Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-10-10

24 141596 S45 11 TLAB

91 Barton Avenue Inc (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 268

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

October 10, 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):

91 BARTON AVENUE INC

Applicant(s):

CRAIG RACE ARCHITECHTURE INC

Property Address:

91 Barton Ave

COA File No.:

24 112131 STE 11 MV

TLAB Case File No.:

24 141596 S45 11 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

2024-09-19, 2024-10-02

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

CRAIG RACE ARCHITECTURE INC.

Appellant

91 BARTON AVENUE INC.

A. STEWART

Participant

M. NARROL

Participant

L. NUSSBAUM

Participant

B. MAUSBERG

Participant

G. THOMSON

Participant

R. SINCLAIR

Participant

M. RICHARDSON

Participant

J. FOSTER

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This was a two-day hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”).

2The Appellant, 91 Barton Avenue Inc., appeals a denial by the Toronto and East York Committee of Adjustment for 21 variances for a proposed three-storey apartment building containing 9 units, including 1 affordable rental unit, and two laneway suites, on the property located at 91 Barton Avenue (the “Subject Property”). The proposed unit mix includes two 1-bedroom, six 2-bedroom, and three 3-bedroom units, all of which will be rental apartments. One unit is proposed to be affordable within the meaning of s. 4.1 of the Development Charges Act, 1997. The appeal is being allowed.

3The Subject Property is located in the Toronto and East York area of the City of Toronto, east of Christie Street, west of Bathurst Street, north of Bloor Street West and south of Dupont Street in the Seaton Village neighbourhood.

4The Subject Property is relatively flat and rectangular with an area of 432.4 square metres, 7.62 metres of frontage on Barton Avenue, and a depth of 52.43 metres. The east side of the lot abuts Ciamaga Lane, a public laneway. The west side of the lot abuts the rear yards of several lots fronting Manning Avenue. A two-storey detached house and a detached garage are currently located on the Subject Property.

5The Subject Property is designated as Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan’s Land Use Map 18.

6The Subject Property is situated within both the Council-adopted Bathurst and Christie Protected Major Transit Station Areas (“PMTSAs”). Both areas have a minimum density requirement of 0.5 times the site.

7The Subject Property is zoned R (d0.6) (Residential) in the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013.

8Prior 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.

9I will now briefly provide a synopsis of the hearing events according to each day:

a. Day 1: Ms. Stewart provided her opening statement asserting that the City of Toronto is facing a housing crisis, and is taking various initiatives to address it, such as through Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods, known as it’s acronym, EHON. Ms. Stewart asserted that these initiatives mean nothing if they cannot be implemented through development applications like this one. Ms. Stewart further asserted that 91 Barton is the poster child for a long-standing land use planning dichotomy, being the need for more dense housing versus resistance by residents to allowing such gradual and incremental growth and change to occur. Ms. Stewart asserted that significant changes have been made to the proposal based on consultations with area residents, community representatives and City Staff.

Ms. Stewart argued that while the proposal is classified as an apartment building, this is a technical building classification under the Zoning By-law. Ms. Stewart asserted that the building is not an apartment building in form or in the traditional sense. Rather, it is low-rise, 3 storeys in height, and each unit has a direct entrance. There are no common interior corridors, and there are no common interior rooms or storage areas. In other words, the proposal is more akin to a multiplex.

The proposal is for 9 units in the main building consisting of 1, 2, and 3- bedroom units, with a laneway house at the rear, which generally follows the footprint of the existing 4 car detached garage at the rear of the Subject Property. Ms. Stewart further asserted that there is one affordable unit in the main building, which is unheard of for a project of this scale. Ms. Stewart asserted that an approval would implement important policy initiatives that the City of Toronto needs, and bring needed rental housing, including an affordable rental unit to a unique lot which is exceptionally deep. Ms. Stewart concluded by asserting that if the proposal cannot go on the Subject Property, she does not know where this type of low-rise multiplex form development could be approved.

After Ms. Stewart’s opening remarks, Mr. Driedger, a planner from the City of Toronto provided his testimony. This was followed by testimony from the appellant’s planner, Mr. Uens. At the end of the day, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Sinclair both provided their participant testimony.

b. Day 2: Ms. Thomson provided her witness statement followed by Mr. Mausberg, Ms. Nussbaum, and Ms. Narrol. Each participant was opposed to the proposed development and was cross-examined by Ms. Stewart.

After the participants provided their testimony, Ms. Stewart made her closing statement. Ms. Stewart argued that there is a housing crisis for the province and the City. She requested that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the housing crisis, and cited a report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force.

Ms. Stewart asserted that there was significant and extensive community and staff consultation for the proposed development. Ms. Stewart argued that the extent of the community consultation is unprecedented for an application of this scale, and included a community meeting with staff from the local councillor’s office and City planners in attendance. There were also individual meetings and phone calls. Ms. Stewart argued that there has been success in dealing with the concerns outlined for this proposal, and that this can be seen in the public participation at the two Committee of Adjustment hearings and at this Tribunal. The April Committee of Adjustment hearing had over 50 letters in opposition. The August Committee of Adjustment hearing had 19 letters in opposition. Four residents participated in opposition to the proposal at this hearing. Ms. Stewart argued that it is not possible to address all concerns expressed by neighbours, especially when these concerns are based on where an individual’s property is located in a neighbourhood, or how they are directly or not directly affected by an application.

Ms. Stewart argued that the applicant has gone to significant and extensive efforts to frame the proposal, revise it, respond to last minute changes in position from City departments, and did its best to balance competing interests and objects.

Ms. Stewart argued that all relevant City departments have been engaged throughout the planning process and confirmed that their concerns are addressed. This includes the Planning department and Transportation Services. Ms. Stewart also argued that the community’s concerns regarding impact have been resolved and addressed appropriately and this is a good and desirable project to be built on the property. For example, two rooftop terraces were removed from the property even though in this location and zone, there is no restriction on the size or inclusion of rooftop terraces. Stair enclosures have also been added to buffer the terraces from adjacent properties.

Ms. Stewart asserted that the Transportation Services department has confirmed that their safety concerns have been addressed.

Ms. Stewart reviewed the evidence that was before the tribunal and asserted that the tribunal should accept the evidence of the two expert land use planners, Mr. Driedger, and Mr. Uens. Ms. Stewart asserted that both planners were thorough, comprehensive in their evidence, credible and unbiased.

