Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
March 27, 2024
23 198501 S45 04 TLAB
Toronto (City) v 2512026 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONTLAB 207
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
March 27, 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):
CITY OF TORONTO
Applicant(s):
BAUKULTUR CA INC.
Property Address:
2639 R DUNDAS ST W
COA File No.:
23 160739 STE 04 MV (A0555/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 198501 S45 04 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
March 19, 2024
Decision Delivered By:
Vice Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
City of Toronto
M. Lafortune
Applicant
Baukultur Ca Inc
Party (TLAB)
2512026 Ontario Inc
M. Kemerer
Expert Witness
F. Romano
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) approval, with conditions, of an application for variances for the property known as 2639R Dundas St W (subject property).
2I advised those present at the Hearing that I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation of the hearing of their evidence.
3The purpose of the application is to renovate and alter the existing residential building to permit a four-unit residential building.
4The subject property is located in the High Park North neighbourhood of the former City of Toronto. It is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned R (d0.6)(x737) under City Wide Zoning By-law 569- 2013.
5The City of Toronto (the City) appealed the COA decision, and is the only Party other than the Applicant.
6This matter came before me as a settlement of the issues between the two Parties.
7Revised Variances
- [10.5.100.1.(3) Driveway Width for Triplex, Fourplex and Certain Types of Townhouse]
(B) For a triplex or fourplex, and for a townhouse if an individual private driveway does not lead directly to an individual dwelling unit, a driveway may be a maximum of 6.0 metres wide.
The proposed driveway is 6.8 metres wide.
- [10.10.40.10.(1) Maximum Height]
(A) The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 11.0 metres.
The proposed height of the fourplex is 13.1 metres.
- [10.10.40.10.(2) Maximum Height of Specified Pairs of Main Walls]
(A) The permitted maximum height for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall is 8.5 metres.
The proposed height of the 60% of the side main wall is 10.72 metres and the remaining 40% has a height of 13.1 metres.
7A note from the Zoning Examiner, contained in the Zoning By-law Notice, added a caution that the identified variances are based on an expectation that the renovation qualifies as an “addition”, but that if more than 50% of the existing exterior elements are removed, the building will not longer qualify as such.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
8Provincial 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.
9Provincial 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 (Growth Plan) for the subject area.
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
11Mr. Romano was qualified as an Expert in land use planning and provided evidence in support of the settlement.
12Mr. Romano provided context for the settlement as follows:
The proposal is an addition and renovation to convert an existing duplex into a fourplex.
The property has no access onto a public street. It gains access via a public laneway, which is a situation that occurs in a number of instances in the neighbourhood.
There is no “front”, in Zoning terms, because the property has no access to a public street. In this situation, all four lot lines are considered side lot lines with a 0.9m setback.
The subject property abuts 2639 Dundas St W, which fronts onto Dundas St W, where an eight storey condominium building is currently under construction.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
13This is an uncontested Hearing for the purposes of approving a revised set of variances that have been agreed to by the Parties as part of a settlement of the issues between them. In the interest of consensual resolution of disputes, deference will be given to a settlement provided that the joint submission falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.
14Any findings of fact are for the limited purpose of ensuring that the settlement is not contrary to the Planning Act. As a settlement, this case has no precedential or referential value.
15I accept Mr. Romano’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area.
OFFICIAL PLAN
16Mr. Romano reviewed the applicable Official Plan policies and concluded that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
17Official Plan Amendment 649 amended the Official Plan to add Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (SASP 826) for all lands designated Neighborhoods.
18SASP 826 permits multiplexes in Neighbourhoods, despite OP Policy 4.1.51, subject to the following policies:
…b) Development of multiplexes:
(i) Will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:
a) Patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;
b) Prevailing size and configuration of lots;
c) Prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;
d) Maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard setbacks that is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy;
e) Conserving heritage properties and heritage conservation districts;
f) Special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood.
(ii) Is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit that contains multiple bedrooms;
(iii) Will provide entrances that are safely accessible from the street, which may be located at the front, side or rear of the building;
(iv) Should not result in the injury or removal of a healthy tree protected under Municipal Code….
(v) Is encouraged to salvage and/or reuse existing building materials and/or foundations;
(vi) Is encouraged to provide green roof areas, solar panels, and low carbon building materials and to ensure any parking spaces are designed to permit future electric vehicle supply equipment;
(vii) Will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units;
(viii) Will integrate with existing grades at the property line; and
(ix) Is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a multiplex.
19The proposal will not alter the conditions described in a), b),c), e), and f) listed in criteria b)(i) of SASP 826.
20In reference to b)(i)d), the maximization of soft landscaping within the front and rear yard setbacks is achieved, according to Mr. Romano’s evidence, in a proposed landscaping plan that shows new trees proposed within the north and south landscape areas on the subject property.
21The landscape plan includes a row of Tuija trees along the south lot line in a manner consistent with a commitment to the abutting neighbour.
22To secure this commitment, the landscape plan will be added to the standard TLAB condition that the variances be approved subject to construction substantially in accordance with listed drawings.
