Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 112625 S45 17 TLAB
Cheng (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 246
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: August 7, 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): JIMMY MIN TAT CHENG
Applicant(s): JIMMY MIN TAT CHENG
Property Address: 14 MILLGATE CRES
COA File No.: 23 225132 NNY 17 MV (A0592/23NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 112625 S45 17 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): Tuesday, May 21, 2024
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | J.M. Tat Cheng | M. Di Vona |
| Participant | J. Fiser |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The applicant/appellant appeals a denial by the North York panel of the Committee of Adjustment for three variances required to construct an accessory structure on the property located at 14 Millgate Crescent (the "Subject Property"). The accessory structure is a pool enclosure. The appeal is being allowed by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal").
2The Subject Property is located on the north-west side of Millgate Crescent, east of Bayview Avenue. Millgate Crescent is a local residential street north-east of the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East.
3Millgate Crescent is a curved local street that connects with Foxwarren Drive in two locations. Foxwarren Drive connects to Bayview Avenue. Millgate Crescent is a two way street and there are no sidewalks on either side of the street. There is a sidewalk on the south side of Foxwarren Drive.
4To the north and west, which is the rear of the Subject Property, is a greenspace which contains Bayview Village Park. The park includes a playground, recreational fields including tennis courts and a baseball diamond, walkways, benches, a small watercourse and open green space. The playground to the north contains a very high (estimated by the applicant/appellant's planning witness, Ms. McFarlane, to be 4 m high) opaque metal fence around the south and east side of the splashpad. This fence buffers the Subject Property from the playground and vice versa.
5The Subject Property previously contained a 1 storey detached dwelling. In 2022 variances were obtained for a new 2 storey detached dwelling which is currently under construction.
6The City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 zones the Subject Property as Residential Detached – RD (f15.0; a550) (x5). The City of Toronto Official Plan designates the Subject Property "Neighbourhoods". The lands to the west and north are designated "Parks".
7Prior to the hearing I visited the Subject Property and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood in which it is situated. In addition, I reviewed the pre-filed materials.
8Several exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing:
Exhibit 1: Applicant Document Disclosure received by the Tribunal on April 15, 2024
Exhibit 2: Expert Witness Statement of Jane McFarlane received by the Tribunal on April 15, 2024
Exhibit 3: Site Plan dated October 11, 2023, and received by the Tribunal on May 21, 2023
Exhibit 4: Applicant Document Disclosure – Photobook received by the Tribunal on April 15, 2024
Exhibit 5: Participant Witness Statement received by the Tribunal on April 14, 2024
9I will now briefly provide a synopsis of the opening and closing arguments made by Mr. Di Vona, counsel for the applicant/appellant. In his opening statement, Mr. Di Vona asserted that the minor variances are for a pool enclosure for seasonal use. The house has already received the necessary approvals with building permits issued. In addition, the necessary permits for the pool have been issued and it has been built. The proposal is for a seasonal pool enclosure for a short period of time during the year. Mr. Di Vona further asserted that City Planning staff have no concerns with the proposal and are in support of the application.
10Mr. Di Vona proposed the modification of the language for variance #2 so that it is limited only to the specific ancillary structure, and the zoning examiner was consulted for the modified wording of this variance.
11Mr. Di Vona also noted that there is a revised site plan which proposes to include a row of hedges at a height of 2.4 metres, which is intended to respond to the participant's concerns. The hedges will function as a privacy screen and will also provide a view of greenery for the participant neighbour.
12In his closing arguments, Mr. Di Vona asserted that the Tribunal should accept the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. McFarlane and that the proposal meets the four Planning Act tests for the minor variances being sought. Mr. Di Vona noted the temporary and seasonal nature of the structure, arguing that the design and height are appropriate for the site, and pointing out that the materials are transparent panels. In addition, Mr. Di Vona asserted that there will be no sun and shadow impacts on the participant given the location of the structure relative to the participant's property. Mr. Di Vona argued that the applicant/appellant could build an as-of-right similar structure in the southwest corner of the property which would have a great impact than the proposal given that it would be closer to the property line. Mr. Di Vona also asserted that the 2.4m hedges are proposed to respond to the participant neighbour's concerns.
13I will now outline the legal framework guiding this matter.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
14Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
15Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area.
16Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal 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.
17The requested variances are as follows:
- Chapter 10.5.60.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The maximum total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures on a lot is 60 m2.
The proposed is 115.12 m2.
- Chapter 10.20.30.40. By-law No. 569-2013
The maximum permitted lot coverage is 30%.
