Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-06-12

24 117282 S45 18 TLAB

Fortune 8 Real Estate Inc. (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 232

Issuance Date:

June 12, 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):

FORTUNE 8 REAL ESTATE INC

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

241 FINCH AVE E

COA File No.:

23 233856 NNY (A0626/23NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

24 117282 S45 18 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

June 4, 2024

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

June 5, 2024

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner/Appellant

FORTUNE 8 REAL ESTATE INC

I. Andres

M. Lakatos-Hayward

Applicant

S. Zhang

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1There is some history prior to this Appeal concerning 241-243 Finch Avenue East (the “Site”) coming before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”).

2In 2018, a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) application (Application No. 18 250648 NNY 23 OZ) and a Site Plan Control (“SPA”) application (Application No. 18 250662 NNY 23 SA) were submitted concurrently to the City of Toronto to amend the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 and the former City of North York Zoning By-Law 7625. The previously proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application consisted of a nine (9) unit townhouse development within two lots, but was later revised to eight (8) units. A ZBA and SPA were required to permit the proposed dwelling type and to develop appropriate standards for the Site.

3In a Final Report dated October 1st and 4th, 2021 Council adopted the following:

a. City Council amend Zoning By-law 7625, as amended, for the lands at 241 to 243 Finch Avenue East substantially in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 5 to the report (August 23, 2021) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North York District;

b. City Council amend City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, for the lands at 241 to 243 Finch Avenue East substantially in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 6 to the report (August 23, 2021) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North York District; and

c. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Zoning By-law Amendments as may be required.

4Arising from Council’s decision, the City of Toronto enacted site-specific Zoning By-law 893-2021 (the “SSZBL”) for the subject Site. The SSZBL allowed eight

(8) townhouse dwelling units, to a height of 11.22 metres, containing 3 stories. No building was to penetrate a 35-degree angular plane abutting the rear yard setback.

5The SSZBL has been incorporated into the general ZBL 569-2013 (the “ZBL”) in Chapter 900, which contains numerous Exceptions to general by-law provisions.

6As a result of the history set out above, 8 townhouses up to 11.22 m in height penetrating a 35-degree angular plane over the rear yard setback are currently permitted on the Site.

7On February 1, 2024, the Committee of Adjustment refused two minor variances to the development permitted on the Site to allow:

(a) a height of 11.98 m, and

(b) an angular plane penetration of 45 degrees (the “C of A Decision”).

The C of A Decision referred to requested variances to Chapter 900.3.10 (emphasis added) of the ZBL.

8On February 20, 2024, the Owner/Appellant appealed the refusal of the two variances to the TLAB (the “Appealed Variances”)

9On May 20, 2024, Toronto Building issued a Zoning Notice confirming the dimensions of the Appealed Variances, but referred to Chapter 900.3.5 (emphasis added) of the ZBL.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

10Provincial 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.

It shall also have regard to the decision made by the Committee of Adjustment to refuse or allow the Requested Variances.

11Provincial 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.

12Variances – 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

13Counsel Lakatos-Hayward called David Igelman to give evidence for the Owner/Appellant. After reviewing his education and experience, I qualified Mr. Igelman as an expert, able to give opinion evidence with respect to land use planning.

14Mr. Igelman introduced three exhibits: Ex. 1 – Document Book;

Ex.2 – Witness Statement; and

Ex. 3 – Revised Zoning Notice for the Site

15Mr. Igelman described the Site and surrounding land uses. He said that Finch Ave. E. was identified as a “Major Street” on Map 3 of the City’s Official Plan, and a “Major Arterial Road” on the City’s Road Classification Map.

16Mr. Igelman also provided a Geographic Neighbourhood Map as directed by the Official Plan, delineating a neighbourhood along the north and south side of Finch Ave. E. from Bayview Ave. in the east to Willowdale Ave, in the west (the “Geographic Neighbourhood”) (Ex. 1 page 275).

17It was Mr. Igelman’s evidence that the Committee of Adjustment refused the Appealed Variances since the Owner/Applicant was attempting to vary a development originally permitted through a SSZBL by variances, rather than via a zoning by-law amendment (Ex. 2, par. 53)

18Mr. Igleman explained the rationale for the Appealed Variances was to provide slightly greater ceiling heights for the occupants of the townhouses. The increase in the intrusion into the angular plane from the rear lot line would allow more height for the rear unit.

