Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2024-03-06
22 209356 S53 18 TLAB,
22 209357 S45 18 TLAB,
22 209358 S45 18 TLAB
Toronto (City) v. Charmchi, 2024 ONTLAB 197
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
March 6, 2024
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(s):
CITY OF TORONTO
Applicant(s):
F. Romano
Property Address:
342 MAPLEHURST AVE
COA File No.:
22 149529 NNY 18 CO, 22 149511 NNY 18 MV,
22 149521 NNY 18 MV
TLAB Case File No.:
22 209356 S53 18 TLAB, 22 209357 S45 18 TLAB,
22 209358 S45 18 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Friday, February 10 & Friday, March 10, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member J. Tassiopoulos
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Appellant
City of Toronto
A. Ward
S. Amini
Applicant/Expert Witness
F. Romano
Owner/ Party (TLAB)
A. Charmchi
A. Stewart
Expert Witness
D. Steinberg
(City of Toronto)
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The Hearing arises from an appeal by the City of Toronto of the decision of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) to approve the consent and associated variances sought for the subject property located at 342 Maplehurst Avenue.
2The purpose of the applications is to obtain consent to sever the existing lot into two lots, demolish the existing house on the property, and construct two new two-storey residential dwellings, with an integral garage, on each lot.
3The subject property is located on the north side of Maplehurst Avenue, northeast of Sheppard Avenue East and Willowdale Avenue. The property is designated Neighbourhoods and zoned RD (f15.0; 550) (x5) under the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and R4 under the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625.
4In attendance at the Hearing were:
Amber Stewart, legal counsel for the Owner/ Applicant, Expert Witness Franco Romano (Land Use Planning); and
Adam Ward, legal counsel for the Appellant, City of Toronto, Expert Witness Diana Steinberg (Land Use Planning).
5The applications are for consent to sever the existing lot at 342 Maplehurst Avenue into two lots and request the following variances for each of the two lots:
Part 1 List of Variances
1. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, 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: 1.8 m.
The proposed platform in the front yard is 0.91 m from the East property line.
2. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550 m2.
The proposed lot area is 401.72 m2.
3. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 m.
The proposed lot frontage is 10.97 m.
4. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area.
The proposed lot coverage is 37.0 % of the lot area.
5. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 10.0m.
6. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed East side yard setback is 0.76 m.
7. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed West side yard setback is 1.22 m.
8. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625
The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 m.
The proposed building height is 9.27 m.
Part 2 List of Variances
1. Chapter 10.5.80.40.(3), By-law No. 569-2013
Vehicle access to a parking space on a corner lot must be from a flanking street that is not a major street.
The proposed vehicle access to a parking space is from the front facing street.
2. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550 m2.
The proposed lot area is 449.67 m2.
3. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 m.
The proposed lot frontage is 10.92 m.
4. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area.
The proposed lot coverage is 33.1 % of the lot area.
5. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 10.0m.
6. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed West side yard setback is 1.22 m.
7. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed East side yard setback is 0.60 m.
8. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, 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: 1.8 m.
The proposed platform at the front of the dwelling is 0.9 m from the East property line.
9. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625,
The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 m.
The proposed building height is 9.37 m.
10. Section 6(30)a, By-law No. 7625,
The maximum finished first floor height is 1.5 m.
The proposed finished first floor height is 1.59 m.
6I advised, as per Council direction, that I had visited the site and surrounding neighbourhood and reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the Hearing, but that it was the evidence to be heard that was of importance.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
7Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
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’).
9Consent – S. 53
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. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
10Variance – 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
Evidence of Franco Romano
11Mr. Romano provided a description of the neighbourhood and policy context pertaining to the subject property, indicating that:
The site is unique because its existing lot area and frontage are greater than 94% of the properties in the broader context and 100% greater than the immediate context along Maplehurst and Wilfred Avenues;
It is on the edge of the neighbourhood and is opposite the People’s Church site to the east, which is designated Apartment Neighbourhoods in the OP;
It is north of Sheppard Avenue East with single detached residential properties opposite to the south, east and north; and,
The site is within the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan and at the edge of the Bayview Node, Area ‘A’ Key Development Area and is within 800m of the Bayview Subway Station.
