Paisley (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 210

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-04-03

23 175887 S45 12 TLAB

Paisley (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 210

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: April 3, 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):

M. PAISLEY

Applicant(s):

WALKER NOTT DRAGICIEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED WND ASSOCIATES LTD

Property Address:

239 Russell Hill Rd

COA File No.:

23 131627 STE 12 MV (A0363/23TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

23 175887 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

January 25, 2024

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

October 19, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

Walker Nott Dragicievic Associates Limited WND Associates LTD

Appellant

M. Paisley

Participant

B. Rubin

Expert Witness

S. McGaffey

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an appeal from the Committee of Adjustment, respecting the variances to permit the construction a new circular driveway and to maintain a front yard parking pad as previously approved. Three variances related to landscaping, required to permit the driveway and parking pad, were refused by the Committee. There were two participants in opposition to approval of the variances. They were opposed to the parking pad and wished the plan for the driveway and pad to be revised so as to remove the pad and have it replaced by a widened portion of the driveway so a vehicle could pass a vehicle stopped in the widened portion. There was much discussion between the parties as to the size and shape and location of the pad/ wider portion as the hearing had been adjourned previously to permit settlement discussions. Changes were made to the driveway which altered its shape and increased the landscape area of the front yard. The opponents, however remained unsatisfied with the proposal.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

2A 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.

3In 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

4Expert evidence, given by a land use planner, was that the plan as finally proposed by the proponent met the tests of the Planning Act and that the shape of the driveway was necessary to enable a vehicle to pass a parked vehicle and to enhance the landscaping along the street edge.

That plan is attached as Schedule 1. The opponents were not satisfied and wished a further limitation in the size of the widened portion. The planners evidence was that this was not possible. There was no issue of whether the proposed driveway parking area met provincial requirements. In the planner’s opinion the variances as revised and attached as Schedule 2 were good planning and met the four tests of the Planning Act

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

5The issue was whether there was a sufficient change in the widened portion of the driveway. I find the proponents changed the plan as much as possible to allow for vehicles to pass and to maintain landscaping at the street edge. The plan and variances finally proposed by the proponents’ planner meet the four tests of the Planning Act because they respect and reinforce the character of the area by enhancing landscaping along the street edge, and because front yard parking and circular driveways are found on the street and have no adverse impact on neighbouring property.

CONCLUSION

6The appeal should be allowed and the variances in Schedule 2 should be approved on condition that the construction in the front yard be substantially in accordance with the site plan in Schedule 1 and subject to any requirements imposed by the Urban Forestry Department of the City.

DECISION AND ORDER

7The appeal is allowed and the variances in Schedule 2 are hereby approved on condition that the construction in the front yard is substantially in accordance with the site plan in Schedule 1 and subject to any requirements imposed by the Urban Forestry Department of the City

Schedule 1

Schedule 2

List of Variances

1. Regulation 10.5.50.10(1)(D), By-law 569-2013

a. A minimum of 75% (101.8 sq.m.) of the required front yard landscaped open space shall be in the form of soft landscaping.

b. The Revised Proposal provides 69% (93.5 sq.m.) of the required front yard landscaped open space as soft landscaping.

2. Regulation 10.5.100.1 (6), By-law 569-2013

a. A minimum of 60% (135.8 sq.m.) of the front yard is required to be landscaping, of which a minimum of 75% (101.8 sq.m.) must be soft landscaping.

b. The Revised Proposal provides for 55% (124.6 sq.m.) of the front yard as landscaping, of which 69% (93.5 sq.m.) will be soft landscaping.

3. Regulation 10.5.50.10 (1)(C), By-law 569-2013

a. A minimum of 60% (135.8 sq.m.) of the front yard is required to be landscaping.

b. The Revised Proposal provides for 55% (124.6 sq.m.) of landscaping within the front yard.

S. Makuch

Panel Member