19According to Mr. Igelman, there were two distinct types of development in the Geographic Neighbourhood: single-detached dwellings one to two stories in height, and townhouses that are two to three stories in height. Some of the townhouse developments have three stories above integral garages at grade.

20Mr. Igelman said that the townhouse form of development was found throughout the Geographic Neighbourhood. In the immediate context of the Site, townhouse development was found on approximately 50% of the lots.

21Mr. Igelman pointed to a townhouse development immediately west of the Site (Ex. 1 page 348 Photo 58). In response to a question from me, he said that in his opinion, the height of the adjacent townhouses was similar to those proposed on the Site. Although the townhouses were allowed to a maximum of 10 m in height, under the previous by-law, height was measured to the mid-point of the roof, rather than to the peak.

22Mr. Igelman provided photos of other townhouse developments in the Geographic Neighbourhood. He was of the opinion that many of the other existing townhouses were similar in height and massing to the townhouses proposed by the Appealed Variances.

23Mr. Igelman also noted the lots east of the Site were occupied by single family homes. He showed the Tribunal photos of a number of three storey townhouses adjacent to one-story, single detached homes (Ex.1 pages 158, 179, 189-91, 192, 193, 199, 212-216). In his opinion, there was no undue adverse impact resulting from three-storey townhouse development adjacent to one-storey single-family homes, providing appropriate setbacks were maintained.

24Mr. Igelman reviewed the planning instruments applicable to the Appealed Variances.

25He opined that the Appealed Variances are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”) and conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “Growth Plan”).

26Mr. Igelman was of the opinion that the Appealed Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, since they respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings streetscapes and open space. More specifically, they are similar – although not necessarily identical to – the heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling types in the Geographic Neighbourhood. Similar townhouse developments occur throughout the Geographic Neighbourhood, and in the immediate context of the Site.

27Mr. Igelman noted that the Official Plan anticipated that the major Avenues, such as Finch Ave. E., will experience? re-urbanization, in order to create new housing opportunities.

28Mr. Igelman referred briefly to the Central Finch Area Secondary Plan (the CFA Secondary Plan). In his opinion, the Appealed Variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the CFA Secondary Plan. Although it generally restricts heights to 10 m., the height for the Site was increased to 11.22 m through the SS ZBL.

29I asked Mr. Igelman when the CFA Secondary Plan was adopted. Following the Hearing, he replied that it was adopted in 2004 at the latest.

30In his oral evidence, he referred to City Council’s adoption of an Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods Report on May 22, 2024 (the “EHON Report”) and stated that Council now permits townhouses on main streets up to four stories and 13 m in height.

31Mr. Igelman referred to the plans submitted prior to the C of A Decision, and showed that the increased penetration of the angular plane affected only a portion of the roof of the southernmost unit in the proposed development.

32Mr. Igelman opined that the change in the exception number in the Official Plan constituted a very minor change from the application that was before the C of A?

33Mr. Igelman noted that City Planning staff did not object to the Requested Variances.

34I also noted that neither the City nor any adjacent neighbours participated in the Hearing in opposition to the Appealed Variances

ISSES AND ANALYSIS

35This case raises the following key issues:

(a) Can a change originating by way of a SSZBL be further altered by minor variance rather than a zoning by-law amendment?

(b) Do the Appealed Variances maintain the intent and purpose of the official plan?

(c) How much weight should the Tribunal give to evolving policy, compared to other planning instruments such as the CFA Secondary Plan?

a) A SITE-SPECIFIC ZONING BY-LAW CAN BE ALTERED BY MINOR VARIANCES

36Mr. Igelman said that minor variances are subject to the tests set out in the Planning Act, regardless of whether they are variances from a general or a site- specific zoning by-law.

37In his opinion, there is no planning rationale to treat a variance originating from an SS ZBL any differently than a variance from the general provisions of ZBL 569-2013. Regardless of the nature of the document setting out the permitted zoning, an applicant can seek to change it by applying for a variance.

38In his submissions, Mr. Lakatos-Hayward reviewed the history of the Planning Act with respect to minor variances. He noted that there was briefly a prohibition against seeking a minor variance within two years of obtaining a previous variance, which is no longer in effect. He stated that there was no legal prohibition preventing or restricting the Tribunal from considering a variance from a zoning standard which originated in a site-specific zoning by-law.