23Mr. Romano’s evidence supports the proposal as follows:
The proposal incorporates large units, each consisting of three bedrooms. (Section b)(ii)).
Each unit has separate entrances. (Section b)(iii)).
There are no regulated tree injuries or removals planned. (Section b)(iv)).
The existing walls and foundations are being used. (Section b)(v)).
The roof will be designed to accommodate solar panels and the parking spaces will be designed to facilitate future electric vehicles supply equipment. (Section b)(vi)).
Privacy screening will be installed on the upper platform and there are appropriate setbacks. In addition, landscaping will screen the abutting neighbour at 26 Brad St. (Section b)(vii) and (ix)).
The proposal maintains existing grades. (Section b)(viii)).
24I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
ZONING BY-LAW
Variance for Height
25Mr. Romano testified that, in his opinion, the proposed variances are compatible with the form of development in the existing neighbourhood.
26Most of the proposed multiplex is shorter than the permitted maximum building height. The proposed multiplex building has a building height of 9.77m to the top of the main roof, 10.72m to the top of the parapet, and 13.1m to the top of the rooftop access bump-ups which are centrally located within the building footprint.
27The building height variance is mitigated by the design which incorporates substantial setbacks to property lines, step-backs from the building footprint and a centrally located position for the tallest component.
28I find that the proposal maintains a low-rise scale and mass that is compatible and appropriate.
Side Main Wall Height
29The tallest component is the rooftop access (see drawing A-104 attached). Although the wall height provision applies to this component, its impact is mitigated by its location central to the building footprint.
30It was Mr. Romano’s evidence that the general intent and purpose of the side main wall height provision is to minimize the extent to which walls may rise to create inappropriate upper levels.
31Having considered the surrounding planning and building context and the proposed design which mitigates potential impact, I find that the general intent and purpose of the side wall height provision is maintained.
32Construction in accordance with this roof configuration will be secured through the addition of the roof plan drawing to the standard TLAB condition that the variances be approved subject to construction substantially in accordance with the listed drawings.
Driveway Width
33The two middle dwelling units will have a combined driveway width of 6.8m, which triggers the variance. The outside two dwelling units have driveway widths of approximately 3.2m, where no variance is required.
34Mr. Romano’s evidence was that the general intent and purpose of the driveway width zoning standard is to ensure that adequate and suitable vehicular access is provided, and to minimize the driveway for the dwelling unit(s).
35I find that the proposal accommodates appropriate and suitable vehicular access and an appropriate width given the site conditions.
36I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
MINOR AND DESIRABLE
37No potential adverse impacts of a planning nature were raised at the Hearing.
38The proposal reflects an adaptive reuse of an existing structure and is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
39The proposal will contribute to the mix of housing choices in a complementary way.
40I find that the proposal is minor and desirable for the development of the land.
NOTICE
41There has been a significant reduction in the number of variances, largely on the basis that the proposal is now considered as an addition and renovation and not a “new build”.
42I find that the deletion of variances that were previously approved by the COA to be appropriate in the circumstances of an addition/renovation. I therefore find that this change to the list of requested variances requires no further notice in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.
CONCLUSION
43The proposal, as revised, is compatible with the neighbourhood and will provide needed housing in a form that is desirable and consistent with the goals of the Official Plan and the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
44I find that the proposed settlement is not contrary to the Planning Act and is within the range of reasonable outcomes.
DECISION AND ORDER
45The Appeal is allowed in part.
46The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.
A. Bassios
Panel Member
APPENDIX A
APPROVED VARIANCES:
- [10.5.100.1.(3) Driveway Width for Triplex, Fourplex and Certain Types of Townhouse]
(B) For a triplex or fourplex, and for a townhouse if an individual private driveway does not lead directly to an individual dwelling unit, a driveway may be a maximum of 6.0 metres wide.
The proposed driveway is 6.8 metres wide.
- [10.10.40.10.(1) Maximum Height]
(A) The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 11.0 metres.
The proposed height of the fourplex is 13.1 metres.
- [10.10.40.10.(2) Maximum Height of Specified Pairs of Main Walls]
(A) The permitted maximum height for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall is 8.5 metres.
The proposed height of the 60% of the side main wall is 10.72 metres and the remaining 40% has a height of 13.1 metres.
CONDITIONS:
- The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings labelled “issued for TLAB March 19, 2024” and attached hereto:
Architectural Site Plan (AS-001),
Landscaping Plan (AS-002)
Roof Access Plan (AS-104),
Elevations South (A-201),
Elevations North (A-202),
Elevations West (A-203),
Elevations East (A-204),
The applicant/owner shall submit a complete application for permit to injure or remove privately owned tree(s) under Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III, Private Tree Protection, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, Toronto and East York District.
No balconies shall be constructed on the rear (south facing) wall of the new townhouse development.
The applicant/owner shall plant white cedar trees (Thuja trees) with a minimum height of 3.04 m along the south property line of the subject property.
Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized.
Any variances that may be required as a result of a determination that the proposal no longer qualifies as an addition and renovation are NOT authorized.