Ms. Stewart argued that contextual considerations are important for this case. The Official Plan is a City-wide policy document, and the Zoning By-law requires all properties in the same zone be regulated in the same manner. This is why the minor variance process exists – to account for contextual considerations and to allow for flexibility and variances where a proposal is demonstrated to be appropriate given its context.

Ms. Stewart noted that the Residential zone is the only yellow belt designation where apartment buildings are permitted as of right. The subject lot is the longest and deepest site within the Geographic Neighbourhood presented by Mr. Uens and it is also the third largest property in terms of area within the entire neighbourhood.

The Subject Property’s exceptional depth makes it ideally situated to allow for increased unit count, including increased laneway suite counts and in a manner that is reflective and appropriate.

Ms. Stewart argued that the Subject Property is in an ideal location and is an ideal site for this type of intensification. If the envelop cannot be pushed in this neighbourhood and on this site, it cannot be pushed anywhere else in the City.

Ms. Stewart asserted that the proposal looks like a multiplex, like a house, and is not different from the neighbourhood context.

Ms. Stewart noted that the proposal is considered as an apartment building, and that this is an important technical consideration to understand because the classification gives rise to different variances that would not be there if it were a multiplex. This includes variances dealing with FSI, garbage storage, 7.5 setback, etc. Ms. Stewart argued that a number of variances are technical in nature due to the proposal being considered an apartment building

Ms. Stewart argued that the addition of 9 units in the main building is desirable and a laudable planning objective. The proposal represents an appropriate built form with limited adverse impacts on surrounding properties, and there are no impacts which rise to the level of being an adverse impact of a planning nature. Ms. Stewart posited that family sized rental housing units is a desirable planning objective across the city of Toronto.

In addition, Ms. Stewart noted that the inclusion of an affordable housing unit is voluntarily being offered by the project owner.

Ms. Stewart concluded that the proposal represents the epitome of an opportunity to provide the type of intensification which is consistent with and implements the policy frameworks put in place by the province and the City.

10Fifteen exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing:

Exhibit 1: Mr. Driedger’s C.V. and Form 6 – Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty

Exhibit 2: Document Disclosure of Applicant

Exhibit 3: Expert Witness Statement by Mr. Uens

Exhibit 4: Visual Evidence of Mr. Uens

Exhibit 5: Applicant’s Disclosure with List of Requested Variances and Conditions

Exhibit 6: City of Toronto Staff Report, Changing Lanes: The City of Toronto’s Review of Laneway Suites – City-wide Expansion of City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment – Final Report, dated June 5, 2019

Exhibit 7: Reply to Responding Expert Witness Statement submitted by Mr. Uens

Exhibit 8: Participant Witness Statement Form 13 – Mr. Richardson

Exhibit 9: Participant Witness Statement Form 13 – Mr. Sinclair

Exhibit 10: Participant Witness Statement Form 13 – Ms. Thomson

Exhibit 11: Toronto Transportation Services, Toronto & East York District, Appendix 1 Permit Parking Area Map of Areas Waitlisted or Approaching Capacity

Exhibit 12: Participant Witness Statement Form 13 – Mr. Mausberg

Exhibit 13: July 3^rd letter from Mr. Uens addressed to the Toronto and East York Committee of Adjustment

Exhibit 14: Participant Witness Statement Form 13 – Ms. Nussbaum

Exhibit 15: Participant Witness Statement Form 13 – Ms. Narrol

Section 48(18.1.1)

11As alluded to above, the Subject Property went before the Committee of Adjustment on two separate occasions. The first date was April 17, 2024. This application was denied and this is the application which is now before the Tribunal.

12The proposal was modified and brought to the Committee of Adjustment as a new application on August 14, 2024, and this second application was also denied.

13The Appellant filed an Applicant’s Disclosure and counsel for the Appellant requested an Order under subsection 45(18.1.1) that the proposal which was originally appealed can be formally amended. The request is for the proposal to be formally amended to the proposal which was before the Committee of Adjustment on August 14, 2024.

14The Planning Act at subsection 45(18.1) asserts that written notice must be provided for an application which has been amended to the persons and public bodies who received notice of the original application and to others and agencies prescribed under subsection 45(5).

15On August 23, 2024, the Property owner had a notice of the amended proposal served on all properties within 60 m of the site. This is consistent with the Committee of Adjustment practice, and it has been completed at least 10 days prior to the hearing of this matter, which is also consistent with the Committee of Adjustment practice.

16I find that the service requirements under subsection 45(18.1) have been met, and this Tribunal can make a decision on the amended application.

17In addition, I note that the Planning Act at subsection 45(18.1.1) provides that no new public notice is required under subsection 45(18.1) if in the Tribunal's opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor. There is no further statutory guidance on what constitutes a minor amendment. In my opinion, context is very important when considering whether an amendment to an original application is minor.

18There is only one Party in this proceeding. In addition, I find that the various amendments such as chamfered corners at the entrance facing the laneway, increase of the west yard setback, removal of two rooftop patios, etcetera, function to reduce the impacts of the proposed development and are minor. Therefore, in the event that section 45(18.1.1) were to apply, I find that the amendment to the original application is minor and that no new notice is required for the Tribunal hearing.

19I will now outline the legal framework guiding this matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

20Provincial 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.

21Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area.

22Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering an application for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an application meets 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.

23The requested variances are as follows:

1. Chapter 10.5.150.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

All waste and recyclable material must be stored in a wholly enclosed building.

In this case, the waste and recyclable material will not be stored in a wholly

enclosed building.

2. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m from a building, with a

floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may

encroach into the required front yard setback 2.5 m if it is no closer to a side lot line

than the required side yard setback.

The front sunken terrace will encroach 5.93 m into the required front yard setback

and will be located 3.35 m from the side (west) lot line and 0 m from the side (east)

lot line.

The front ground floor deck will encroach 5.93 m into the required front yard

setback and will be located 0.08 m from the side (west) lot line and 3.96 m from the

side (east) lot line.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m from a building, with a

floor higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may

encroach into the required front yard setback 1.5 m if it is no closer to a side lot line

than the required side yard setback.

The front second and third storey balconies will encroach 4.55 m into the required

front yard setback and will be located 0.91 m from the side (east) lot line and 1.91

m from the side (west) lot line.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(F)(ii), By-law 569-2013

A platform with a floor higher than the first storey of the building above established

grade may not encroach into the required side yard setback if the side yard does

not abut a street.

The east side third storey balconies will encroach into the required side yard

setback and the side (east) lot line does not abut a street.

5. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(3)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013

Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach

into a required building setback provided the stairs are no closer to a lot line than

0.6 m.