39I agree with Mr. Igelman’s uncontested expert planning opinion, and Mr. Lakatos-Hayward’s uncontested submission that I have jurisdiction to consider the Appealed Variances, which vary the height and angular plane requirements originally adopted by Council by way of an SSZBL

b) THE APPEALED VARIANCES MAINTAIN THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

40According to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan:

“Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

c) prevailing heights (emphasis added), massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties . . .

Lots fronting onto a major street (emphasis added) shown on Map 3 and designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan are to be distinguished from lots in the interior of the block adjacent to that street in accordance with Policy 6 in order to recognize the potential for a more intense form of development along major streets to the extent permitted by this Plan . . .is this a quote?

Some geographic neighbourhoods contain a mix of physical characters. In such cases, the direction to respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character will not preclude development whose physical characteristics are not the most frequently occurring but do exist in substantial numbers within the geographic neighbourhood, provided that the physical characteristics of the proposed development are materially consistent with the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood and already have a significant presence (emphasis added) on properties located in the immediate context or abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent block(s) within the geographic neighbourhood.”

41Mr. Igelman’s evidence addressed townhouse heights. He provided a Neighbourhood Variance Research Table (Ex. 1 Page 277. The Table illustrated

ten examples of variances for height exemptions, with a mean increase in height to 9.68 m.

42Mr. Igelman also provided additional quantitative evidence that many if not most of the recent townhouse developments in the Geographic Neighbourhood were characterized by heights similar to those proposed by the Appealed Variances.

43He also submitted that other developments with similar heights preceded the data captured by the Table.

44More significantly, Mr. Igelman provided additional photographic evidence that the heights sought in the Appealed Variances were similar to those found in significant numbers in the Geographic Neighbourhood and on the same block and opposite block of the Site.

45He also provided opinion evidence that the test of respecting and reinforcing the existing physical character requires development to be compatible rather than identical.

46Mr. Igleman provided evidence that the Site is located on a major street recognized by the Plan, and therefore has the potential for a more intense form of development than the single-family homes more typically found in the interior of the neighbourhood.

47Mr. Igleman also provided evidence that the proposed townhouse development exists in substantial numbers in the neighbourhood, has a significant presence on the same block and across from the same block as the Site, and is materially consistent with other townhouse developments in the neighbourhood.

48I accept Mr. Igelman’s uncontested expert evidence that the Appealed Variances maintain the intent and purpose of the official plan

49I also accept Mr. Igelman’s evidence that the Appealed Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law; are minor; and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

c) EVOLVING POLICY SUPPORTS THE APPEALED VARIANCES

50Mr. Igelman referred to evolving planning policy which places greater emphasis on a range and mix of housing forms, including additional residential units, multi- unit housing, and more affordable housing, particularly on main streets.

51The origins of such policies are found in the PPS and Growth Plan, in provisions cited by Mr. Igelman.

52However, this policy has been emphasized by significant recent municipal initiatives, including the EHON Report.

53As noted by Mr. Igelman, City Council has very recently approved policies allowing townhouses up to four stories to a height of 13 metres on main streets. While these policies are subject to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, they provide a clear indication of Council’s evolving policy to encourage townhouses with more stories and increased height on main streets.

54I agree with the evidence of Mr. Igelman and the submissions of counsel that the Appealed Variances, if approved, would result in 3 stories rather than 4, and a height of 11.92 m. rather than 13 metres, which are now permitted by the City as supported in the EHON REPORT.

55I will give more weight in this case to evolving policy in 2024 to encourage intensification on main streets than to the CFA Secondary Plan approved at least 20 years earlier. In this case, the Appealed Variances result in development with less than the permitted number of stories and lower height on the Site than Council now supports.

CONCLUSION

56I find the amendment to the Chapter number in the ZBL from the application before the Committee of Adjustment to be minor, so that the amended application does not require public notice pursuant to S. 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

57I allow the appeal, and approve the Appealed Variances, subject to the usual condition requiring construction substantially in accordance with the plans and elevations before the Tribunal contained herein.

DECISION AND ORDER

58I order that the appeal of the C of A Decision be allowed, and the Appealed Variances be authorized.

59I further order that the authorization be subject to the following condition, attached to this Final Decision as Attachment 1:

“That the building be constructed substantially in accordance with the plans and elevations prepared by TAES Architects Inc. dated 2023.12.01.”