12The geographic neighbourhood study area, consistent with the requirements of Official Plan Policy 4.1.5, consisted of 355 detached dwelling properties bounded by the interior of lands north of Sheppard Avenue East, east of Willowdale Avenue and west of Bayview Avenue with the north boundary being Hollywood Avenue, the northern border of the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan area.
13The lot frontages and sizes permitted by Zoning By-law 569-2013 include a mix and range. With frontages of 7.62m to 30.49m in the broader context area and 9.1m to 18.3m within the immediate context of Maplehurst Avenue. Lot areas range from 278.64m2 to 3948.38m2 within the broader context, and 334.4m2 to 637.6m2 within the immediate context. There is more than one prevailing lot frontage and size evident.
14The immediate geographic context differs from the broader context as the subject property is located at the edge of the neighbourhood, is surrounded by a range of built forms and properties, is adjacent to both the Wilfred Avenue collector road and is an irregularly shaped oversized lot which abuts two detached dwellings at the rear of the property.
15The proposed severance is in keeping with the Growth Plan objective of optimizing the use of existing urban land supply and making better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The location of the proposal, its unique location and lot size, lend itself to the proposal.
16The proposed lot and building for Part 1 are appropriately sized and sited to align with the property to the west and the variances associated with side yard setbacks, lot coverage and building height. The proposal is within the required length, depth, front and rear yard setback provisions of Zoning By-law 569-2013.
17The proposed lot and building for Part 2 include variances that are a result of the severance sought and the dimensions of the pie shaped property. The proposed building creates a “pinch” point at the southeast corner of the lot that results in the variance for 0.6m whereas 1.8m is required. Due to the pie shape of the property, as one moves to the rear of the proposed building for Part 2, the setback grows to 3.02m at the northeast corner.
18The site plan for Part 2 has the driveway relocated to Maplehurst Avenue, a local road, from Wilfred Avenue, a collector road, and this relocation is preferred and acceptable to Transportation Services.
19The existing lot frontage of the subject property was larger than 94% of the broader neighbourhood context and 100% of the immediate neighbourhood context. He noted further noted that the City Planners report indicated that the proposal may have been appropriate on the block further west because lots with smaller frontages were present. Mr. Romano indicated that these lots were on Maplehurst Avenue and within the immediate neighbourhood context and should therefore had been approved.
20In the analysis of 23 properties on the immediate neighbourhood he noted that 65% of the dwellings were two storeys in height with integral garages, 78% with lot coverages greater than the 30% coverage permitted, and 61% of dwellings had side yards smaller than the required 1.8m, and some with side yards were less than 1.2m.
21The proposal is consistent with Provincial interest and both the PPS and the Growth Plan as it proposes added residential intensification in a settlement area that is well serviced by transit and it satisfies the consent criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act (Exhibit #1, para.126-132).
22The subject property is located within the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan which encourages development that is supportive of rapid transit and the key development area. The proposal provides added density to the existing lot and residential dwellings that support the Secondary Plan.
23Referring to the Official Plan policies, Mr. Romano opined as follows:
Policy 2.3.3.1 – the proposal appropriately contributes to the area's existing built form and streetscape in keeping with the healthy neighbourhood objectives and that both quantitative and qualitative aspects of physical character;
Policy 3.1.3 – the proposal addresses site organization and location by providing a consistent setback and lot open space relationship, with those of neighbouring properties, facing the entrances onto the street, preserving existing trees, and proposed built form that ‘fits’ with existing built form and streetscape;
Policy 4.1.5 – the proposal respects and reinforces the general physical pattern of the neighbourhood and ‘fits’ its existing physical character. The policy does not direct duplication or creating the exact same built form but rather that new development must ‘fit’ into the neighbourhood.
24There is no one prevailing lot size in the neighbourhood as there is a range of housing types that are both larger and smaller than the proposed lots. Given the existing lot exceeds the size of the majority of the lots in the broader neighbourhood, the proposal will be brought closer in size to the neighbourhood. Policy 4.1.5 requires that new development be materially consistent with the physical character which is not only a quantitative exercise but also a qualitative one when considering compatibility within the neighbourhood.