The front basement walkout stairs will be located 0.61 m from the side (east) lot line

and 0.07 m from the front (north) lot line.

The east side ground floor stairs will be located 0 m from the side (east) lot line.

6. Chapter 10.5.40.70.(2), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required setback of a building or structure from the original centreline

of a lane is 2.5 m.

The new building will be located 2.42 m from the original centreline of the lane

abutting the side (east) lot line.

7. Chapter 10.5.50.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% (210.45 m²) of the lot area must be maintained as landscaping.

In this case, 17% (71.8 m²) of the lot area will be maintained as landscaping.

8. Chapter 10.5.50.10.(4)(B), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% (105.2 m²) of the required landscaping must be provided as soft

landscaping.

In this case, 32% (67 m²) of the required landscaping will be provided as soft

landscaping.

9. Chapter 10.5.50.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

A 1.5 m wide minimum strip of soft landscaping must be provided for a lot with an

apartment building, along any part of a lot line abutting a lot in a Residential Zone.

In this case, a 1.5 m wide strip of soft landscaping will not be provided along the

side (west) lot line and the rear (south) lot line.

10. Chapter 10.10.40.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height is 11 m.

The new building will have a height of 10.93 m to the top of the roof deck, 12 m to

the top of the guard, and 13.5 m to the top of the stair enclosure.

11. Chapter 10.10.40.30.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building depth is 17 m.

The new building will have a depth of 24.51 m.

12. Chapter 10.10.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.6 times the area of the lot (252.54

m²).

The new building will have a floor space index equal to 1.94 times the area of the

lot (818.3 m²).

13. Chapter 10.10.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback is 6 m.

The new building will be located 0.07 m from the front (north) lot line.

14. Chapter 10.10.40.70.(3)(B)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a building with a height of more than

13 m, is 7.5 m.

The new building will be located 0 m from the side (east) lot line and 0.08 m from

the side (west) lot line.

15. Chapter 10.10.40.80.(1)(C), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required distance between main walls for an apartment building is 11m where there are openings to dwelling units in those main walls.

In this case, the distance between main walls will be 2.43 m on the ground floor.

16. Chapter 200.5.10.1.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of two visitor parking spaces is required to be provided on-site.

In this case, the visitor parking spaces will not be provided as required on-site.

17. Chapter 230.5.10.1.(5)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 1.1 bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit (allocated as 0.9

long-term bicycle parking space per dwelling unit and 0.2 short-term bicycle parking

space per dwelling unit) is required to be provided on-site (10 bicycle parking

spaces).

In this case, there will be no bicycle parking spaces provided on-site.

18. Chapter 150.8.20.1.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

An ancillary building may be used for living accommodation in one laneway suite.

In this case, the ancillary building will be used for living accommodations in two

laneway suites.

19. Chapter 150.8.50.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

For a lot with a residential building and an ancillary building containing a laneway

suite, with a lot frontage of greater than 6 m, a minimum of 85% (57.6 m²) of the

area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall

of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite must be maintained as soft

landscaping, excluding a pedestrian walkway which may have a maximum width of

1.5 m.

In this case, 79% (53.4 m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential

building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing laneway suites

will be maintained as soft landscaping.

20. Chapter 150.8.60.30.(5), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building length for an ancillary building containing a

laneway suite is 10 m.

The ancillary building containing two laneway suites will have a length of 14.42 m.

21. Chapter 150.8.60.20.(3)(D), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for an ancillary building containing a

laneway suite is 1 m if the side lot line abuts a laneway.

The ancillary building containing two laneway suites will be located 0.78 m from the

side (east) lot line, abutting a public laneway.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Mr. Driedger

24David Driedger is the Manager, Community Planning, at the City of Toronto, who was involved with both Committee of Adjustment applications for the Subject Property. Mr. Driedger signed several Staff Reports related to the proposal before the Tribunal, including reports dated June 24, July 4, and August 9, 2024. Mr. Driedger has been employed with Community Planning at the City of Toronto since May 2008. Mr. Driedger was qualified as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

25Mr. Driedger stated that City planning staff had no objections to the proposed variances before the Committee of Adjustments on August 14, 2024, and which are currently before the Tribunal. Mr. Driedger further stated that staff wants to make sure that all the revisions from the first Committee of Adjustment application are closely secured by tying any potential approval to the plans titled “2024-07-09 – 91 Barton Ave – COA – Drawings – R3”, received by the Committee of Adjustment on July 16, 2024. This is to ensure that the setbacks and sculpting of the building that was done to deal with concerns raised via the consultation process remain in place.

26Mr. Driedger noted that there was a July 3, 2024 Transportation Services report which dealt with the laneway widening of Ciamaga Lane that Transportation Services staff would require as part of the development application. The laneway widening and a 0.22m setback from the property line had not been previously raised at the time the proposal was reviewed for the first Committee of Adjustment application. Mr. Driedger noted that the property owner worked with Transportation Services staff and Community Planning staff to revise the application to allow for lane widening and that transportation staff no longer had any issues with or objections to the revised proposal that is before the Tribunal.

27Mr. Driedger noted that an affordable housing unit has been added to the proposal. Again, Mr. Driedger noted that City Planning staff have no objections to the proposal.

28In terms of water run-off issues, water run-off is required to be dealt with on a individual site, and is dealt with through the building permit process. Mr. Driedger noted that the waste storage is shown on the plans, and that planning staff have no objections to what is being proposed.

29Mr. Driedger opined that the expectation for laneway suites is that units will be facing onto laneways, and that the rules in place and the setbacks in place will be appropriate for safe access to those units. This application was reviewed by Transportation Services staff and by City Planning staff and they had no objections to the proposed variances

30Mr. Driedger noted that across the City, it is recognized that there is a housing affordability and general housing crisis, and a need for additional housing. The EHON initiative has the goal of ensuring there is a variety of housing options available for current and future residents within low rise neighbourhoods in Toronto. The housing options include: laneway suites, garden suites, multiplexes, and there is also work being done to expand options of what can be built on major streets.

31Mr. Driedger opined that the proposal for a low-rise 3-storey apartment building picks-up on the low-rise character of the neighbourhood but also provides additional housing not traditionally seen within neighborhood. The Subject Property is unique in terms of size and configuration. Mr. Driedger stated that Planning staff have no objections to the proposed variances and the nature of the project. City Planning staff recognize the need for increased housing near transit and across the City in general

32The property has R zoning, which is the more permissive zoning within the City, and it allows for a variety of housing from a detached house to an apartment building or low rise apartment building. The zoning sets the planned context for which housing types are allowed within the neighbourhood.