R. Kanter Panel Member

FINCH

CL OF ROAD

149.51

AVENUE EAST

OFFICIAL PLAN: CENTRAL FINCH AREA SECONDARY PLAN ZONING: RT(X333)

LOT AREA: 1,389 sm / 14,957 sf

ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 20 AND 21, CONCESSION 1, EAST OF YONGE STREET

PIN 10023-0341(LT)

LOT FRONTAGE: 28.49 m

6.00 m 1.70 m

UP PRIVATE DRIVEWAY

TOP OF CURB CURB CUT TOP OF CURB

0.30

0.20

LOT AREA AFTER ROAD WIDENING: 1,251 sm / 13,461 sf

BUILDING AREA: 429 SM / 4,613 SF (SECOND FLOOR)

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

IP(OU)

15.54

(D1,PL2&S)

N73°21'00"E

NEBWF 0.023N.1M

RENCE BEARING)

EWALK

12.95 m

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

149.76

(D2,PL2&S)

69.03 (CALC'D&M)

0.40

LOT COVERAGE: 31%

LOT COVERAGE AFTER ROAD WIDENING: 35%

0.20

BAYWINDOW

GROUND FLOOR-THIRD FLOOR

GFA: 1,341 sm / 14,433 sf

SSIB (1782) 0.07E

PIL 0.05W 5.81

3.9 m

3.90 m

6.6 m 1.8 m

SOD

C.P.

9.10 m

GARAGE/BASEMENT

UNIT A1

0.6 m

+149.81

Bike Parking.73

PORCH

NUMBER OF UNITS: 8 3 BEDROOMS

GARAGE AREA: 171 sm

FFE = 151.13

1 1 .501.25 m

149.79

FSI (FLOOR SPACE INDEX):

GARAGE = 149.80 UNIT A2

1,341/1,389=1.0 (1 PERMITTED)

FFE = 151.13 2.10 m

GARAGE = 149.65 PORCH

UNIT A3 1.07 2.18 m

No. 24

1 STOREY BRICK DWEL DSE=151.0

GSE=149.7

ROOF=155. (TIES TO BR

BUILDING HEIGHT: 10.00 m BUILDING SETBACK:

NORTH (FRONT YARD): 2.00 m

SOUTH (REAR YARD): 9.5 m

WEST (SIDE YARD): 9.5 m

E. FACE OF WALL

0.12W

UNIT A4

UNIT A5

FFE = 151.13

2.10 m PORCH

1.24

EAST (SIDE YARD): 6.0 m

PARKING: 16 RESIDENTS + 1 VISITOR

TOTAL FRONT YARD AREA AFTER ROAD WIDENING: 51.3 SM

HEAVY DU

GARAGE = 149.50

2.10 m

PIN 10069-

FRONT YARD SOFT LANDSCAPE AREA

AFTER ROAD WIDENING: 33.9 SM (INCLUDES ONLY SODDED AREA)

ASPHALT (REFER TO LANDSCA

E. DRAWING)

1.80 m

E. FACE OF WAL

0.1

PER5M.79 EABLE PAVER (REFER

E. TO LANDSCAPE

UNIT A8 Parking

THIRD FLOOR SETBACK

0.2 1.

UNIT A6

UNIT A7

UNIT A8

SOD

1.5M WALKWAY

PORCH

2.7 m

2.10 m PORCH

2.0 m

0.30

PERCENTAGE OF FRONT YARD SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA AFTER ROAD WIDENING: 66%

MIN. INTERIOR UNIT LOT AREA: 82 sm / 883 sf

MAX. STAIR AND PORCH ENROACHMENT INTO FRONT YARD: 2.0 m

O.B.C. PART 9, GROUP C 9.10.2.1

DRAWING)

6.00 m 5. m 2.10 m

0.40

TOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA: 562.3 SM

PRIVATE DRIVEWAY

BENCH AREA (REF 1.50 m

TOTAL VEHICULAR ASPHALT AREA: 261 SM

2114

Visitor Parking

A/C scre

WALKWAY

2.18 1.07 m 1.25 m

TOTAL CONCRETE AND UNIT PAVER AREA: 301.3 SM

E. FACE OF WALL

0.16W

9.50 m

13.00 m

PORC LANDSCAPE STRIP

Site Plan 1 : 250

E. FACE OF WALL BOARD FENCE 0.13W

0.20

WEST SETBACK

N73°21'00"E 15.54 (D1,PL2 (RP&M)