25The subject property is within a unique location within the neighbourhood study area, at the eastern boundary of both the geographic and immediate neighbourhoods identified, but also within the western edge of the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan. It serves as a transitional property between the Secondary Plan area and the interior neighbourhood properties.
26In the review of previous COA decisions in relation to the neighbourhood and the variances being sought for the proposed lots (Exhibit #1, pgs. 375 – 377) he concluded that the variances being sought for Part 1 and Part 2, are within the order of magnitude of other COA decisions made with respect to the same variances and opined that they were minor in nature.
Evidence of Diana Steinberg
27Ms. Steinberg provided background on her planning experience and indicated that she was in the process of attaining her professional credentials in planning, and had previously appeared before the TLAB to provide land use planning evidence on behalf of the City. Having reviewed her curriculum vitae and experience before TLAB, I qualified her to provide land use planning evidence.
28She opined that the proposed severance does not meet the criteria for a consent as indicated in section 51(24), (c) and (f) of the Planning Act because it did not conform to the policies of the Official Plan and that the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are not appropriate. She also indicated that the consent and resulting lots do not satisfy the 4 tests as outline in section 45(1).
29The application does not conflict with the provincial policies in the Growth Plan and PPS, but they also indicate that local OP and Zoning By-laws are the vehicles by which to direct development into appropriate locations.
30The OP in policy 2.3.1 does indicate that neighbourhoods are stable but not static, but new development needs to respect and reinforce the physical character to ensure the stability of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, policy 4.1.5 does indicate that physical character is informed by the prevailing type, or most frequently occurring, in order to determine the appropriateness of new developments. The proposed severance and resulting lots and dwellings are not frequently occurring within the geographic or immediate neighbourhood.
31The proposed geographic neighbourhood study area utilized was generally consistent with Mr. Romano’s study area except for the inclusion of Elmwood Avenue as the northern boundary and included 473 properties.
32With respect to prevailing, or most frequently occurring, physical character regarding lot frontages, she stated that 316 lot frontages were 15m or greater, or approximately 67%. When considered with the lots 12m or greater, they account for 89% of the properties, which shows that most lot frontages are greater than what is proposed in the application (Exhibit 4, p.6).
33The proposed lot areas for Parts 1 and 2 are not consistent with the majority of the lots in the study area, where the prevailing lot size is 500m2 or greater—approximately 72% of lots. Neither of the lot areas proposed are a prevailing size in the broader neighbourhood and not found in substantial numbers within it.
34The proposed application, if approved, would result in lot frontages that only occurs on 11% of the properties and the lot areas proposed would only be represented by 25% of the lots in the broader geographic study area.
35Reviewing the immediate context, along the block on Maplehurst Avenue, neither the lot frontages nor the lot sizes of the proposed are present. The proposed frontages and lot sizes would be the smallest lots and lot frontages in the immediate context.
36Based on the analysis she undertook of the neighbourhood study area, the proposal does not meet the criteria of 51(24)(c) and (f) of the Planning Act because the resulting lot frontages, sizes and shapes are inappropriate.
37Furthermore, the application does not conform to the Official Plan policies outlined in policies 2.3.1 and 4.1.5 because the severance and variances result in lot sizes, lot frontages, setbacks and lot coverage that do not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood.
38When considered through policy 4.1.5, the proposal does not meet the definition of b) prevailing size, because the proposed lot sizes are not the most frequently occurring, especially in the immediate context.
39She indicated that the proposal did not address policy 4.1.5 c) because the proposed lot coverage and side wall height did not respect and reinforce the prevailing massing, height and scale found in the neighbourhood. The side main wall height variance impacts not only for the portion of the sidewall, but also the front elevation, as it presents as a flat roof from that elevation. Given that many dwellings on Maplehurst Avenue have sloped roof styles, the proposal does not respect or reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood.
40The massing and scale of the proposed lots is not appropriate as the lot coverage exceeds of 32%, which is a standard for the neighbourhood, illustrated in other COA, TLAB and Tribunal decisions for lots with comparable lot frontages (Exhibit 2, para. 65). The two proposed lots would exceed this standard and would be outliers and introduce a new standard for lot coverage in the neighbourhood.
