed to both Albert Einstein, and Yogi Berra- “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is”

40Notwithstanding my inclination to accept the assertions made by the opposition at face value, there are important questions that cast a shadow on the collective corpus of their evidence – one Witness asserted that Long Branch is “not a well to do area”, without any studies or background information to back up the same. Some Witnesses concentrated on the impact that the lack of new parking spots would have on 39th street, without justifying why the excess of parking would concentrate on this street alone, even if it were the closest perpendicular road to Lake Shore Blvd West. I find that there is no description, or modelling of the impact of excess parking, if it spread to multiple streets perpendicular to Lake Shore Blvd W, as modelled by the Applicants- more importantly, the opposition did not explain the reason for their assuming that the parking excess would focus on 39th Street, as opposed to the entire neighbourhood.

41I find that no weight may be attached to the Opposition’s reliance on By-law 1055-2044’s recommendations for parking even if it is the By-law from which relief has to be sought, because this By-law does not take into account important developments like the City wide Harmonized By-Law 569-2013, and By-Law 89-2022, which modified parking requirements in 2022.

42As a general principle of decision making, I find that objective evidence should be given more weight than subjective evidence. Accordingly, I accord significant weight to the presentation put forward by the LBNA, because of the objectivity and thoroughness in their presentation, and focused on important studies brought out by the City of Toronto. The LBNA drew attention to the issue caused by excess of parking at Marie Curtis Park, and stated their concern in the following words: “Lack of sufficient parking is evidenced on the weekends in the summer with cars lining the streets in proximity to the park including Forty First, Fortieth, Thirty Ninth, Thirty Eighth Streets and Lake Promenade”. While I am prepared to accord maximal weight to this concern, what is not clear to me is the impact of the juxtaposition of this parking pressure, on the possible excess of parking resulting from the approval of no parking spaces at the Site- would the juxtaposition of the two pressures result in unacceptable adverse impact, the determination of which is critical to the test of minor? While I am prepared to accept that the combined impact would be tantamount to adverse impact, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the combined impact would result in unacceptable adverse impact.

43After analyzing the impact of the proposed no extra parking spaces at the Site based on the Studies provided by the Applicants’ Transportation Witness, I find that the impact, as stated in the paragraph above, would be significant, but not rise to the level of unacceptable adverse impact. I rely on the Study conducted by the Applicants, which demonstrated that the highest pressure from a parking perspective occurred at 7 PM in the evening, where 45 out of 82 parking spots in the neighbourhood would be occupied, leaving 37 parking spots for use by any new tenant, with a car, who needs access to parking close to the Site. The availability of so many parking sites for the residents of 12 dwelling units, does not rise to unacceptable adverse impact. Consequently, I prefer the evidence of the Applicants, and find that the evidence satisfies the test of minor. .

44I find that the proposal satisfies the test of appropriate development, because it does not result in any new, hitherto unknown adverse impacts, while allowing for the development of the subject lands, with an appropriate amount of density and employment uses to suit the current planned function for the lands

45I find that the evidence satisfies the test of maintaining the intent, and purpose of the By-law because I accept the Applicant’s efforts to disseminate information among the new tenants about the plus points of using public transportation, and facilitating the same by giving them pre-charged Presto cards, will result in reduced use of existing spots by new tenants. As a result, I find that there will be some decrease in car usage by the new tenants who will occupy the new residences, while the existing supply of 82 parking spots in the adjoining community, can address excess parking resulting from the occupancy of the new residential units by new tenants.

46Lastly, I find that the evidence satisfies the test of maintaining the intent, and purpose of the Official Policy, because it satisfies Policy 2.2.1, which discusses “gradual development, and intensification along Avenues”. I find that the proposed variance will provide for additional residential uses within an existing building, which are proximate to transit services and supportive of the Avenue and transit policies of the Official Plan.

47I find that the proposal also satisfies Policy 3.1.2 ( Built Form Policies), because the building in question exists at the Site, and no changes, nor alterations will occur to the exterior. In addition, Policy 4.5.2 of the OP is also satisfied because the requested variance support Policies 4.5.2(a) and (b), by allowing for the reuse of an existing building with a modest intensification of usage (12 new residential units) in an area well served by public transit.

48On the basis of the analysis above, I find that the proposal satisfies all four tests under Section 45.1 of the Planning Act, and should be approved.

49I am in agreement with the suggested conditions, which disseminate information to the new residents that there will be no onsite parking provided, including their tenancy leases, and clear signage to this effect in a common area of development. I appreciate, and applaud the Applicant’s efforts to draw the attention of the new residents to the schedule of TTC buses, and providing them with pre-loaded PRESTO cards of $ 50 each, even if it is only on a one time basis- I find this gesture to be meaningful in terms of drawing the attention of new residents to the option of using public transit. As a result, all the suggested conditions are approved, and will be imposed on the approval of the variance respecting parking. The specifics of the conditions are recited in Paragraph [53] in the Final Order, and Decision Section below.

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

50The Appeal respecting 3753-3755 Lake Shore Blvd is allowed, and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment respecting the same Site, dated September 1, 2022, is set aside.

51The following variance is approved:

By-law 1055-2004

1. The By-law requires a minimum of 18 parking spaces be provided on site (15 for residents, 3 for visitors). 0 parking spaces are being provided on site..

52No other variances are approved.

53The following conditions are imposed the approval of the variance respecting parking, as described in Paragraph [51] above:

1. The applicant shall state in clear and plain language in any and all tenancy agreements that there is no on-site parking provided.

2. The applicant shall state in clear and plan language in any and all tenancy agreements that side streets have a maximum 3-hour parking, which is subject to enforcement

3. The applicant shall provide signage in a common area of the development that is obvious to all parties living or having business in the development advising of the restrictions in parking.

4. That the building be constructed substantially in accordance with the drawings and plans attached hereto, as Schedule “A” for reference.

5. That new tenants be provided with an information package including TTC schedules and community and cycling maps where appropriate;

6. That new tenants be provided with a one-time, pre-loaded PRESTO card with the starting value of $50.00 (inclusive of the registration fee) for each unit.

So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body

S. Gopikrishna

Panel Member

SCHEDULE “A”