Lappo (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 188

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2024-02-16

23 211727 S45 09 TLAB

Lappo (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 188

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: February 16, 2024

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): V. LAPPO

Applicant(s): E. PERES

Property Address: 1129 COLLEGE ST.

COA File No.: 23 183080 STE 09 MV (A0677/23TEY)

TLAB Case File No.: 23 211727 S45 09 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): January 19, 2024

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner/ Appellant

V. Lappo

E. Peres

Previous Owner

C. A. A. Sobrado

Applicant/ Participant

E. Peres

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Applicant, Eddie Peres, appeals a denial by the Toronto and East York panel of the Committee of Adjustment for variances for an existing third-floor balcony at the rear of the existing dwelling located at 1129 College Street (the "Subject Property").

2The appeal is being allowed.

3The Subject Property is located on the south side of College Street, approximately midway between Sheridan Avenue to the west and the northern entrance to Boland Lane to the east. Dufferin Street is located further to the east. The rear of the property has access through a laneway. The Subject Property is designated 'Mixed Use Areas' in the Official Plan and is zoned CR 2.5 (c1.0; r2.0) SS2 (x1571) under the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the "Zoning By-law").

4Prior to the hearing, I visited the Subject Property and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood in which it is situated.

5I will now outline the legal framework guiding this matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (the "PPS") and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the "Growth Plan") for the subject area.

7In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;

• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and

• are minor.

8The requested variances are as follows:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone (1.5 m).

The rear third floor balcony platform is located 0.76 m from the side (west) lot line.

2. Chapter 10.80.40.50.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

A maximum of one platform is permitted to be located on the front or rear wall at or above the second storey of a semi-detached house.

In this case, there are two platforms located on the rear wall at or above the second storey of the dwelling.

3. Chapter 10.80.40.50.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted area of each platform located at or above the second storey of a dwelling is 4 m².

The rear third storey terrace has an area of 8.24 m².

4. Chapter 10.80.40.50.(2)(C), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required setback for a balcony at the rear of a dwelling and located at or above the second storey is 1.8 m from the common wall dividing the dwelling units.

The rear second storey balcony is located 0 m from the common wall.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

9Eddie Peres appeared by himself at the hearing and made submissions. There was no expert witness testimony provided.

10Mr. Peres filed a Party Witness Statement (Form 12) which is Exhibit 1 for this hearing. Mr. Peres reviewed the photographs from this document of various second and third storey balconies in the neighbourhood. A summary of these photographs is shown below.

Exhibit 1 – Page 5: Photograph of balconies in the neighbourhood.

11Mr. Peres argued that there are numerous examples of dwellings in the neighbourhood which have multiple balconies, including third storey balconies on semi-detached dwellings.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

12I do not believe it is necessary to review the cited policies in detail in this decision as these documents are general in nature and provide the framework within which the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate. I have considered these documents in the context of this proposal, and I accept that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Conforms to the Growth Plan.

13I will now go through the four statutory tests and the findings of the Tribunal on each test.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

14I find that the variances satisfy the general intent and purpose of the various relevant provisions of chapters 2 and 3 of the Official Plan.

Policy 4.5 Mixed Use Areas of the Official Plan

15The Official Plan map shows the property having a mixed-use designation.

16The Policy for the mixed-use designation is found in policy 4.5.2. I find that there is nothing in the proposal that does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

17Variances 1, 2, and 4 deal with lot line issues. Variance 1 arises because the rear third floor balcony platform is located 0.76 m from the side (west) lot line, whereas the bylaw requires a minimum building setback of 1.5 m. Variance 2 is for two platforms located on the rear wall at or above the second storey, whereas the bylaw permits one platform. Variance 4 arises because the balcony is located 0 m from the common wall, whereas the minimum required setback for a balcony at the rear of a dwelling and located at or above a second storey is 1.8 m from the common wall.

18Variance 1 requires that the platform comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone (1.5m). The balcony does not extend beyond the dwelling. In other words, the balcony is situated on top of the second floor of the dwelling. There is no variance required for the west side yard setback of the building itself, and under these circumstances, I find that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for this variance is met.

19Variance 2 is for a second platform located on the rear wall at or above the second storey. Mr. Peres in his photobook showed properties in the area with this feature, including 323 Brock Ave, 672 Dufferin St, and 674 Dufferin St. No neighbours participated in the Committee of Adjustment proceeding or the Tribunal hearing. In addition, the balcony faces onto a rear yard and a laneway has garages for properties facing College Street to the north (i.e. like the Subject Property), and properties facing Moutray Street to the south. I find there are no privacy or overlook impacts, or massing or scale impacts, and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for this variance is met.

20Variance 4 deals with the balcony located 0 m from the common wall. Mr. Peres stated that his photobook shows example of various balconies at or above a second storey for semi-detached properties which appear to go to the property line. These properties include: 1121 College St, 722 Dufferin St, 720 Dufferin St, and 674 Dufferin St. I also observed these types of balconies during my site visit. I find that there are no privacy, massing, or scale impacts from the balcony, and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law for this variance is met.

21Variance 3 arises because the balcony has an area of 8.24 m² whereas the maximum permitted area is 4 m². The balcony is placed on the second storey of the dwelling, and it does not extend beyond the dwelling at any side. In addition, the depth of the balcony faces the neighbouring property to the east. The neighbours have not made any submissions in opposition at either the Committee of Adjustment or the Tribunal. I do not find that there are any privacy, massing, or scale impacts from the balcony. The general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law for this variance is met.

22In conclusion, the four variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

23I find that the balcony is appropriate for the development of the Subject Property and that it does not create any inappropriate site conditions with respect to the adjacent lots.

24I find that the balcony maintains an appropriate massing and scale for the Subject Property.

Are the variances minor?

25I find that the balcony does not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The balcony variances are minor in nature and results in a built form that is compatible with the existing streetscape.

CONCLUSION

26I find that each of the four variances for the balcony individually and cumulatively, meet the four statutory tests for a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

27The appeal is allowed, and the variances detailed in paragraph 8 are approved.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member