The proposed lot coverage is 48.1%. The proposed lot coverage is 32% for the main dwelling and 16.1% for any ancillary building or structure.
- Chapter 10.5.60.70.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The area of the lot covered by all ancillary buildings and structures may not exceed 10% of the lot area.
The proposed lot coverage is 16.1%.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Jane McFarlane
18Ms. McFarlane is a Vice President at Weston Consulting, and she has been with Weston Consulting since 2009. Ms. McFarlane is a registered professional planner with the Ontario Professional Planning Institute, and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners.
19Ms. McFarlane's land use planning experience has encompassed a broad range of land development activities, including various applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision, Minor Variances and Consents as well as expert witness testimony at Ontario Land Tribunal hearings and at this Tribunal. Ms. McFarlane was qualified as an expert to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
20Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the proposed modification to the wording for variance #2, dealing with the lot coverage, is appropriate as it clarifies that the lot coverage variance is to be divided between the ancillary building or structure and the main dwelling. In other words, the modification of the variance ensures that the main dwelling cannot be enlarged. To be clear, the following bolded sentence is added to the wording for variance #2: "The proposed lot coverage is 32% for the main dwelling and 16.1% for any ancillary building or structure." I accept this modification to variance #2.
21Ms. McFarlane opined that the proposal is for a seasonal enclosure which will be open 60% of the year. No variances are being requested for the pool. Rather, the variances are required to enclose the pool.
22The structure of the enclosure will include wood posts which will be open during the summer, and have panels placed on the top and sides during the winter months. The seasonal panels are transparent.
23Ms. McFarlane's opinion is that from the green space to the west, one would not be able to see the structure, and noted that the by-law permits at 2.4 m wood fence. The City of Toronto Fence By-law, Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, provides for different heights at rear and side lot lines.
24The property at 12 Millgate Crescent (i.e. the participant's property) will see the new fence plus 0.4m of the proposed pool enclosure structure above the fence's height of 2.0m. The height permitted by the fence bylaw at this location is 2.0m. Ms. McFarlane noted that the applicant/appellant is proposing new fence coniferous plantings in the form of a green hedgerow at 2.4m of height along the shared lot line.
25A stone foundation will run along the pool, parallel to the west lot line. The wood posts will be sited on the stone foundation along the west lot line.
26Ms. McFarlane noted that the original plans for the Subject Property showed a pool but did not show a pool enclosure. The City of Toronto By-law dealing Swimming Pool Enclosures is not straightforward, and the working assumption of the architect was that an enclosure could be erected under this by-law. However, the proposal is for a seasonal structure and this complicated how the City would deal with the structure as it will not be present all the time. A City zoning examiner confirmed that the proposal would need to comply with the Zoning By-law for ancillary structures.
27With regards to the participant, Dr. Fiser's complains about the loss of view and light from the adjacent property, Ms. McFarlane opined that the orientation of shadows is to the north from a dwelling, meaning that shadows are not cast on Dr. Fiser's property which is immediately to the southwest.
28Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that no variance is required for the height of the pool enclosure. In addition, Ms. McFarlane opined that a permanent shed could be built on the southwest corner of the lot as of right, for up to 10% of the lot area which would be as tall as the proposal and closer to the lot line. In other words, Ms. McFarlane's opinion is that the proposal has the same impact on Dr. Fiser's property as an as-of-right structure or shed would have.
29Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the proposal meets the four Planning Act tests for a minor variance and went through the test in detail.
Jarmila Fiser
30Dr. Fiser is a medical doctor. Dr. Fiser lives immediate to the southwest of the Subject Property. She asserted that the Subject Property is being built with very generous variances including side yard setback and height variances, which has resulted in significant light reduction in her house. In addition, the key windows which she enjoys are all facing the new house.
31Dr. Fiser argued that there needs to be an appropriate ratio for development on the Subject Property, and that the house and swimming pool should be on a one-acre lot, not in Bayview Village.
32Dr. Fiser argued that everyone has to obey the Zoning By-laws, and did not understand how the planning department has no issue with the proposal. With regards to an as-of-right shed, Dr. Fiser cannot imagine where such a shed could go because the backyard is already overbuilt. Dr. Fiser's opinion is that Zoning By-laws exist for a reason and that the only individual benefitting from the proposed enclosure is the property owner. Dr. Fiser truly believes that the structure is far out of the Zoning By-law requirement, and therefore should not be allowed.
33Dr. Fiser submitted a participant statement and a responding witness statement to the Tribunal. On cross-examination, Dr. Fiser noted that this was the first time for her appearing before the Tribunal, and therefore she did not intentionally make any procedural mistakes such as failing to serve all parties on the participant list, etc.