33Mr. Driedger opined that City zoning is blanket zoning that goes across large areas and doesn’t necessary account for every lot pattern and configuration. In his opinion, this is a lot that has a considerable depth, much deeper than other sites in area, and the proposal needs to be viewed within context of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law which permit a variety of uses.

34The Subject Site is within two PMTSAs that the City has put forward, which are not approved by the province. The PMTSAs are approved by council and provide direction to staff on the review of development applications within those areas. The PMTSAs are informative and not mandatory as they are not in force, and they call for minimum densities in areas whereas the Zoning By-law traditionally sets maximum density requirements.

35Mr. Driedger noted that two laneway suites are proposed which would be rental units, and that staff is supportive of that this would be a rental proposal. City Planning staff have no objections to this variance application. City Planning staff reviewed the application knowing that this site is considerably deeper than others, with a large frontage on a laneway, and have no objections to two laneway suites at the rear of the lot.

36Mr. Driedger opined that it is not unusual that an additional community consultation is held as part of a Committee of Adjustment application. Mr. Driedger stated that City planning staff always encourage developers to speak to neighbours to review and resolve issues. Mr. Driedger attended the June 3^rd consultation meeting along with Hector Alonso, Assistant Planner, Community Planning. In Mr. Driedger’s opinion, additional consultation beyond the base requirement was done in this case

37In terms of lot depth and the impact on neighbouring properties, Mr. Driedger noted that there are minimal windows on west façade, and they are frosted. Mr. Driedger opined that this is why City Planning Staff’s recommend that an approval be tied to the proposed plans so that details such as frosted glass and minimal window openings on the west side would be secured. In Mr. Driedger’s opinion, the proposal considered the properties to the west of the site, and how the configuration of the built form onto this lot would fit within that context.

38With regards to building height and rooftop patios, Mr. Driedger opined that the Zoning By-law allows a 4 m tall building, and that the main massing of the building fits within the permitted height. In Mr. Driedger’s opinion, it is the additional stair enclosures which allow for rooftop access that creates the height variance. In addition, guards and railings around the two rooftop outdoor spaces cause this variance. City planning staff have no objections to the proposed height variance and request that any height variance approval be tied to the plans.

39Mr. Driedger also discussed FSI. Mr. Driedger’s main concern is how does a building fit onto a property and can the lot accommodate what is being proposed. Mr. Driedger noted that under EHON, multiplexes, garden suites, and laneway suites are all not subject to FSI. Mr. Driedger’s main concern surrounds where is the building situated, how does it impact neighbouring properties, and the various impacts being mitigated. Mr. Driedger stated that City planning staff have no objection to FSI based on the built form proposed for the Subject Property.

40Mr. Driedger noted that planning staff have no objections to the proposal and are supportive of low rise housing that increases the number of units and housing options within this neighbourhood.

Mr. Uens

41Graig Uens has been the Director of Planning at Batory Planning & Management since 2022. Prior to this, Mr. Uens was a Planner with the City of Toronto for 12 years, and the last role he held with the City was as Senior Planner, Office of the Chief Planner, Toronto City Planning Division. Mr. Uens is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and a full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Mr. Uens was qualified as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

42During Mr. Uens’ time with the City of Toronto, he was the lead on the City’s laneway housing policy development team from 2017 to 2022. Mr. Uens drafted all the reports, undertook analysis, managed interdivisional working groups, managed consultations, drafted the City’s laneway suite policies, etc. In addition, Mr. Uens is familiar with the area where the Subject Property is located as he was responsible for the area while at Community Planning. Mr. Uens was also the lead on the nearby Honest Ed’s development.

43Mr. Uens described the Subject Property as being in a central part of Toronto that is well serviced by cycling amenities and transit infrastructure including the Christie and Bloor TTC subway stations.

44Mr. Uens opined that the proposal is a form of development which is able to provide a range of unit types, which is one of the objectives of EHON.

45With regards to subsections 45(18.1) and 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the changes outlined in the Applicant’s Disclosure are minor in nature and are consistent with those that were before the Committee of Adjustment on August 14, 2024. In addition, the owner circulated voluntary notice to the properties within 60 metres of the property. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that no new notice is required, nothing in the proposal is new, and that all residents received notice prior to the August 14, 2024, Committee of Adjustment hearing date.

46Mr. Uens opined that the proposal will be subject to rental protection policies because it contains more than 6 units. In addition, there will be one affordable housing unit. Mr. Uens’ further opinion is that the proposal reflects the form and scale of low-rise multiunit buildings in R zoned areas.

47Mr. Uens also opined that the building has been evaluated for planning purposes as an apartment building which has triggered many the variances, however, it is more akin to a multiplex building as there are no common stairwells, common amenities, etc. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the number of proposed units can reasonably be accommodated on this large site given its unique configuration.

48With regards to whether the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, Mr. Uens opined that the property is designated Neighbourhoods, is within two PMTSAs, and is not located within any site specific or secondary plan areas.

49Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposal is designed and sited to align as much as possible with as of right permissions for other forms of multiunit development in the area. In addition, there are sustainable design measures and approaches. Considerable consultation was completed beyond what are normally limited consultations for a minor variance application. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that infill neighbourhood development is challenging as there is no approach to zoning that can adequately account for the variety of lots across the City or uniquely situated and dimensioned lots such as the Subject Property.

[50] Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the proposal meets the four section 45(1) Planning Act tests, that it constitutes good planning, and meets the objectives of provincial planning.

51Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the revised proposal should be approved subject to the recommended conditions.

Mr. Richardson

52Mark Richardson elected participant status at the hearing, and he spoke as an individual. Mr. Richardson is involved with HousingNowTO, however, this is not an incorporated entity. Mr. Richardson stated that neighbourhood residents clearly asked for an affordable housing unit component in the proposal. Mr. Richardson spoke about the median income in the City and explained that rent should not be more than 30% of a household’s income. Mr. Richardson supports that this proposal is creating an affordable rental unit. Mr. Richardson stated that he has not seen many 11 unit apartments built, so it is hard to say whether affordable housing units are common in a development of this size, however, he asserted that this could be a model to follow throughout the province, with potentially having CMHC, the government, or philanthropic organizations as a partner.