41Applying policy 4.1.5 g), with respect to prevailing rear and side yard setbacks, the reduced setbacks for both proposed lots would not be consistent with those found on Maplehurst Avenue. The resulting corner lot (Part 2) requires a side yard setback variance due to a “pinch point” at the southeast corner on the pie shaped lot. Even though as one moves northward the sideyard increase to 3.0m at the rear of the proposed dwelling, its close proximity at the corner would impact the streetscape because it is closer to the street.
42The proposed severed lots do not meet the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law because the lot frontages and lot areas are smaller than what is present in the neighbourhood. The proposed lot coverages of 33% and 37% for each lot exceeds the zoning permissions and the lot coverages approved through variances for other new development the neighbourhood.
43She indicated the variances were not minor because they would be noticeably uncharacteristic for the neighbourhood and the cumulative impact of the proposed variances would not be a minor deviation from the Zoning By-Law.
44The proposed severance and resulting lots do not represent the desirable use and development of the land because the proposed development fails to have regard for numerous policies that address the suitability and desirability of a new development. The proposal does not respect and reinforce the existing physical pattern of the neighbourhood and will erode its stability.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
45I have carefully considered the evidence presented during the two days of the Hearing and although both expert witnesses’ positions were well presented, the evidence by Mr. Romano was preferred because of its more thorough review of planning policy applicable to the subject property, but also the balance of quantitative and qualitative analysis of the zoning requirements and the neighbourhood area. Mr. Romano not only considered the subject property through Official Plan policies, the Zoning By-law performance standards and a numerical analysis, but also touched on other policy directives applicable to the subject property in the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan.
46Ms. Steinberg’s evidence was more narrowly focused on the Official Plan policies with respect to prevailing physical character as outlined in policy 4.5.1 and a strict numerical analysis of the broader and immediate neighbourhood context to determine what was prevailing or most frequently occurring and to assess the application’s appropriateness in terms of lot frontage and lot area. The strict numerical analysis seems to have been the key determinant of whether the proposal met the tests and criteria of sections 45(1) and 51(24) of the Planning Act and Official Plan policies with respect and reinforcing the physical character of the neighbourhood. There was little discussion of the qualitative aspects of the neighbourhood with respect to ‘fit’ and compatibility of the proposal. In her analysis, if the proposal was not in keeping with the numerical analysis, then it would not be reflective of the physical character of the area.
47Both expert witnesses agreed that the proposal conformed to the policies and directives of the Growth Plan and was consistent with the PPS which speak to optimizing the use of existing urban land supply and making better uses of existing infrastructure and public service facilities.
48There was a lot of emphasis on the property being located within the Neighbourhoods designation during Mr. Ward’s cross-examination of Mr. Romano and in Ms. Steinberg’s evidence. There was no discussion, however, on how site specific aspects of the subject property and its surrounding context may influence the redevelopment and intensification of the site, especially given its location at the edge of the neighbourhood study area and proximity to Bayview Station.
49Mr. Ward submitted that the Official Plan directed intensification to centres and corridors and away from Neighbourhoods. This is a strict interpretation of where added intensification can and cannot occur.
50Mr. Romano did mention that the severance would provide gentle intensification which is appropriate given the subject property location. This is very modest intensification and is not the type of major or significant intensification that the Official Plan envisions for centres and corridors in the city.
51The property is unique within the Neighbourhoods designation as it is also located within the boundary of Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan within the Bayview Node. Section 4.2 states that:
The Bayview subway station will be a residential development node providing opportunities for new residential uses with a mix and range of housing types…New development will be focused at locations which are readily accessible to the Bayview subway station, including:
d) on the lands designated Mixed Use Areas, Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods northwest of Bayview and Sheppard Avenues…
(emphasis added)
The Secondary Plan does envision new development within the Bayview node, and this includes the residential areas in Neighbourhoods that are within short distances of the subway station.
