Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 127105 S53 11 TLAB
Tutkaluk (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 244
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: August 2, 2024
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): Edward W Tutkaluk
Applicant(s): L.Munro
Property Address: 353-355 Crawford Street
COA File No.: 21 158699 STE 11 CO
TLAB Case File No.: 24 127105 S53 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): July 2, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: August 6, 2024
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice Chair Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | E.Tutkaluk | J.Chertin |
| Participant | K.Hume | |
| Participant | D.Christine | |
| Participant | J.Cowdy | |
| Expert Witness | F. Romano |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of an application for consent to sever the property located at 353 to 359 Crawford St (subject property).
2The application for consent to sever was considered by the COA in conjunction with two applications for variances, one for each of the proposed resulting lots. The COA denied all three applications. Only the application for consent to sever has been appealed.
3A semi-detached structure, comprising two duplexes, currently exists on the property.
4The purpose of the application is to divide the property along the party wall of the semi-detached structure, resulting in two lots with two sets of independently functioning duplexes.
5The subject property is located in the Trinity-Bellwoods neighbourhood of the former City of Toronto. It is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned R (d0.6) under Zoning By-law 569-2013.
6For the record, the correct address for the subject property is 353 to 359 Crawford St. An incomplete address was used to file the applications.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
7Provincial 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.
8Provincial 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’).
9Consent – 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).
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
ROMANO
10The site is occupied by a semi-detached building and rear accessory structure.
11The building is a “double duplex”, with duplexed units occupying each side of the semi-detached building.
12The proposed new lots do not require any variances; specifically, no variances are required for lot frontage or lot area.
13The Residential (R) Zoning permits a broad array of building types.
14Mr. Romano stated that there is no development proposed at this time. The building will continue to exist as it is. The intent of the Appeal is to divide the lot and the building into two, essentially creating two separate properties that can be independently owned.
15It was Mr. Romano’s opinion that there are no impacts of development as there are no changes proposed to the structure on the property.
16The property is backed by a public laneway and the severance includes a laneway widening in favour of the City.
17Mr. Romano advised that the consent to sever request meets all Official Plan policy requirements.
COWDY
18The COA did not decide this application independently, there were two applications for variances that were concerning.
19Ms. Cowdy wanted to make sure things are correct and proper
20She was concerned about the Owners’ avoidance of dialogue, despite her attempts to discuss. Even what the neighbours had heard from Counsel and Mr. Romano’s evidence was “news” to them. A lot of their concerns could have been avoided by an open discussion.
21It is Important to Ms. Cowdy that no demolition of the existing structure be permitted.
22Ms. Cowdy referenced Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.6
New development that would have the effect of removing all or a part of a private building or related group of buildings, and would result in the loss of six or more rental housing units will not be approved unless:
a) all of the rental housing units have rents that exceed mid-range rents at the time of application, or
b) in cases where planning approvals other than site plan are sought, the following are secured:
i. at least the same number, size and type of rental housing units are replaced and maintained with rents similar to those in effect at the time the redevelopment application is made;
ii. for a period of at least 10 years, rents for replacement units will be the rent at first occupancy increased annually by not more than the Provincial Rent Increase Guideline or a similar guideline as Council may approve from time to time; and
iii. an acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plan
addressing the right to return to occupy one of the
replacement units at similar rents, the provision of
alternative accommodation at similar rents, and other
assistance to lessen hardship, or
c) in Council’s opinion, the supply and availability of rental housing in the City has returned to a healthy state and is able to meet the housing requirements of current and future residents. This decision will be based on a number of factors, including whether:
i. rental housing in the City is showing positive, sustained improvement as demonstrated by significant net gains in the supply of rental housing including significant levels of production of rental housing, and continued projected net gains in the supply of rental housing;
ii. the overall rental apartment vacancy rate for the City of Toronto, as reported by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has been at or above 3.0 per cent for the preceding four consecutive annual surveys;
iii. the proposal may negatively affect the supply or availability of rental housing or rental housing sub-sectors including affordable units, units suitable for families, or housing for vulnerable populations such as seniors, persons with special needs, or students, either in the City, or in a geographic subarea or a neighbourhood of the City; and
iv. all provisions of other applicable legislation and policies
have been satisfied.
