Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2024-05-08
23 238621 S45 16 TLAB
English Lane Homes Inc. (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 224
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
May 08, 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):
ENGLISH LANE HOMES INC
Applicant(s):
ENGLISH LANE HOMES INC
Property Address:
200 David Dunlap Crcl
COA File No.:
23 206875 NNY 16 MV (A0509/23NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 238621 S45 16 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
May 6, 2024
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
English Lane Homes Inc.
Appellant's Legal Rep.
D. Bronskill
Expert Witness
F. Romano
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1English Lane Homes Inc. (the “Appellant”) is the owner of a parcel of land municipally known as 200 David Dunlap Circle (the “Property”).
2David Dunlap Circle is a circular public highway that forms part of a 4.5 hectare (11 acre) comprehensive residential development that extends from Green Belt Drive to the railway lands (being an active CP rail corridor), generally at the southeast corner of the Don Mills community. The area currently consists of 210 townhouse dwelling units, a local road network and a local park, all of which has been developed by the Appellant. Abutting to the east of the Property, there is an existing townhouse and mid-rise residential development that proceeded through the development process at the same time as the 210 townhouse dwelling units. Together, the residential dwellings on the lands were constructed from the late 1990’s to the mid-2000’s.
3The Appellant is now advancing Phase II of the development on the Property and for that purpose sought zoning variance relief from the Committee of Adjustment (the “Committee”) with respect to the number of units, the minimum width of the units and various setback requirements.
4The Committee refused the application and the Appellant has brought an appeal from that decision to this tribunal, the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”).
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5Provincial Policy – S. 3, Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan).
6Variance – S. 45(1), Planning Act
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
7The Tribunal heard evidence from Franco Romano, a land use planning consultant of long-standing who has appeared before this Tribunal and others over many years. He was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters in this proceeding.
8Of interest, Mr. Romano disclosed in his witness statement and in his oral testimony that he was familiar with the Property, its contiguous development and surrounding physical context when it was originally envisioned for residential development in the mid-1990’s as at the time he was working in the Planning Department of the former municipality of North York, and the residential development applications were within his portfolio. He advised that he authored the implementing planning instruments. The authorization of these lands for residential development represented a conversion of employment lands served by Green Belt Drive.
9He described the present proposal as to permit twelve additional townhouse dwelling units, largely within the overall registered as-of-right block layout. The Applicant’s Disclosure plans filed as part of the appeal disclosure illustrate how the proposed townhouse development fits within the existing block layout, the gross floor area and building height permissions.
10The zoning notice which was received by the Appellant, dated March 20, 2024, confirms that the finally requested variances before the Tribunal are similar to those requested through the sessions of the committee of adjustment processing although they have evolved somewhat. This includes: confirmation of no required parking variance; similar setback variances; the requested minimum dwelling unit width of 4.0m; and, the number of requested dwelling units at 75.
11Counsel for the Appellant, with the support of Mr. Romano’s opinion, has requested that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to allow the identified modifications to the application on the basis that they are minor and therefore do not require any further notice. The Tribunal is satisfied that the current proposal contains revisions that are minor in nature and do not require further notice pursuant to Section 45 (18.1) and 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act, and so authorizes those modifications.
12In general summary, Mr. Romano described the variances as follows:
a) To permit 75 dwelling units whereas a maximum 63 dwelling units are permitted.
b) To permit a minimum dwelling unit width of 4.0m whereas a minimum of 4.3m is required.
c) To permit a side yard setback of 1.0m whereas a minimum 1.5m is required.
d) To permit a rear yard setback of 3.0m whereas a minimum 3.5m is required.
e) To permit a front yard setback of 0.0m whereas a minimum 0.7m is required
13Mr. Romano pointed out that despite the increase in dwelling units and redivision of the lot areas, that the front yard landscaping difference represents a delta of 7.3m2. Furthermore, the street tree planting plan will result in an increase in the trees to be planted from 68 to 75 trees.
14Mr. Romano provided an overview of City staff comments on the application. Planning staff recommended refusal, noting concerns with the then proposed maximum dwelling unit widths (as opposed to minimum dwelling widths) and reduced setbacks. Transportation staff noted no objections to the then proposed parking space dimension variance request (which variance request was ultimately deleted as not necessary) nor did they raise any issue with transportation capacity on the road network. Urban Forestry confirmed no conditions of approval, noting no objections. No other department provided comments.
15While the number of curb cuts will increase incrementally as a result of the increase in the number of dwelling units, the resulting reduction in the amount of front yard landscaping is negligible (7.3m2) according to Mr. Romano and In terms of street parking, he has provided an illustration that there is no reduction in the availability of street-related parking. Each dwelling unit accommodates a minimum of two parking spaces, which is in excess of the most recent city of Toronto zoning by-law requirement of zero parking spaces per dwelling unit for townhouses.
16Politis Engineering Ltd, the consulting engineer involved with the development, has confirmed that there is sufficient existing infrastructure to accommodate the additional twelve dwelling units. Mr. Romano also notes that the City Engineering and Construction Services staff provided no comments, concerns, objections or conditions of approval relating to the Committee application.
17Mr. Romano observes that the townhouses accommodate appropriate outdoor amenity space which is not being materially or substantially altered with a 0.5m rear yard reduction next to employment, railway and mid-rise residential lands, also pointing out the rooftop terraces with privacy screens on all of the units.
18The Property is located within the Central Don Mills Secondary Plan under the City Official Plan. The Property is designated as Apartment Neighbourhoods. Mr. Romano reviewed the relevant policies with respect to apartment neighbourhood criteria, built form, environment and housing objectives. He was of the view that the general intent and purpose of the secondary plan is maintained.