Mr. Sinclair

53Robert Sinclair is a neighbour and he was originally opposed to the development. One of his family’s main concerns was the impact on their home with regards to privacy, overlook, and the large number of windows on the east side of the building. Several significant changes were added to the proposal which will mitigate the impact of the development, including reducing the size of windows, changing the alignment of windows so they do not face directly into his home, the inclusion of frosted glass on some windows, and the decreased number of rooftop patios. In addition, the width of the central laneway entrance has been increased and three units now exit onto the main Barton Avenue sidewalk, which improve safety for future residents. Mr. Sinclair noted the Subject Property is an unusually sized lot, and that in his 35 years in the neighbourhood, he assumed that one day the lot would be redeveloped. Mr. Sinclair applauds the introduction of any affordable rental units into the proposal, and he supports the development.

Ms. Thomson

54Ms. Thomson is a neighbour and she argued that the ultimate problem with the proposal is its magnitude, and the requirement for 20 plus minor variances. Ms. Thomson argued that an apartment building on a laneway with rooftop patios and balconies plus two laneway suites is not reasonable or desirable.

55Ms. Thomson also expressed concerns that the addition of new residents to the laneway will cause safety issues when entering and exiting the buildings, including for children walking to school. Ms. Thomson asserted that the laneway receives traffic from the surrounding neighbourhood, garages, delivery trucks, moving trucks, emergency vehicles, etc., and that two vehicles are not able to pass each other on the laneway. Ms. Thomson stated that traffic calming measures have been introduced on Barton Avenue to curtail through-traffic with little success. The neighbourhood has a large number of homes with no driveways or garages. Ms. Thomson asserted that there is permit parking but there are not currently enough parking spots. Owners leave their vehicles in spots for the winter due to the fear that they will not be able to find another spot. Ms. Thomson also expressed concerns that the development will reduce sunlight to her backyard, and expressed concerns about the windows and rooftop patios. Ms. Thomson also noted that 768 Euclid Avenue has received approval to build a laneway suite opposite to this proposal and she is concerned about the number of developments that a small laneway can withstand.

56Ms. Thomson does not see how an apartment on Ciamagara Lane fits in with the City’s EHON plan, and asserts that City needs reasonable development on the lot which is appropriate for the size of the lot and which respect the character of the neighbourhood and its residents. Ms. Thomson expressed her further concern that the proposal is not gentle intensification, and has only one affordable unit.

57In conclusion, Ms. Thomson argued that there is no point in having Zoning By-laws if they are not adhered to, and that the scale and excessiveness of this proposal smacks of an insult to the City’s Official Plan and it’s Zoning By-law.

58On cross examination, Ms. Stewart referred to Toronto Transportation Services Permit Parking Areas Map At Areas Waitlisted or Approaching Capacity (Exhibit 11) which showed that 80-89% of permits have been sold for this particular area. Ms. Thomson responded that there may be permit parking available but you can be blocks away from your home, and it is difficult if one is carrying groceries or accompanying a small child. Ms. Thomson asserted that you have to live in the neighbourhood to really know what it is like dealing with the parking issue and she is concerned that the proposal will exacerbate the situation.

Mr. Mausberg

59Mr. Mausberg is a neighbour, and his opinion is that Toronto has an affordable housing crisis. In other words, individuals who are wealthy have no problem finding homes. It is individuals who are in need of affordable housing that face a housing crisis.

60Mr. Mausberg argued that 100% + increases beyond the Zoning By-law for some of the requested variances cannot be considered minor. Mr. Mausberg noted that both times this property was before the Committee of Adjustment it was denied.

61Mr. Mausberg referred to a planning opinion provided at the first Committee of Adjustment hearing by Allan Ramsay and argued that the essential footprint for the proposal is the same even though there have been some changes. In other words, Mr. Mausberg argued that this Tribunal should consider this planning opinion which was before the Committee of Adjustment.

62Mr. Mausberg asserted that the applicant is known for developing luxury homes and will earn a good profit from the proposal.

63Mr. Mausberg also argued that the neighbourhood receives a lot of visitors, as it is close to Bloor Street and Christie Pits park. The consequence is that lots of parking spots are taken up. In other words, the parking permit data as referred to by Ms. Stewart in her cross-examination of Ms. Thomson provides an incomplete picture because people overstay the 1 hour parking time limit

64Mr. Mausberg stated that there are 6 or 7 rear yards facing the property and that the second storey for the laneway suites will make those yards feel enclosed. Mr. Mausberg argued that there should be two laneway suites, but that they should each be one storey. In addition, Mr. Mausberg stated that the issue of garbage is important as the proposed arrangement will lead to a rat problem. From Mr. Mausberg’s perspective, it is a reasonable request for the garbage to be in a separate building. Mr. Mausberg noted that more soft landscaping is needed, he does not believe that the proposal meets the Toronto Green Standard, and that there were two affordable housing units proposed at the neighbourhood meeting in June of this year.

65Mr. Mausberg focused on a statement Mr. Uens made at the Committee of Adjustment in April that he claims was incorrect. Ms. Stewart provided a letter on cross-examination where Mr. Uens addressed the matter.

Ms. Nussbaum

66Ms. Nussbaum is a neighbour. Ms. Nussbaum expressed a genuine concern for the surrounding community around 91 Barton Avenue. Ms. Nussbaum stated that the proposal is blatant overreach and the impacts will be passed along to the surrounding community which will be shouldering the weight of a profit-driven development. Ms. Nussbaum stated that the proposal has 20 plus variances which raises concerns.

67Ms. Nussbaum asserted that the developer has engaged in a public relations campaign to sway the public in favour of the development and to paint any opposition as resistant to change or NIMBYISM. Ms. Nussbaum asserted that there are legitimate concerns with the plan and design of the proposal and that the 20 variances compound on top of each other. Ms. Nussbaum wants a more equitable design or a scaled back design to achieve greater balance for the proposal.

68With regards to the height, Ms. Nussbaum asserted that the additional height makes room for rooftop terraces which is a luxury amenity designed to attract higher rental prices and not to increase housing affordability. The feature serves no purpose in the community, and Ms. Nussbaum questioned why surrounding neighbours should suffer from loss of light and increased overshadowing for profit. In addition, Ms. Nussbaum is concerned about the garbage variance. Ms. Nussbaum’s concern is that the proposal calls for 11 units and no individual will be responsible for the garbage management. If the garbage is not handled properly, additional rats and other undesirable species may be attracted to the neighbourhood.

69Ms. Nussbaum also focused on the lack of bicycle parking, asserting that what she views as the insufficient allocation of bicycle parking discourages sustainable transportation. On cross-examination, Ms. Stewart reviewed the proposed bicycle parking for the project, and Ms. Nussbaum acknowledged the available bicycle parking spaces for the project.