Unit A8 Waste StorageEAST SETBACK

N73°21'00"E 12.95

(RP&M) (D2,PL2&S)

0.20

VEHICULAR PAVED AREA: 337 SM TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 631 SM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0.05 m

0' - 2"

C

4.13 m

13' - 6 1/2"

LAUNDRY

/UTILITY

UNIT A8

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

UNIT A7

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

UNIT A6

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

UNIT A5

32.38 m

106' - 3"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

UNIT A4

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

UNIT A3

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

UNIT A2

4.15 m

13' - 7 1/2"

UNIT A1

0.05 m

0' - 2"

C

148.38

BEDROOM 02

^UP 148.38

^UP 3' - UTILITY 3' " 3' " UTILITY- 11" 3' - UTILITY 3' "

4' - 4" 4' - 2" 3' - 4"

UTILIT

11' - 10"

148.38

148.3

148.38

148 8 148.38

UNEXCAVATED

1 2

UNEXCAVATED

3

UNEXCAVATED

32.38 m

106' - 3"

4 5

12' - 3"

6

12' - 3"

UNEXCAVATED

7

12' - 3"

11' - 10"

UNEXCAVATED

8 9

1 00_Basement VA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0.05 m

0' - 2"

4.13 m

13' - 6 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

32.28 m

105' - 11"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.15 m

13' - 7 1/2"

2.05 m FRONT SETBACK

0.05 m

0' - 2"

ground floor building edge above

C C

4' - 2"

B

UNIT A8

149.47

U 148.38

UNIT A7

149.52

UNIT A6

149.52

UNIT A5

149.52

UNIT A4

149.52

UNIT A3

149.52

UNIT A2

149.67

UNIT A1

149.82

A 301

1 CAR GARAGE

1 CAR GARAGE1 CAR GARAGE

149.70

148.38148.38

149.70 49.70

148.38148.38

149.70149.70

148.38

_DN 149.85 150.00

UP UP

148.38

UP UP

148.38

PORCH ABOVE

15' - 3"

PORCH ABOVE

15' - 3"

PORCH ABOVE

15' - 3"

DECK ABOVE A

13' - 3"

1

1 01_Garage VA 1 : 150

1.5M WALKWAY

2 3

32.28 m

105' - 11"

4 5 6 7

2 BIKE PARKING

8 9

1 2

4.18 m

13' - 8 1/2"

BALCONY

C

12' - 4"

UNIT A8

B UP

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

BALCONY

UNIT A7

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

BALCONY

UNIT A6

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

BALCONY

UNIT A5

32.38 m

106' - 3"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

BALCONY

UNIT A

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

BALCONY

UNIT A3

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

BALCONY

UNIT A2

8 9

4.20 m

13' - 9 1/2"

BALCONY

C

UNIT A1

B

152.24

152.24 P

152.24

152.24P

152.24

152.24UP UP

DN DN

152.39

152.54^P

3' - 0"

DN DN

150.98

4' - 2"

A

8' - 11" 3' - 5"

151.151.13

150.98

10" DN

150.98 D150.98

150.98

DECK

PORCH

PORCH PORCH

6' - 3"RCHP6' - 3"H

PORCH PORCH

12' - 5"

1 2

1 02_Ground Floor VA 1 : 150

DN DN

3

DN DN

32.38 m

106' - 3"

4 5

DN DN

1.5M WALKWAY

6 7

2 BIKE PARKING

8 9

4.18 m

13' - 8 1/2"

2 3

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

32.38 m

106' - 3"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.00 m

13' - 1 1/2"

4.20 m

13' - 9 1/2"

C

BEDROOM 01

BEDROOM 02

UP 155.41

155.41

155.41 155.41

155.41 B

UNIT A8

UNIT A7 DN

UNIT A6

UNIT A5 DN

DUNIT A4

UNIT A3 DN

DNUNIT A2

UNIT A1 DN

LAUNDRY

155.41

LAUNDRYUNDRY

UP UP

LAUN LAUNDRY

UP UP

BEDROOM 01 MASTER BEDROOM

BEDROOM 01

A PORCH BELOW

PORCH BELOW

PORCH BELOW A

1 2 3

1 03_Second Floor VA 1 : 150

32.38 m

106' - 3"

4 5 6 7 8 9

"ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT AND MUST BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. REPRODUCTION OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS IN PART OR IN WHOLE IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT."