HUME
23Ms. Hume noted that the property has been listed for sale. The listing references four units; she stated there are eight units.
24She noted that there have been errors in the application information, including the correct addresses for the property, and the tree declaration.
25Ms. Hume also referenced Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.6, which prohibits new development that would have the effect of removing all or part of a private building, or related group of buildings, that would result in the loss of six or more rental housing units.
26Ms. Hume does not want the existing buildings to be demolished.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
PROVINCIAL POLICY
27I accept Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
CONSENT TO SEVER
28I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Planning Act as the proposal is a division of the existing legal lot in a long-established area.
29Of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, I consider criteria (c) to warrant further discussion.
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any …
30The request to sever the property does not require variances as the proposed lot area and lot frontage comply with the minimums set out in the Zoning By-law.
31The crux of the Participants’ concerns is the changes to the property that would have resulted from a demolition and replacement of the existing structure, as was contemplated by the two applications for variances that were refused by the COA.
32As the Appellant has not appealed the denial of those variance applications, all that remains live in this Appeal is the application for consent to sever. To be clear, this is a way to divide the property into two legal parcels, capable of being owned by different owners; it does not confer any permissions for alteration to the existing building.
33As there is no longer any development proposal connected to this application, there is therefore no proposed construction against which to apply the development criteria listed in OP Policy 4.1.5.
OP POLICY 3.2.1.6
34OP Policy 3.2.1.6 was referenced by both of the Participants who spoke at the Hearing.
35This policy is intended to control the removal of rental housing units as a result of new development, under certain criteria. The threshold for application of this policy is the potential removal of six or more housing units in a building or related group of buildings.
36The concern of Ms. Hume is that there are more than six existing units on the existing property and that OP Policy 3.2.1.6 applies.
37Mr. Romano’s testimony was that the existing OP Policy 3.2.1.6 does not apply to the proposal.
38I recognize that the approval of the severance could potentially result in an interpretation that OP Policy 3.2.1.6 applies separately to each side of the semi-detached building, resulting in a threshold of six units on each resulting lot, whereas the threshold currently would apply to the whole existing lot.
39I have not been provided evidence other than the sworn testimony of the Witnesses as to the number of units that currently exist on the property. I have also not been provided evidence as to whether any of the exemptions listed in the policy apply.
40I note that OP Policy 3.2.1.6 controls new development that would have the effect of removing all or a part of a private building or related group of buildings. The requested severance does not have this effect on its own.
41I would expect that any future applications for building permits or variances would be assessed in the context of OP Policy 3.2.1.6, but I find that the application for severance in isolation of any proposed new development, is not subject to this policy.
42I find that the application for consent to sever maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. I find, therefore, that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
ACCURATE R-PLAN
43Applications for consent to sever generally propose a lot line over unbuilt land. In this case, the division of land also divides an existing structure.
44It was not clear from the R-Plan submitted by the Appellant that the line dividing the property would coincide with the party wall between the two sides of the demi-detached building and would, in fact, result in two independently functional entities.
45The Appellant was given until August 6, 2024 to provide confirmation that the proposed lot line between the two new lots creates two independently functioning properties.
46On July 24, 2024, an updated R-Plan was provided to the TLAB, which contains small adjustments. I find that no further notice is required under s. 53(35.1) of the Planning Act.
CONCLUSION
47The application for consent to sever the subject property does not propose any change to the existing structure. It is a means to separate the existing lot into two independent properties.
48I find that there is no impediment to approval of the application and that the requirements of the Planning Act for the approval of a consent to sever have been met.
49The application is approved with the clarification that the TLAB consent to the transaction is granted for the updated R-Plan filed with the TLAB on July 24, 2024. (Attached).
DECISION AND ORDER
50The Appeal is allowed.
51The TLAB consents to the transaction as shown on the revised R-Plan, dated July 15, 2024 and attached as Appendix A, and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix B
A.Bassios
Panel Chair
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
52Schedule A: Standard Consent Conditions
The Consent Application is approved on Condition
The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB, therefore, consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that 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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.