70In conclusion, Ms. Nussbaum wanted the Tribunal to understand that there are very real concerns with the proposal, that the project is excessive in scope, that the proposal aims to maximize its rental potential, and that it fails to balance the needs of the community. Ms. Nussbaum wants to know what a slightly scaled back proposal would look like, and is genuinely concerned as she would like to see a structure that does not have to push boundaries to the same extent as the proposal.

Ms. Narrol

71Ms. Narrol is a neighbour. Ms. Narrol is in favour of multiunit housing on the Subject Property, which she asserts needs densification, however, the proposal has gone a little too far. Ms. Narrol is concerned that access to the proposed units from the laneway will not be safe. Ms. Narrol asserted that winter traffic on Barton Avenue is a nightmare, and that cars turn on and off Ciamaga Lane in every possible direction. Ms. Narrol stated that the two required car visitor parking spaces are not being provided, and wondered what will happen if uber or delivery vehicles are stopping in the lane. Ms. Narrol envisions that the lane will back up, and traffic will back up onto Barton Avenue which will increase safety issues. In addition, Ms. Narrol envisioned a situation where an individual slips while exiting onto the Lane. Ms. Narrol asserted that people cannot really see cars coming before they turn onto the Lane.

72Ms. Narrol stated that it is a nightmare to park in her neighbourhood, as Christie Pits park is blocks away. Ms. Narrol asserted that the neighbourhood is mostly composed of 2-storey buildings, with no solid 3-storey buildings on the block. Ms. Narrol also asserted that December is a more critical time to conduct a shadow study than March 21 and October 21. Ms. Narrol objects to the garbage storage, asserting that there is a rat and raccoon problem in the neighbourhood and that it is not fair to bring more of these animals to the neighbourhood. Ms. Narrol was concerned that the landscaping variance will result in there being less ground to absorb rainwater.

73Ms. Narrol supports multiunit housing on the Subject Property and asserts that the property will set an important precedent. There are too many requested variances, the proposal overcrowds the site, it impacts neighbouring properties, and it cannot be seen as minor, it is not a gentle or gradual change. In conclusion, Ms. Narrol asserts that she supports a new building but that the proposal goes too far and is asking too much of neighbours.

74On cross-examination, Ms. Narrol asserted that there is no division between the laneway and walkway for residents at the front of the building, so in her opinion, this is a safety issue. Ms. Narrol would like to see a fully enclosed garbage as required for apartment buildings.

75Ms. Narrol also asserted that the general idea for densifying and improving the City does not take into account a proposal such as this one where an 11 unit apartment building is located on a laneway. Ms. Narrol stated that she would appreciate it if the stairways leading to the rooftop patios were open and not enclosed.

Ms. Foster

76Ms. Foster did not provide testimony at the hearing. Ms. Foster provided a participant witness statement which I have reviewed. Ms. Foster asserts in her statement that the City of Toronto has an affordable housing crisis, and not a housing crisis. Ms. Foster advocated for a minimum of two affordable housing units in the proposal.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Provincial Interest

77Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest to which the Tribunal shall have regard.

78Mr. Uens cited various areas of provincial interest that the proposal meets such as: (f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems, stating that there are no concerns from City staff, and that the proposal can be accommodated within the current available services. Other cited sections include: (i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities; and (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing. Mr. Uens opined that with regards to (p) the appropriate location of growth and development, the proposal approves an existing underutilized site, increases the range of housing options in the area, and offers one affordable housing unit which is rare for a proposal of this scope. Mr. Uens also cited (q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; and (s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate, opining that the proposal is located within two PMTSAs, and that there are various sustainable aspects to the proposal.

79I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion on the matters of provincial Interest, and 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

80A successful minor variance application before the Tribunal must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019).

81With regards to the Provincial Policy Statement, Mr. Uens cited various policies which he opined that the proposal meets such as: 1.1.1.b), 1.1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.6.7.4.

82In addition, Mr. Uens noted that there is a new Provincial Policy Statement which will go into effect as of October 20, 2024, which includes policies for growth and major transit station areas. Mr. Uens cited provisions 2.4.1 which deals with General Policies for Strategic Growth Areas and 2.4.2 which deals with Major Transit Station Areas, opining that the proposal is consistent with the incoming Provincial Policy Statement.

83In terms of the Growth Plan, Mr. Uens opined that the document intends for developments to advance complete communities within a compact built form, and that a range of housing options be provided to accommodate the needs of all household sizes. Mr. Uens cited provision 1.2.1, and 4.2.10, opining that the proposal includes an affordable housing unit and will be a high efficiency building that will have high insulation, efficient heat pumps, and promotes the use of existing transit and active transportation.

84I do not feel it is necessary to review any additional cited provisions of the aforementioned 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.

85I find that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), with the incoming Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019).

Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan

86The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan. Policy 4.1.5 outlines Development Criteria for Neighbourhoods.

87Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Mr. Uens identified a Study Area generally bounded by:

a. Lots fronting both sides of Barton Avenue (collector road) between

Markham Road and Clinton Street – 38 to 128 Barton Avenue;

b. Lots fronting Manning and Euclid Avenue between Barton Avenue and

London Street – 734 to 797 Euclid Avenue; 712 to 761 Manning Avenue

c. Lots on the north side of London Street on the same block as the subject site – 82 to 112 London Street.

88The Geographic Neighbourhood includes 155 properties, and can be seen in the following map:

Exhibit 3, Expert Witness Statement of Graig Uens, at page 110.

89Mr. Uens noted that the proposed development is located on a Collector Road – Barton Avenue – which is designed to carry up to 8,000 vehicles per day in contrast to a Local Road, such as Euclid and Manning Avenue, which is designed to carry up to 2,500 vehicles per day. The design, function, and traffic volume of these types of streets differs notably. For this reason, the Geographic Neighbourhood includes lots fronting both sides of Barton for several blocks to the east and west.

90Mr. Uens also noted that every lot within the Geographic Neighbourhood is zoned R (d0.6) (Residential) in the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013. The R zone reflects the most permissive residential zone category within the Neighbourhoods designation. The variety of permitted building types is reflected in the Geographic Neighbourhood, which includes single and semi-detached dwellings, multiplexes, and apartment buildings. Apartment buildings in the area include four-storey apartment buildings that occupy most of the lot area, with no soft landscaping. Mr. Uens opined that all residential lots contribute to the mixed physical character of the Geographic Neighbourhood and are relevant to the consideration of neighbourhood character under the Official Plan.