52The site is located at a corner at the edge of both the geographic neighbourhood and immediate context study areas that were identified by both Mr. Romano and Ms. Steinberg in their analysis. It is evident from both the range of land use designations that abut and are in close proximity to the subject property, the variety of residential lot sizes in the immediate context, its adjacency to the Wilfred Avenue collector road, and the neighbourhood apartment designated People’s Church site immediately to the east, that this lot is unique when compared to the majority of the lots in the geographic neighbourhood.
53All these interfaces have an impact and suggest that the subject property should be further considered in lieu of its specific context. Apart from 17 Wilfred Avenue and 341 Maplehurst Avenue, the rest of the lots within the neighbourhood do not share this context or interface. Relying solely on the application of numerical data to determine the appropriateness of the consent to sever the subject property completely ignores the qualitative aspects of the surrounding context that must also be considered in the assessment of the 4 tests in 45(1) and the criteria as set out section 51(24) of the Planning Act. Furthermore, the Official Plan does note in policy 4.1.5, that:
Any impacts (such as overview, shadowing, traffic generation, etc.) of adjacent, more intensive development in another land use designation, but not merely its presence or physical characteristics, may also be considered when assessing the appropriateness of the proposed development.
Given the context, the unique location of the subject property, and its adjacency to the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation to the east, the proposed severance and resulting dwellings will be materially consistent with the physical character of the neighbourhood.
54The variance with respect to sidewall, for both Parts 1 and 2, is 10.0m, whereas 7.5m is permitted. This is due to the architectural feature at the front of the house which is a 2.29m portion of the side elevation while the remaining 15.29m is at a height of 7.8m or 7.98m for both Parts 1 and 2. This is indeed minor and meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
55The height variance from the North York By-law for both Parts 1 and 2, is to permit heights of 9.27m and 9.37m whereas 8.8m is permitted. This variance is also minor and as Mr. Romano explained heights both within the immediate and broader neighbourhood context were varied with some less than the variance sought and others greater.
56I am satisfied that the proposed height is in keeping with the those found in the neighbourhood.
57Part 2 driveway has been relocated to Maplehurst Avenue, a local road, from Wilfred Avenue, a collector road and this relocation is preferred and acceptable to Transportation Services.
58The City staff report states “Staff also note that lots with smaller frontages are more common on the block immediately west of the subject block west of Maplehurst Park. As such, a similar type of consent may be appropriate on the block immediately west of the subject block considering the character of this block significantly differs from the immediate context of the subject property.” I do not find this statement to be compelling given that the block noted is immediately to the west and is material to the Maplehurst Avenue streetscape. It suggests that there are properties present within a very short distance that have smaller lot frontages than the application yet they do not have the destabilizing effect on the neighbourhood. Furthermore, lots just opposite on the east side of Wilfred Avenue include lots that have a frontage of less than 9m. Both of these clusters totalling 7 (seven) properties, are indicated in the excerpt below and illustrate that they are materially within the immediate context.
59The existing subject property, its size and pie-shaped configuration all point to an atypical lot for both the immediate and broader neighbourhood and in its existing condition is an outlier when the surrounding neighbourhood is considered. Although Ms. Steinberg opined that the proposed lot severance and resulting lots are not in keeping with the physical character of the neighbourhood, it is also clear from Mr. Romano’s evidence that the existing property is also not in keeping with the physical character, as it is larger in area and frontage of more than 94% of all properties in his geographic neighbourhood study area.
60Ms. Steinberg indicated in her evidence that approving the severance and the lot frontage and lot sizes that would result would have a destabilizing impact on the neighbourhood and its physical character. During Ms. Stewart’s cross-examination, she did indicate that lots with smaller lot frontages and lot sizes further west on Maplehurst Avenue, on the block to the west of the subject property block, was not problematic.
61There was no further evidence given that would suggest that the neighbourhood would be destabilized other that the lot frontage and size would be less than what she identified numerically as being the prevailing lot frontage and size. Given the photographic evidence, that there were numerous smaller lots along Maplehurst Avenue and on Wilfred Avenue, opposite the subject property there was no sense that the existing smaller lots destabilized the neighbourhood but rather, expressed the existing condition of various sized lots and frontages that ‘fit’ within the neighbourhood context.