34On cross-examination Dr. Fiser stated that she did not consult with any other land use planner aside from contacting the City planner, who did not provide the answers that she was seeking. In addition, Dr. Fiser admitted that she received two letters from the applicant/appellant, however, she claimed that these letters were self-serving, and that she did not see any room in the letters for discussions about the proposal. In other words, Dr. Fiser did not think that there was a possible solution that she would be satisfied with, and therefore, did not bother engaging the applicant/appellant on the matter.
35Dr. Fiser asserted that the 2.4m plantings around the property line will benefit the applicant as much as her, as the applicant will have greenery. Dr. Fiser asserted that the property has a very large swimming pool, however, she was not aware of any variances which were necessary for the pool. In addition, Dr. Fiser asserted that none of the backyards in the neighbourhood had an ancillary structure of the same magnitude or size as the proposed pool enclosure.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Provincial Interest
36Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest to which the Tribunal shall have regard.
37I find that various matters of provincial interest are supported by the proposal, and that the most relevant subsections of section 2 of the Planning Act include: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and (r)(i) the promotion of well-designed built form.
38I do not feel it is necessary to review the cited provisions in detail in this decision as the matters of provincial interest provide the framework within which the various planning documents such as the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate.
39In conclusion, I find that various matters of provincial interest are supported by the subject proposal, including the matters of provincial interest which are cited above.
Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
40Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the three proposed variances are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019).
41I do not feel it is necessary to review these policies in greater detail in this decision as these documents are general in nature and provide the framework within which the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate.
42I accept Ms. McFarlane's opinion and find that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019).
Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan
43The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto's Official Plan. Policy 4.1.5 outlines Development Criteria for Neighbourhoods.
44Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Ms. McFarlane delineated an Immediate Context and Broader Context. The geographic neighbourhood can be seen below.
Exhibit 4: Page 4 showing the Geographic Neighbourhood delineated by Ms. McFarlane.
45The Geographic Neighborhood is bounded by:
Bayview Village Park to the north;
Bayview Avenue (excluding the properties fronting Bayview) to the west;
Bayview Mews to the south;
Hawksbury Drive / Hawksbury Park to the east (excluding the properties on Roswell).
46The immediate context includes the properties on Millgate Crescent and includes approximately 40 properties. The broader context includes properties on Foxwarren Drive and contains approximately 80 properties. Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that there is no significant difference between the immediate and broader contexts.
47Ms. McFarlane opined that the purpose of establishing a Geographic Neighbourhood is to assist in reviewing the compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent properties and its capability to respect and reinforce the prevailing character as intended by the Official Plan
48To draw the Neighbourhood boundary, the Official Plan lists nine criteria: "zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features".
49I will not be reviewing these criteria in detail in this decision, suffice it to say that I am satisfied that these criteria have been met in the delineation of the Geographic Neighbourhood. For example, the Geographic Neighbourhood is consistent with the boundary of the RD (f15.0; a550)(x5) Zoning designation, and Bayview village park to the north is a clear natural dividing feature.
50I accept the Geographic Neighbourhood delineated by Ms. McFarlane, including the immediate and broader contexts.
Planning Act Section 45(1) Test
51I will now go through the four statutory tests and my findings on each test for the requested variances.
- Chapter 10.5.60.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The maximum total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures on a lot is 60 m2.
The proposed is 115.12 m2.
- Chapter 10.20.30.40. By-law No. 569-2013
The maximum permitted lot coverage is 30%.
The proposed lot coverage is 48.1%. The proposed lot coverage is 32% for the main dwelling and 16.1% for any ancillary building or structure.
- Chapter 10.5.60.70.(1), By-law No. 569-2013
The area of the lot covered by all ancillary buildings and structures may not exceed 10% of the lot area.
The proposed lot coverage is 16.1%.
Do the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
52Ms. McFarlane reviewed various sections of the City of Toronto's Official Plan. Ms. McFarlane cited section 2.3.1, opining that the Official Plan contains policies that recognize that change within neighbourhoods will occur over time and that such change should fit within the general physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
53More particularly, Ms. McFarlane cited section 2.3.1.1. which states
Neighbourhoods are low rise and low density residential areas that are considered to be physically stable. Development in Neighbourhoods will be consistent with this objective and will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas.
54Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the proposed variances and temporary ancillary pool enclosure will not destabilize the neighbourhood, and will respect and reinforce the character of accessory structures and rear yards in the neighbourhood.