91Mr. Uens provided his opinion that lots within the Geographic Neighbourhood are all generally rectangular in shape. Apart from the lots at 38 and 42 Barton Avenue, both of which contain 4-storey apartments, 91 Barton Avenue is the third largest site within the Geographic Neighbourhood as well as being the deepest.

92I accept the Geographic Neighbourhood as delineated by Mr. Uens, and find that there is no difference between the immediate context and the broader context.

Minor Variance Test

93I will now go through the four statutory tests and my findings for the requested variances.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

94Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the variances individually and cumulatively maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

95Mr. Uens provided a high-level summary that the Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods on the Official Plan’s Land Use Map 19, and is located within both the Bathurst and Christie PMTSAs. There is no site-specific plan, and the Subject Property is not within any secondary plan areas.

96Mr. Uens provided his opinion that according to Policy 5.6.1, the City’s Official Plan is intended to be read as a comprehensive and cohesive whole, with no policy being read in isolation, and no one policy being determinative of whether an application is consistent, or not, with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. I accept Mr. Uens’ interpretation of this particular policy.

97Mr. Uens reviewed Chapter 3 of the Official Plan. This includes section 3.2.1 which deals with housing policies and calls for a full range of housing within neighbourhoods, in terms of form, tenure and affordability across the City and within neighbourhoods, which will be maintained to meet the current and future needs of residents.

98Mr. Uens provided his opinion that section 3.2.1.6 applies, which states that 6 or more rental units cannot be removed unless they are replaced in a like for like capacity either on-site or off-site. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the proposal will add needed housing to the Seaton Village area for the foreseeable future.

99With regards to built form policies, Mr. Uens reviewed policy 3.1.3.3 and opined that the development will protect privacy within adjacent buildings by setbacks and separation distances from neighbouring properties and adjacent lots.

100As to policy 3.1.3.5. building location and massing; Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the proposal calls for heights and setbacks that fit harmoniously within the existing and or planned context. I accept Mr. Uens’ opinions for these Chapter 3 policies.

101Mr. Uens provided his opinion that Chapter 2 Healthy Neighbourhoods Policy provides that low rise and low density neighbourhoods are considered physically stable but not static. Mr. Uens’ also cited policy 2.3.1.6 which deals with environmental sustainability. I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of Chapter 2 of the Official Plan.

102The heart of the matter is in Chapter 4. Policy 4.1.5. deals with development criteria in neighbourhoods. The requirement is for new development to be gradual and fit with the prevailing physical context. The Official Plan recognizes that neighbourhoods have more than one physical pattern. Mr. Uens’ opinion, which I accept, is that the Geographic Neighbourhood is not characterized by uniformity. Mr. Uens further opined that the proposal as a whole and each individual variance meets the general intent and purpose of policy 4.1.5. I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion on this matter.

103In addition, section 4.1.9 recognizes circumstances of unique lots. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that this policy applies to the subject proposal. I agree that this policy applies to the subject proposal and that its general intent and purpose is met.

104The next section of this decision reviews the minor variances in detail and my comments for each of these variances applies to policies 4.1.5 and 4.1.9. In other words, I have put my mind to these policies and determined that their general intent and purpose are met in this application.

105Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the proposed development is consistent with the Official Plan’s various policy objectives for development of multi-unit housing in a Neighbourhood context, in an area proximate to higher order transit and active transportation options. Mr. Uens opined that the lot is unique as it has a significantly greater depth than the prevailing area lots and is situated adjacent to a laneway. Mr. Uen’s further opinion is that the site’s depth and location affords it a greater opportunity to accommodate a greater building depth while still retaining a proportion of building to lot ratio which is consistent with the prevailing characteristics on nearby lots. Mr. Uens opined that the lot also presents a unique opportunity to provide for rental units in a multiplex-type form, all having direct access to grade via a public street or a public laneway. The proposal contributes new family-sized rental housing and affordable housing to improve the area housing mix and has been massed and designed to fit appropriately within context on this unique site while appropriately limiting impacts on adjacent properties. I accept Mr. Uens opinion as expressed above.

106Mr. Uens opined that the proposed development has been designed in a 3-storey form with a depth relative to the size of the site, and small side yard setbacks that reflect the nature of the surrounding transit-oriented urban Neighbourhood. Balconies above the ground floor have been screened to reduce overlook impacts to the west. The west wall of the building has no transparent windows, only two translucent windows at the ground floor and 4 translucent windows at the basement level. These windows provide ambient light to part of the units without creating overlook issues, and provide articulation on the side wall facing the rear yards of abutting properties. Towards the east, the window to wall ratio has been reduced from the initial submission in response to comments from adjacent neighbours. At the rooftop level, two small amenity terraces are set back from all sides of the building and include landscaped areas to reduce potential overlook issues. Open space is provided at the front of the site facing the street and landscaped open space is proposed along the rear.

107Mr. Uens opined, and I accept that the proposed development has been massed, sited, and designed to meet the intent of the Official Plan’s built form polices, appropriately limits impacts on adjacent properties, and fits appropriately in an evolving, urban neighbourhood context where new infill density is intended by the Plan.

108I find that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

109I will now examine each of the requested variances in the context of the Zoning By-Law, and I will also provide comments in the context of the Official Plan.

Apartment Building Variances

Variance 1 – Waste Storage

110The By-law requires all waste and recyclable material to be stored in a wholly enclosed building or structure. In this case, waste and recyclable material will be stored in a partly enclosed structure.

111The intent of this provision is to ensure that waste storage for multi-unit buildings is contained, screened from view of public space, conveniently accessible on non collection days, and easily accessed on collection days.

112Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the apartment building is not large enough to warrant a loading space or large internal garbage storage room and so an enclosure is appropriate for solid waste storage. The partly enclosed structure proposed for solid waste storage will be located towards the rear of the site. Transportation Services Staff at the City have noted no objections to the proposed waste storage approach.

113I find that the requested waste storage variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.

Variances 2, 3, and 4 – Front and Rear Porch and Deck encroachments

114The intent of these provisions is to ensure decks are located to not impede side yards where access is provided and to not create overlook / privacy impacts by encroaching towards abutting properties.

115Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed decks and porches do not project from either side of the building, do not impede access around the site where it is intended, and the rear facing second and third storey decks are proposed with screening facing the west to limit any potential overlook impacts.

