Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2024-05-10
23 185787 S53 20 TLAB
23 185788 S45 20 TLAB
23 185789 S45 20 TLAB
Richardson v Toronto (City), 2024 ONTLAB 238
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
2024-07-24
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
A K M MAHFUZUR RAHMAN
Applicant(s):
P. JARUCZIK
Property Address:
151 MAYBOURNE AVE
COA File No.:
23 101223 ESC 20 CO (B0001/23SC)
23 101231 ESC 20 MV (A0015/23SC)
23 101232 ESC 20 MV (A0016/23SC)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 185787 S53 20 TLAB
23 185788 S45 20 TLAB
23 185789 S45 20 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
December 11, 2023, December 18, 2023 and May 10, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
P. JARUCZIK
Appellant
A K M MAHFUZUR RAHMAN M. MAZIERSKI
Participant
G. PANAGOPOULOS
Participant
K. H. SUNG
Participant
L. I. SUK-CHING
Participant
C. G. LICATA
Participant
N.MICHAEL F
Participant
D. K. SARMA
Participant
A. HOSSAIN
Participant
S. MAKOL
Participant
T. BRYSON
Participant
L. SANDERS
Expert Witness
J. BENCZKOWSKI
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
- This is a decision resulting from the continuation of the hearing of this matter, which is an appeal of a refusal by the Committee of Adjustment to grant a severance into two lots and variances to permit a detached dwelling on each lot. In a decision dated December 19, 2023 I stated that “I was prepared to find that the proposed consent and variances, as revised, could potentially be approved as they appeared to meet the requirements of the Planning Act and the Province.” My hesitation in granting final approval was the lack of a complete set of adequate plans. Such plans were submitted at the continuation of the hearing on May 10, 2024. Those plans, themselves, appeared somewhat unclear and the opponents objected to the granting of the severance and appeal on that basis.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
- Provincial 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.
- Provincial 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 for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).
- Consent – S. 53
TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
- Variance – 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
Evidence was submitted by the qualified land use planner that the plans clearly demonstrate the proposed development and are sufficient to find that the proposed development meets the requirements of provincial policies and the Planning Act. After a careful examination of the plans I agree with the land use planner. They are sufficient to understand the impact on the surrounding area and the proposed lots and dwellings and his evidence is persuasive that the appeal should be allowed and the variances granted.
ANALYSIS
Given that the plans are sufficient to clearly indicate the severance, the proposed site development and the character of the dwellings, I find the variances and severance should be approved as the evidence presented earlier in the hearing supported such approvals. The evidence of the planner demonstrated that contrary to the concerns of the opponents the dwellings fit in the neighbourhood: the lots were not too narrow or small and the dwellings would not be too large for the lots. The refusal of a similar application lot in the area resulted from inadequate evidence, not from evidence that a similar proposal did not maintain and reinforce the character of the area.
CONCLUSION
- As a result of the written and oral evidence of the land use planner in support of the appeal and the unsupported evidence of those in opposition I find the variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act and the severance meets the requirements of that Act. Moreover I find that the proposal meets all provincial policy requirements. The approval, of course should be subject to standard conditions for variances and severance, including that the construction be in accordance with the attached plans.
DECISION AND ORDER
The appeal is hereby allowed in part and the following variances are approved subject to the conditions in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2:
For 151 A Maybourne Ave.
- (169) Exception RD 169
The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and
Prevailing Sections.
(C) The minimum building setback from a side lot line is 0.9 metres; and [ By-law: 348-2021 ]
Proposed: 0.6m
Required: 0.9m
- 10.20.30.10 Lot Area
(1) Minimum Lot Area
In the RD zone:
(A) if a zone label includes the letter "a", on the Zoning By-law Map, the numerical value following the letter "a" is the
required minimum lot area, in square metres; and
Proposed: 249.61sm
Required: 371 sm
- 10.20.30.20 Lot Frontage
(1) Minimum Lot Frontage
In the RD zone:
(A) if a zone label includes the letter "f", as on the Zoning By-law Map, the numerical value following the letter "f" is the
required minimum lot frontage, in metres; and
Proposed: 7.62m
Required: 12m
- 10.20.30.40 Lot Coverage
(1) Maximum Lot Coverage
In the RD zone:
(A) if a lot in is in an area with a numerical value on the Lot Coverage Overlay Map, that numerical value is the permitted
maximum lot coverage, as a percentage of the lot area; and
Proposed: 40.3%.
Required: 33%
3457045
For 151 B Maybourne Ave.
- (169) Exception RD 169
The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and
Prevailing Sections.
(C) The minimum building setback from a side lot line is 0.9 metres; and [ By-law: 348-2021 ]
Proposed: 0.6m
Required: 0.9m
- 10.20.30.10 Lot Area
(1) Minimum Lot Area
In the RD zone:
(A) if a zone label includes the letter "a", on the Zoning By-law Map, the numerical value following the letter "a" is the
required minimum lot area, in square metres; and
Proposed: 249.61sm
Required: 371 sm
- 10.20.30.20 Lot Frontage
(1) Minimum Lot Frontage
In the RD zone:
(A) if a zone label includes the letter "f", as on the Zoning By-law Map, the numerical value following the letter "f" is the
required minimum lot frontage, in metres; and
Proposed: 7.62m
Required: 12m
- 10.20.30.40 Lot Coverage
(1) Maximum Lot Coverage
In the RD zone:
(A) if a lot in is in an area with a numerical value on the Lot Coverage Overlay Map, that numerical value is the permitted
maximum lot coverage, as a percentage of the lot area; and
Proposed: 40.3%
Required: 33%
Appendix 1
I. Before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, the applicant is to fulfill the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment:
i. Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of the Revenue Services Division, in the form of a statement of tax account current to within 30 days of an applicant’s request to the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment to issue the Certificate of Official as outlined in Condition 6.
ii. Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.
iii. One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS (3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their respective areas, shall be filed with, and to the satisfaction of, the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.
iv. One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services shall be filed with the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.
v. Prepare and submit a digital draft of the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O. Reg. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act if applicable as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent transaction to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.
vi. Once all of the other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall request, in writing, that the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment issue the Certificate of Official.
vii.Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.
viii. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection. Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the (two) sites involved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.
Appendix 2
Construction shall be substantially in accordance with the following plans.
S. Makuch
Panel Member