19The zoning by-law for the Property is the former North York Zoning By-law 7625, as amended.
20The zoning of the Property is RM6(85), a site-specific high-density zoning. The overall general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is to achieve a compatible, orderly form of residential development. Townhouses are a permitted building type.
21In his opinion, the proposal maintains the planned subdivision layout, with modestly incremental changes which closely align with the existing zoning by-law permissions. The proposal maintains appropriate street, spatial and open space relationships which are compatible with the existing physical context.
22In consequence, in his opinion, the proposal meets the overall general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
23For the Tribunal, a key fact about the zoning on the Property is that it shared zoning regulations with the first phase of development when the lands were under initial development review. In particular, the regulation which stipulated a minimum dwelling width of 4.0m applied as well to the Property until the zoning was further revisited in 2017. In that regard though, Mr. Romano (who was not involved in that subsequent rezoning) was unable to provide any explanation for that alteration. He was clear though that the developed lands in the first phase have been developed as 4.0m wide units and represent the majority of units which will be contained in this overall project.
24Mr. Romano detailed the individual variances with reasons relating to addressing the four tests of the Planning Act as set forth below.
25The proposed increase in the number of dwelling units from 63 to 75 meets the general intent and purpose of Provincial policy, the official plan and the zoning by-law to provide residential intensification while ensuring that the dwelling units are functional and can be serviced adequately. The dwelling units are provided with individual servicing that is available, adequate, and appropriate. The dwelling units will maintain suitable living and amenity space.
26The proposed dwelling unit width of 4.0m, whereas a minimum 4.3m is required, meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to accommodate functional living space, and dwelling units which are compatible with the surrounding residential (townhouse and apartment building) and employment lands.
27The proposed rear yard setback of 3.0m, whereas a minimum 3.5m is required, meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to provide suitable space for spatial separation and amenity area. The proposed rear yard setback is to the existing barrier next to the railway, as well as beside employment and mid-rise residential. The proposal maintains a functional, appropriate rear yard. It is noted that this on-site amenity space is being augmented with outdoor platform space on the roof that can be used for amenity purposes.
28The proposed side yard setback of 1.0m between the development blocks whereas minimum 1.5m is required meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to provide for adequate and suitable spatial separation for side yard purposes, especially as no functional reason was apparent for the by-law prescribed separation.
29The proposed front yard setback of 0.0m whereas a minimum 0.7m is required meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to provide for a generally consistent street framing and compact front yard relationship. As it was explained by Mr. Romano, this setback adjustment is due to an articulation on the front elevation of the northerly townhouse blocks and is more in the nature of an aesthetic consideration.
30In addressing the test of minor, Mr. Romano observed that the proposal is designed to fit within the existing authorized gross floor area, building height, and subdivision layout. His view is that the difference between the permitted and proposed townhouse layout is minor, remaining substantially similar while accommodating new compatible housing supply.
31This determination is underscored by the fact that, in his opinion, the proposal creates no unacceptable adverse impact and the order of magnitude of the variance request can consequently be treated as minor.
32Finally, on the question of desirability, he asserts that the proposal represents an appropriate fine-tuning of the townhouse development. It maintains the overall elements of the subdivision and comprehensive residential development. The proposal makes more efficient use of existing land and infrastructure. It will modestly increase the housing supply in an appropriate location.
33In Mr. Romano’s view, the proposal implements the Provincial and local planning policy framework, which is in the public interest.
34On the strength of the foregoing, he concludes that the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Property.
35Mr. Romano briefly canvassed Provincial policy through the PPS and the Growth Plan and determined that the proposal would be consistent with, and conform with, those planning policy instruments.
CONCLUSION
36The Tribunal accepts the evidence and opinions of Mr. Romano, is satisfied that the proposal meets the four tests in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and is consistent and conforming with Provincial policy.
37The Tribunal has authorized the modifications to the proposed variances from their initial form before the Committee and, in its finally modified form, as detailed below, will allow the Appellant’s appeal and approve the variances as so modified.
DECISION AND ORDER
- The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the Appellant’s appeal is allowed and the following variances are approved:
200 David Dunlap Circle
Requested Variances to the Zoning By-law
- Section 64.20-A(85), By-law 7625, Section 1(g)(a) - The required maximum number of dwelling units is sixty-three.
The proposed number of dwelling units is seventy-five.
- Section 64.20-A(85), By-law 7625, Section 1(g)(b) - The required minimum unit width is 4.3 metres.
The proposed minimum unit width is 4.0 metres.
- Section 64.20-A(85), Bylaw 7625, Section 1(h) – The required minimum setbacks are:
Block Front Rear Side
21 (units 1-7) 4.27 5.5 1.5
21 (units 8-14) 1.5 3.5 1.5
22 1.5 3.5 1.5
23 (units 1-7) 4.27 5.5 1.5
23 (units 8-14) 1.5 3.5 1.5
24 0.7 (David Dunlap) 1.5 (Street A) 1.5
25 0.7 (David Dunlap) 1.5 (Street A) 1.5
The proposed setbacks are:
Block Front Rear Side
21 (units 1-5) 4.27 5.5 1.0
21 (units 6-16) 1.5 3.0 1.0
22 1.5 3.0 1.0
23 (units 1-5) 4.27 5.5 1.0
23 (units 6-16) 1.5 3.0 1.0
24 0.0 (David Dunlap) 1.5 (Street A) 1.0
25 0.0 (David Dunlap) 1.5 (Street A) 1.0
G. Swinkin
Panel Member