Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
23 201390 S45 11 TLAB
Roxborough Tree Inc. (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 220
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: April 29, 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): ROXBOROUGH TREE INC
Applicant(s): ASEN VITKO ARCHITECT INC
Property Address: 142 ROXBOROUGH ST W
COA File No.: 23 169668 STE 11 MV (A0596/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 23 201390 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 16, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: January 2, 2024
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Roxborough Tree Inc | M. Mazierski |
| Applicant | Asen Vitko Architect Inc | |
| Party (TLAB) | G. Thomas | |
| Party (TLAB) | ABC Residents Association | C. Kapelos |
| Participant | O. Katz | |
| Participant | L. Morris | |
| Participant | B. Langille | |
| Participant | H. Loeppky | |
| Participant | B. Liu | |
| Participant | B. Tangney | |
| Expert Witness | S. Qi | |
| Expert Witness | G. Uens |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal from a decision the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances to construct a new two-storey ancillary building (for three parking spaces and one laneway suite), with a front second storey balcony. The building is to be located in the rear yard, abutting the laneway. As a result of discussions with a number of parties in opposition, a settlement was reached with those parties. The terms of the settlement resulted in revised variances and revised plans. The revised plans are attached as Appendix 1 and the revised variances are as follows:
Despite regulation 10.5.50.10 (3), for a lot with a residential building and an ancillary building containing a laneway suite the area between the ancillary building containing a laneway suite and the lot line abutting a lane, excluding a permitted driveway, and a pedestrian walkway which may have a maximum width of 1.5 metres, must be landscaping, of which a minimum of 75 percent must be soft landscaping, in this case 11.85 square metres. The proposed soft landscaping in the area between the laneway and the laneway suite is 66 percent, 10.38 square metres. [150.8.50.10 (1) Landscaping Requirements for a Laneway Suite]
Despite regulation 10.5.50.10 (3), for a lot with a residential building and an ancillary building containing a laneway suite with a lot frontage of greater than 6.0 metres, a minimum of 85 percent of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite must be for soft landscaping, excluding a pedestrian walkway which may have a maximum width of 1.5 metres, 82.76 square metres in this case. The proposed soft landscaping between the main residential building and the laneway suite is 76 percent; 74.4 square metres. [150.8.50.10 (1) Landscaping Requirements for a Laneway Suite]
The permitted maximum building width of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite is 8.0 metres. The proposed laneway suite will have a width of 9.98 metres. [150.8.60.30 (6) Maximum Width of a Laneway Suite]
2The revisions to the plans and variances result in increased side yard setbacks for the ancillary building, the frosting of windows and removal of the balcony all of which reduced the impact of the structure and in particular its impact on the privacy of neighbouring property owners. The settlement also provides for the conditions set out in Appendix 2 to be imposed by TLAB to ensure that the terms of the settlement are carried out.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
3Provincial 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.
4Provincial 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.
5Variance – 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
6The evidence in support of the variances was presented by a qualified expert in land use planning, Craig Uens, who had played a lead role in drafting the City’s laneway suites bylaw. His uncontradicted land use planning evidence set out in his witness statement was that the proposal met all relevant provincial requirements and the four tests of the Planning Act.
7The only evidence in opposition was that of immediate neighbours to the east and neighbours on the opposite side of the lane. They were concerned that their privacy would be negatively impacted and that the proposal projected into the laneway as there was no proper survey upon which the site plan was based.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
8Having heard and considered the evidence of those in opposition and the land use planner in favour of the appeal and settlement, I find that the proposal meets provincial requirements and the four tests of the Planning Act. The proposal meets provincial goals of intensification and meets the general intent of the Official Plan, secondary plan, and zoning bylaw as it fits along a lane with numerous ancillary buildings. The variances are minor in that the building will have no adverse impact on privacy as a result of the removal of the balcony, the frosting of the widows as agreed to as conditions of approval and the lack of windows on the west side of the suite. The site will not be overdeveloped as a result of an increase in the building’s setbacks and the landscaping will be adequate. The only concern raised by those in opposition and not addressed at the hearing is whether the site plan is based on a valid survey and thus whether the proposal makes use of lands that are part of the public lane. As a result of this concern, I find that an additional condition should be imposed: prior to the issuing of a building permit the applicant must submit a site plan based on an up-to-date survey to ensure the site plan is accurate.
CONCLUSION
9The appeal should be allowed and the variances set out above should approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2.
DECISION AND ORDER
10The appeal is allowed and the variances in Appendix 3 are hereby approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and 2.
S. Makuch
Panel Member
Appendix 1
Revised plans by Arsen Vitko Achitects Inc., dated December 22, 22, 2023
Appendix 2
Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall construct the proposed dwelling substantially in accordance with the Site Plan and Elevations prepared by Arsen Vitko Architects Inc. dated December 22, 2023 (the “Revised Plans”).
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit a complete application for a permit to injure or remove privately owned tree(s), as per the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III.
There shall be no balconies, platforms, sundecks, porches, decks or exterior stairs off the south main wall of the laneway suite, as shown on the Revised Plans.
The area of the side yard setbacks of the laneway suite shall be maintained as soft landscaping.
The green roof shall be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with all applicable Toronto Green Roof Standards, practices and by-laws, as amended, and as proposed in the Revised Plans.
Following completion of construction, but prior to final approval, the Applicant shall plant a tree in the rear yard of the Property of a similar size, species and variety as the existing two trees in the rear yard of the Property.
The proposed driveways shall be constructed with permeable pavers, as shown in the Revised Plans.
Solid opaque frosting shall be placed and maintained on at least the lower half of the height of the windows on the south main wall of the laneway suite, as shown on the Revised Plans. No other windows are to be placed on the south main wall of the laneway suite other than those shown on the Revised Plans.
Solid opaque frosting shall be placed on and maintained on the lower part of the windows on the north main wall of the laneway suite, for at least one half of the height of the windows, as shown on the Revised plans.
No other windows are to be placed on the north main wall of the laneway suite other than those shown on the Revised Plans.
Prior to the issuing of a building permit the applicant must submit a site plan based on an up-to-date survey to ensure the site plan is accurate.
Appendix 3
Approved Variances
Despite regulation 10.5.50.10 (3), for a lot with a residential building and an ancillary building containing a laneway suite the area between the ancillary building containing a laneway suite and the lot line abutting a lane, excluding a permitted driveway, and a pedestrian walkway which may have a maximum width of 1.5 metres, must be landscaping, of which a minimum of 75 percent must be soft landscaping, in this case 11.85 square metres. The proposed soft landscaping in the area between the laneway and the laneway suite is 66 percent, 10.38 square metres. [150.8.50.10 (1) Landscaping Requirements for a Laneway Suite]
Despite regulation 10.5.50.10 (3), for a lot with a residential building and an ancillary building containing a laneway suite with a lot frontage of greater than 6.0 metres, a minimum of 85 percent of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite must be for soft landscaping, excluding a pedestrian walkway which may have a maximum width of 1.5 metres, 82.76 square metres in this case. The proposed soft landscaping between the main residential building and the laneway suite is 76 percent; 74.4 square metres. [150.8.50.10 (1) Landscaping Requirements for a Laneway Suite]
The permitted maximum building width of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite is 8.0 metres. The proposed laneway suite will have a width of 9.98 metres. [150.8.60.30 (6) Maximum Width of a Laneway Suite]