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK & VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.

THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.

32.38 m

No.

Issued

Date By

4.18 m

4.00 m

4.00 m 106'

3" 4.00 m

4.00 m

4.20 m

Building Permit

2022.05.09

13' - 8 1/2"

13' - 1 1/2"

13' - 9 1/2"

Permit Rev01

2022.07.15

Variance Application

2023.12.01

C C

STUDY

B

MASTER BEDROOMTER BEDROOMSTER BEDROOMTER BEDROOMSTER BEDROOM TER BEDROOMSTER BEDROOM

B

UNIT A8

UNIT A7

UNIT A6

UNIT A5

UNIT A4

UNIT A3

UNIT A2

UNIT A1

OFFICE

A

MASTER BATH

MASTER BATH MASTER BATH

ID - 3

MASTER BATH

MASTER BATH MASTER BATH MASTER BATH

TAES Architects Inc.

98 SCARSDALE ROAD, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M3B 2R2

T: 416 800 3284 F:416-800-3485

A Townhome

241+243 Finch Avenue,

Toronto

Project Number T2016016

1 2 3 4

1 04_Third Floor VA 1 : 150

5 6 7 8 9

Drawn Scale Checked

Third Floor Plan

Drawing No.

As indicated

2023-12-01

12:12:29 PM

A 105

6.00 m EAST SETBACK

13.00 m GROUND - 3RD FLOOR

9.50 m WEST SERBACK

BRICK

ASHPHALT SHINGLE

+162.01

Top of Roof

+161.03

Ceiling

+160.27

Mid-Point of Roof

+158.54

Top of Eaves

+158.28

Unit 1 - 7 Third Floor

BRICK

STUCCO

SMOOTH STONE

BRICK

1.6 m

+155.41

Unit 1 - 8 Second Floor

+152.54

Unit 1 Ground Floor

+152.39

Unit 2 Ground Floor

+152.24

Unit 3 - 8 Ground Floor

+151.13

First Floor

+150.16

Average Grade (OBC)

+150.03

Est.Grade (By Law 569-2013)

+149.80

1.35 m

1.50 m

1.05 m

2.10 m

13.00 m

1.70 m

6.00 m

Unit 1 Garage

+149.65

Unit 2 Gar1.80 m

+148.38

Unit 1-8 Basement

LANDSCAPE SWALKWAY

PORCH

GROUND - 3RD FLOOR

2ND FL. BALCONY

DRIVEWAY

+1 LANDSCAPE STRIP

Established Grade (CL of Road)

+149.50

1 North Elevation (Street) VA 1 : 100

A3-A7 Garage/A8 Ground FL

C B A

13.00 m

ASHPHALT SHINGLE

BRICK

6.00 m EAST SETBACK

+162.01

Top of Roof

+161.03

Ceiling

+160.27

Mid-Point of Roof

+158.28

Unit 1 - 7 Third Floor

+158.54

Top of Eaves

1 South Elevation (Rear) VA 1 : 100

SMOOTH STONE

16' - 9"

13.00 m GROUND - 3RD FLOOR

150.28

6.00 m EAST SETBACK

+155.41

Unit 1 - 8 Second Floor

+152.54

Unit 1 Ground Floor

+152.39

Unit 2 Ground Floor

 +152.24

Unit 3 - 8 Ground Floor

+151.13

First Floor

+150.16

Average Grade (OBC)

+150.03

Est.Grade (By Law 569-2013)

+149.80

Unit 1 Garage

+149.65

Unit 2 Garage

+149.50

A3-A7 Garage/A8 Ground FL

+149.51

Established Grade (CL of Road)

+148.38

Unit 1-8 Basement

DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK & VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.

THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.

No.

Issued

Date By

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

32.38 m 2.00 m

4.90 m

19 UD

20 Permit Rev01

21 Permit Rev02

23 Permit Rev04

25 Variance Application

2022.07.04 SW

2022.07.15 SW

2022.08.19 SA

2022.10.05 SW

2023.12.01 SW

12 12

3 3

12 12

3 3

+162.01

Top of Roof

+161.03

Ceiling7

+158.54nt of Roof Top of Eaves

150.28

150.34

150.26

ASHPHALT

SHINGLE

BRICK

SMOOTH STONE

150.18

STUCCO

150.10

2.18 m

4.90 m

+158.28

Unit 1 - 7 Third Floor

+155.41

Unit 1 - 8 Second Floor

+152.54

Unit 1 Ground Floor

+152.39

Unit 2 Ground Floor

+152.24

Unit 3 - 8 Ground Floor

+151.13

First Floor

+150.16

Average Grade (OBC)

+150.03

Est.Grade (By Law 569-2013)

TAES Architects Inc.