55Ms. McFarlane cited section 3.1.3.1 of the Official Plan which discusses the need to locate and organize development to fit with its existing and planned context, and provides a set of criteria to consider. Ms. McFarlane opined that the proposed temporary pool enclosure will allow year-round use of the Subject Property's rear yard. In addition, Ms. McFarlane provided the opinion that there is minimal impact on the neighbouring streets as the proposed structure is located in the rear yard.
56Ms. McFarlane further opined in the context of the chapter 3 policy cited above that the pool and accessory enclosure will frame the edge of the adjacent park. The enclosure is setback 1.2 m from the rear lot line. Ms. McFarlane's opinion is that the pool enclosure will not be seen from the adjacent park as the new fence to be constructed will shield it. In addition, there is already a 4 m high metal fence buffering the adjacent residential area, including the Subject Property, and the playground.
57Ms. McFarlane further opined that the mature trees along the rear property line and adjacent park have been preserved and will provide additional buffering for the Subject Property's rear yard, including the pool enclosure.
58Ms. McFarlane reviewed Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, and provided her opinion with reference to several applicable subsections of the policy and the proposal's ability to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood. I will now provide a brief analysis of two of these subsections.
594.1.5c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;
60Ms. McFarlane opined, and I accept that the proposed development of a temporary pool enclosure continues to respect and reinforce the prevailing pattern of heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type. Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the Geographic Neighborhood contains a mix of physical characteristics with variability in prevailing heights, massing, scale and density. This includes a mix of older original dwellings (some with additions/ modification) and newer, more modern dwellings. Ms. McFarlane opined that the newer modern dwellings are larger in terms of height, massing, scale, and density.
61Ms. McFarlane further opined, and I accept that the proposed accessory structure will respect the prevailing heights, massing and scale of other rear yards in the Geographic Neighbourhood. Ms. McFarlane noted that many of the lots that she observed from the adjacent park contained trellis and rear yard decks and patios that could be seen from the park. Many of the lots contain tight rear yards which are heavily occupied by an accessory structure.
62Ms. McFarlane noted that although the variances for the main dwelling – which have already been approved - are not in consideration before the Tribunal, they still must be considered with respect to the proposed variances for the temporary structure. Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the proposed pool enclosure along with the new dwelling at the Subject Property respects and reinforces the prevailing heights, density and scale of the geographic neighborhood. I accept Ms. McFarlane's opinion on this matter.
634.1.5g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;
64Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that there is no one consistent pattern of rear yard setback and size within the geographic neighbourhood. In addition, there is a staggered location of rear walls which corresponds to a varied rear yard setback. Ms. McFarlane opined that this is due to both the variability of lots sizes, the curves of the streets and some newer, larger houses having greater depths than the original dwellings.
65Ms. McFarlane provided her further opinion that on many of the lots along the north and west and east side of Millgate Crescent, the rear yards are tight and slightly exceed the rear yard setback requirement, which is 7.5 metres. In addition, many of these tight rear yards contain accessory structures including landscaped open space, rear yard accessory structures, including decks, trellises and amenity areas.
66Ms. McFarlane provided examples of 6, 8, 28, 30 and 32 Millgate Crescent which she opined each contain tighter side yard setbacks and a rear yard accessory structure.
67Ms. McFarlane noted that the rear yard setback for the main dwelling on the Subject Property is 10.3 metres. There are no variances for rear yard setbacks or landscaped open space in either the application before the Tribunal or the main dwelling minor variance application which was approved in 2022.
68Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion, and I accept that the proposed temporary accessory structure in the rear yard respects and reinforces the prevailing pattern of rear yards being occupied by structures and amenity areas.
69In conclusion, I accept Ms. McFarlane's opinions as recited above, and find that each of the three proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Do the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?
70As noted previously in this decision, the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 zones the Subject Property as Residential Detached – RD (f15.0; a550) (x5).
71For the Gross Floor Area variance (variance #1), Ms. McFarlane opined that the intent of the maximum gross floor area requirement is to regulate building area within a neighbourhood to ensure that appropriate size and built form is maintained, as well as consistent patterns of development.
72Ms. McFarlane provided her opinion that the impact of the structure is somewhat mitigated by its temporary nature as it is a seasonal structure only. In addition, Ms. McFarlane opined, and I accept that the ancillary structure, when enclosed or not enclosed, will not be visible from the street as it is located in the rear yard. Similarly, the structure, when enclosed or not enclosed will not be seen from the adjacent park since a new wood fence will be constructed. In addition, the structure will also be screened from the adjacent lot by a fence and only a small portion will protrude higher than the proposed side yard fence.