62The application of the most frequently occurring or prevailing lot type to the subject property, that is larger than 94% of all other lots in the geographic neighbourhood and the largest in the immediate neighbourhood context, is not entirely appropriate. The subject property itself not fitting into any of the prevailing lot types or sizes suggests that one must consider the proposal on it own merits within its context. The broader neighbourhood provides us with some reference but cannot be considered directly applicable. The immediate neighbourhood context provides a more appropriate physical character on which to consider the proposal. When the more immediate context of the Maplehurst Avenue blocks and the Wilfred Avenue edges and existing built form are considered, the proposed severance and resulting lots/built form suggest an appropriate redevelopment of the subject property that respects and reinforces the neighbourhood physical character.
OFFICIAL PLAN
63Both expert witnesses provided an analysis of applicable Official Plan policy, including OP Policies 2.3.1 with respect to neighbourhood physical character, 3.1.2 with respect to built form, and 4.1.5 with respect to development criteria within established Neighbourhoods. Although these policies provide specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods, additional evidence provided by Mr. Romano with respect to the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan illustrated the unique context and location of the subject property.
64Using a strictly quantitative analysis in determining physical character and ‘fit’ removes the importance of context and the evaluation of site specific attributes and adjacent interfaces that are also key components in determining whether a proposed new development respects and reinforces the physical character of the neighbourhood. Determining appropriateness of a proposed development in a neighbourhood must be informed by both a quantitative and qualitative analysis, especially when considering the atypical lot at the edge of a neighbourhood study area.
65Based on the analysis of the neighbourhood, specifically Maplehurst and Wilfred Avenues, photographic evidence provided, and records of previous COA approvals for the variances sought, I am satisfied that the proposed lot area and coverage, frontage, and side yard setbacks of the resulting lots, respect and reinforce the physical character of both the neighbourhood and immediate context.
66I am satisfied that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
ZONING BY-LAW
67Mr. Romano provided evidence of approvals for similar lot severances that resulted in lot area sizes, reduced frontages, and increased lot coverage in both the immediate and geographic neighbourhood. His analysis of the immediate neighbourhood indicated that the majority of the existing dwellings on Maplehurst Avenue were not compliant with the coverage and side yard setback provisions of the Zoning By-law.
68The proposal does not require any front or rear yard setback variances and it was demonstrated that the proposed residential dwellings would align with neighbouring built form and ‘fit’ within the context and neighbourhood.
69I am satisfied that the proposed variances for lot frontage, lot area, lot coverage, side yard setbacks, side exterior wall and building heights maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND
70There are no undue adverse impacts of a planning nature from the proposal. It is compatible with the immediate neighbourhood, adjacent dwellings, and context at the edge of the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale, number of storeys, and physical character.
71Based on the above findings, the proposal is desirable for the development of the land. It provides for a modest intensification of the subject property and results in a proposal that appropriately addresses its relationship to the adjacent properties and street and fits into its context.
CONCLUSION
72Based on the above analysis, I find that the consent to sever the lot meets the criteria as outlined in 51(24) and the variances sought, individually and cumulatively, meet the four tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
73The appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision is dismissed. The consent to sever, set out in Appendix ‘A’, is granted and the variances for Part 1 and Part 2, set out in Appendix ‘B’, are authorized subject to the conditions contained therein.
J. Tassiopoulos
Panel Member
APPENDIX ‘A’ – CONSENT- 342 Maplehurst Avenue
THE CONSENT REQUESTED:
To obtain consent to sever the lot into two residential lots and construct two new dwellings.
Conveyed- Part 2
The lot frontage will be 10.92m and the lot area will be 449.67m². The existing dwelling
will be demolished and the property will be developed as a new detached dwelling with
an attached garage.
Retained - Part 1
The lot frontage will be 10.97m and the lot area will be 401.72m². The existing dwelling
will be demolished and the property will be developed as a new detached dwelling with
an attached garage.
Consent Conditions
The Consent Application is approved on Condition.
The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB therefore consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, the applicant is to fulfill the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment:
(1) 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 as outlined in Condition 6.