98 SCARSDALE ROAD, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M3B 2R2

T: 416 800 3284 F:416-800-3485

Townhome

241+243 Finch Avenue,

1 East Elevation (Side) VA 1 : 150

FRONT SETBACK ROAD WIDENING

7.08 m

+149.80

Unit 1 Garage

+149.65

Unit 2 Garage

+149.51

Project Number

Toronto

T2016016

Established Grade (CL of Road)

+149.50

Drawn

Scale

1 : 150

A3-A7 Garage/A8 Ground FL

+148.38

Unit 1-8 Basement

Checked

East Elevation

Drawing No.

2023-12-01

12:12:33 PM

A 203

DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK & VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.

THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.

No.

Issued

Date By

9 8 7 6

5 4 3 2 1

23 Permit Rev04

25 Variance Application

2022.10.05 SW

2023.12.01 SW

4.90 m

2.00 m 32.38 m

9.50 m

ROAD WIDEN FRONT YARD SETBACK

+155.41

Unit 1 - 8 Second Floor

+152.54

Unit 1 Ground Floor

+150.16

STUCCO

BRICK

SMOOTH STONE

STUCCO

GROUND - 3RD FLOOR SETBACK

+162.01

Top of Roof

+161.03

Ceiling

+160.27

Mid-Point of Roof

+158.54

Top of Eaves

+158.28

Unit 1 - 7 Third Floor

+152.39

Unit 2 Ground Floor

+152.24

Unit 3 - 8 Ground Floor

+151.13

First Floor

+150.03

TAES Architects Inc.

98 SCARSDALE ROAD, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M3B 2R2

T: 416 800 3284 F:416-800-3485

Townhome

Average Grade (OBC)

2.18 m

Est.Grade (By Law 569-2013)

FRONT SETBACK

4.90 m 2.00 m

32.38 m GROUND - 3RD FLOOR

+149.80

Unit 1 Gar age

+149.65

Unit 2 Garage

+149.51

+148.38

Unit 1-8 Basement

Project Number

241+243 Finch Avenue,

Toronto

T2016016

1 West Elevation (Side) VA 1 : 150

9.50 m

SETBACK FROM UNIT GROUND - 3RD FLOOR

Established Grade (CL of Road)

+149.50

A3-A7 Garage/A8 Ground FL

Drawn Scale Checked

West Elevation

Drawing No.

1 : 150

2023-12-01

12:12:35 PM

A 204

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9.50 m

32.38 m

2.00 m

4.90 m

REAR SETBACK FROM GROUND - 3RD FLOOR FRONT SETBROAD WIDENING

9.50 m

4.18 m 4.00 m 4.00 m

4.00 m

4.00 m 4.00 m

4.00 m

4.20 m

2.00 m 4.90 m

+160.27

Mid-Point of Roof

Top of Eaves

+155.41

Unit 1 - 8 Second Floor

EXIS. AVE GRADE, 150.34M

1.80 m 4.80 m LANDSCAPE STRIP

UNIT 8

UNIT 7

UNIT 6

UNIT 5

UNIT 4

UNIT 3

UNIT 2

UNIT 1

+162.01

Top of Roof

Ceiling

Unit 1 - 7 Third Floor

Unit 1 Ground Floor

Unit 2 Ground Floor

+152.24

Unit 3 -38 Ground Floor

+150.16or

Average Grade (OBC)

+150.03

Est.Grade (By Law 569-2013)

9.50 m

UNIT 8 (2 STOREY)

UNIT 1 - UNIT 7 (3 STOREY)

23' - 2"

0.70 2.10 m

+149.80

REAR YARD SETBACK FROM GROUND TO 3RD FLOOR

1 Section 1 VA 1 : 200

NEW SIDEWALK

Unit 1 Garage

+149.65

Unit 2 Garage

+149.51

Established Grade (CL of Road)

+149.50

A3-A7 Garage/A8 Ground FL

+148.38

Unit 1-8 Basement