73Ms. McFarlane's opinion is that the pool enclosure will present as a wood trellis in both the winter and summer, which is similar to what is currently observed on many rear properties in the Geographic Neighbourhood.
74I accept Ms. McFarlane's opinion regarding the Gross Floor Area variance, and find that it meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
75Variances #2 and #3 involve Lot Coverage permissions. Ms. McFarlane opined that the intent of lot coverage is to regulate the scale of development and to ensure adequate open space and lot patterns exist. As noted previously, I accept Ms. McFarlane's revised wording for Variance #2 so that it reflects the additional lot coverage permissions for the ancillary structure only.
76Ms. McFarlane provided the following chart summarizing lot coverage variances:
| Address | File No. | Coverage (30%) | Building Length (16.8m) | Rear Yard Setback (7.5m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 Millgate Cres | A0092/17 NY | 31.93% | 19.07 m | |
| 14 Millgate Cres | A0092,22 NY | 32% | ||
| 28 Millgate Cres | A0303/12 NY | 41.14% | 22.07 m | 6.72 m |
| 32 Millgate Cres | A0266/15 NY | 33.4% | ||
| 42 Millgate Cres | A0619/17 NY | 20.83 m | ||
| 48 Millgate Cres | A0549/17 NY | 19 m | ||
| 35 Foxwarren Dr | A0028/24 NY | 33.12% |
77Ms. McFarlane noted that the approved coverage variance at 28 Millgate Cres is to permit covered porches at the front and rear of the property. Ms. McFarlane provided her further opinion that although there are no variances found for ancillary structures, the wood trellis and uncovered decks would not require a coverage variance because they are not enclosed. In other words, the approved lot coverages do not include wood trellises and uncovered decks. The proposed pool enclosure would operate like these type of structures for more than half the year. I agree with Ms. McFarlane that the proposal must be viewed through this lens. The 16.1% lot coverage for the pool enclosure will operate as a wood trellis for more than half the year.
78In addition, Ms. McFarlane opined that there will be no views of the structure from the adjacent park and a limited exposure of the structure from the participant's adjacent lot.
79I accept Mc. McFarlane's opinions regarding the Lot Coverage variances and find that they meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Are the proposed variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
80Ms. McFarlane's opinion is that the proposed temporary pool enclosure will enhance the use of the property and the rear yard for the Subject Property's owner.
81Ms. McFarlane noted that the additional variances for the temporary enclosure were discovered after the minor variance application for the main dwelling was approved, as per discussions with City zoning staff. If the architect had realized that these variances were required, they would have been included in the original application. Ms. McFarlane's opinion is that this is not a situation where an applicant is submitting a revised minor variance application for a larger dwelling or for new variances modifying previous variances.
82Ms. McFarlane further opined that the variances and resulting temporary pool enclosure are desirable for the appropriate use and development of the land. The pool enclosure will only contain the enclosure panels for part of the year. The rest of the year, the wooden posts will be open and are reflective of trellis' seen in rear yards in this neighborhood.
83In addition, Ms. McFarlane opined that the height of the ancillary structure is consistent with the height of the proposed new fences and generally will not be seen from the adjacent parkland, and only a small portion will be visible from the adjacent lot to the southwest which is proposed to be mitigated by a row of hedges.
84I agree with Ms. McFarlane's opinions as expressed above, and find that the three proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
Are the proposed variances minor?
85Ms. McFarlane opined that the variances will result in an ancillary structure that is consistent with the established built form. In addition, Ms. McFarlane was of the opinion that the variances represent minor numerical increases to the Zoning By-law, as well as limited impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and adjacent properties.
86Ms. McFarlane was of the further opinion that the variances do not create any undue adverse impacts on the streetscape of the adjacent neighbours, including shadowing, privacy or overlook concerns. In other words, no unacceptable impacts will be created on the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood, including the adjacent park from the proposal.
87In addition, Ms. McFarlane opined that the proposed ancillary structure will have no impact on how the dwelling appears from the street, as the front of the dwelling is unchanged by the application.
88I agree with Ms. McFarlane's opinions as expressed above, and find that the Gross Floor Area variance and the Lot Coverage variances are minor and do not result in an impact that rises to the level of undue adverse impact.
CONCLUSION
89I find that each of the three variances meet the four statutory tests for a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
90The appeal is allowed with variance #2 being amended as noted in this decision, and on the following condition:
a. The 2.4m high continuous hedging shall be planted substantially in accordance with the Proposed Site Plan, prepared by AFA, Architecture for All, dated 2023-10-11, as appended to this decision.
T. Kezwer
Panel Member