(2) Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) The applicant shall, to the satisfaction of Heritage Preservation Services:
a. Retain a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O 1990 as amended) to carry out a Stage 1- 2 archaeological assessment of the entire development property and follow through on recommendations to mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. The assessment is to be completed in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.
b. Should the archaeological assessment process continue beyond a Stage 1-2 assessment, any recommendations for Stage 3 or Stage 4 mitigation strategies must be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning prior to commencement of the site mitigation.
c. The consultant archaeologist shall submit a copy of the relevant assessment report(s) to the Heritage Planning Unit as an Acrobat PDF file. All archaeological assessment reports will be submitted to the City of Toronto for approval concurrent with their submission to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.
d. No demolition, construction, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the City’s Planning Division (Heritage Planning Unit) and the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Archaeology Programs Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.
(7) Once all 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.
(8) Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.
APPENDIX ‘B’ – VARIANCES - 342 Maplehurst Avenue
Part 1 List of Variances
1. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, 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: 1.8 m.
The proposed platform in the front yard is 0.91 m from the East property line.
2. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550 m2.
The proposed lot area is 401.72 m2.
3. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 m.
The proposed lot frontage is 10.97 m.
4. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area.
The proposed lot coverage is 37.0 % of the lot area.
5. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 10.0m.
6. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed East side yard setback is 0.76 m.
7. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed West side yard setback is 1.22 m.
8. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625
The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 m.
The proposed building height is 9.27 m.
Part 2 List of Variances
1. Chapter 10.5.80.40.(3), By-law No. 569-2013
Vehicle access to a parking space on a corner lot must be from a flanking street that is not a major street.
The proposed vehicle access to a parking space is from the front facing street.
2. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550 m2.
The proposed lot area is 449.67 m2.
3. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 m.
The proposed lot frontage is 10.92 m.
4. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30 % of the lot area.
The proposed lot coverage is 33.1 % of the lot area.
5. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 10.0m.
6. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed West side yard setback is 1.22 m.
7. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m.
The proposed East side yard setback is 0.60 m.
8. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, 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: 1.8 m.
The proposed platform at the front of the dwelling is 0.9 m from the East property line.
9. Section 13.2.6, By-law No. 7625,
The maximum permitted building height is 8.8 m.
The proposed building height is 9.37 m.
10. Section 6(30)a, By-law No. 7625,
The maximum finished first floor height is 1.5 m.
The proposed finished first floor height is 1.59 m.
Variance Conditions
(1) The proposed dwellings shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by S Architects Inc., dated May 12, 2022, and attached as Appendix ‘C’, herein:
i) Part 1:
Site Plan (A1)
Front Elevation (A6)
Rear Elevation (A7)
East Side Elevation (A8)
West Side Elevation (A9)
ii) Part 2:
Site Plan (A1)
Front Elevation (A6)
Rear Elevation (A7)
East Side Elevation (A8)
West Side Elevation (A9)
Any other variances that may appear on these plans, which are not listed in this decision, are NOT authorized.
(2) Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree(s), asper City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.
(3) Where there is no street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the sites involved in the applications. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.
(4) 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. Show and label the footprint of the existing house and driveway. Label any portion of driveway to be removed within the right-of-way as to be restored with sod;
c. The site plan and ground floor plan must be revised to clearly indicate the restoration of the redundant portion of the former driveway with sod and raised concrete curb, which shall be designed to municipal standards;
ii. Add the following notations to the revised Site Plan drawings:
a. “The applicant is required to restore any redundant section of the existing driveway that is being closed with sod and a poured raised concrete curb within the municipal boulevard according to City of Toronto Design Standard";
b. "The proposed new driveways shall be constructed to the applicable City of Toronto Design Standards at no cost to the municipality";
c. "The applicant shall also submit a Municipal Road Damage Deposit (MRDD) prior to obtaining a building permit." The applicant is advised to contact Anna Guan of our Right -of-Way Management Section at (416) 395-7456 regarding municipal road damage deposit requirements;
d. "The applicant shall obtain the necessary authorizations and permits from the City's Right-of-Way Management Section of the Transportation Services before excavating within or encroaching into the municipal road allowance".