116I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion and find that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 5 – Exterior Stairs Encroachments into Side Yard Setback

117Exterior stairs may encroach into a side yard setback by up to 0.6 metres. The proposed east side ground floor stairs are set back 0.0 metres from the east lot line abutting the lane.

118Side yard exterior stair encroachment provisions are often intended to ensure that stairs don't immediately abut neighboring property lines to ensure that pedestrian access will not encroach onto neighboring properties. In this case the side yard abuts a lane, not a residential property.

119Mr. Uens opined that to ensure safe access and egress through this staircase exiting onto the laneway, the proposal includes chamfered corners at the ground floor level adjacent to the laneway, with a significantly increased angle. In Mr. Uens’ opinion, this design allows for clear visibility for anyone exiting the building to see down the laneway in both directions, with increased sightlines as one descends the staircase. Mr. Uens opined that this design is also a considerably safer condition than what frequently exists on many laneways where doors from garage structures open directly into the lane.

120Mr. Uens noted that this solution was specifically designed in consultation with Transportation Services staff, who commented on the fact that their concerns with respect to safety were addressed through the revised proposal.

121In conclusion, I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion and find that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 6 – Setback from the Centre Line of the Lane

122The minimum required setback from the original centreline of a lane is 2.5 metres. The proposed building will be located 2.42 metres from the original centreline.

123The intent of this provision is to ensure that buildings are set back appropriately from the lane to maintain its function as a vehicle and pedestrian space.

124Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the requested setback reflects the varied nature of setbacks along the laneway that range from roughly 1.5 metres to what appears to be 0.0 metres from the laneway lot line. It is also consistent with the setback of the existing building at 91 Barton Avenue and the setback from centreline at 89 Barton Avenue immediately opposite the laneway.

125Mr. Uens provided his further opinion that the proposal will also provide a public benefit through the conveyance of land to the city to permit a future lane widening. This can only be secured through a redevelopment proposal such as the proposal under examination.

126I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion and find that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variances 7, 8, 9 – Apartment Building Landscaping

127Variances 7, 8, and 9 concern the landscape requirements for an apartment building.

128Variances 7 and 8 require that 50% of a site with an apartment building have landscaping and that 50% of that landscaping be soft landscaping.

129Variance 9 requires a 1.5 metre landscape strip abutting other residential lots.

130Mr. Uens noted that the ‘R” Residential zone is the only low-rise residential zone category that permits an Apartment Building as a permitted use, and it is challenging to find a site within this zone that would permit an as of right apartment building due to the setbacks and landscaping requirements for this use. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that these provisions are designed to address more traditional apartment buildings on much larger lots with common entrances leading to common interior corridors. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the provisions are not intended to encourage or support new infill apartments to be built, especially apartment buildings which are in a multiplex building format, such as with the current proposal.

131Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the proposed on-site landscaping is consistent within the prevailing patterns of rear yard landscaping found in the surrounding area. Mr. Uens’ further opinion is that the proposed on-site landscaping provides a rear yard amenity space, and exceeds the soft landscaping provided on other sites, including multi-unit building and apartment building sites within the neighbourhood.

132With regards to the 1.5 metre landscape strip along the west property line, this By-law requirement is intended to provide a landscape buffer between larger apartment buildings and adjacent low-rise housing types. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that it is not required to address the transition between multiplex form buildings and adjacent low-rise dwellings, because they are both compatible in size and scale. In addition, achieving compliance would not be possible given the narrow width of the site, which is made narrower by the required conveyance to the City. Mr. Uens’ opined, and I accept that the intent of the By-law is met through the low-rise design of the proposed building.

133Mr. Uens opined that all areas of the Subject Property that are not occupied by a building footprint or access stairs required by the Building Code are landscaped. Mr. Uens opined further that the requested variance is consistent with the pattern of landscaping on lots fronting Barton Avenue and within the Geographic Neighbourhood. Mr. Uens also referred to recent Committee of Adjustment decisions granting variances for similar reductions from the prescribed amount of landscaping. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed landscape area is also significantly greater than what is provided on other apartment building sites on Barton Avenue, specifically 38, 42, and 46 Barton Avenue, which appear to provide no soft landscaped space outside of the abutting public boulevard space.

134Mr. Uens also noted that the Subject Property is subject to multiple overlapping landscape requirements, including an 85% rear yard landscaped area requirement on account of the laneway suite. Mr. Uens provided his opinion, and I accept that since laneway suites are explicitly permitted to be constructed behind apartment buildings, the rear yard landscape open space requirement reflects the most appropriate landscape standard against which to consider the appropriateness of the development.

135In conclusion, I find that the requested landscaping variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 10 – Building Height

136The permitted building height is 11 metres. The roof of the proposed development has a height of 10.93 metres, 12 metres to the top of the railing on the roof, 13.5 metres to the top of the stair enclosure.

137Official Plan Policy 4.1.1 permits housing in Neighbourhoods up to a height of 4 storeys. The intent of this policy is to ensure the low-rise scale of buildings. This policy prevents incongruously tall buildings in otherwise low-rise neighbourhoods, primarily to limit overlook, privacy, and shadow impacts on adjacent properties.

138The general intent of maximum height permission in the By-law is to ensure the continued low-rise scale of buildings in Neighbourhoods and to limit impacts sometimes associated with building height, such as overlook and shadow impacts, on adjacent properties.

139Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the majority of the proposed building is constructed below the required height of 11 metres. Only the rooftop safety railings (i.e. not a structural element of the building) and a portion of the top of the stair access structures exceeds the prescribed height. The railings are set back from all sides of the building and the stair access is sloped to diminish its size as much as possible while still accommodating an appropriate staircase.

140Mr. Uens opined that the proposed apartment is a 3-storey building, similar to or shorter than many others in the immediate context including 38, 42, 26, 80, 104, 106 Barton Avenue, 758, 760, 762, and 768 Euclid Avenue, and 757, 759, 761 Manning Avenue, all of which are located in the immediate context and have a third storey. A total of 96 buildings of the 155 within the Geographic Neighbourhood have some manner of 3rd storey. The buildings at 38 and 42 Barton Avenue are both 4-storey apartment buildings fronting Barton Avenue.

141Mr. Uens further opined that the massing diagrams illustrate that the portion of the building that exceeds the height permission will not be visible from the streetscape, and will comprise only a narrow portion of the building depth that is visible from adjacent yards.

142Mr. Uens further opined that based on a shadow study prepared by the project architect, the proposed development results in negligible additional shadow impact on adjacent properties when compared to an as-of-right development, as most of the building is constructed below the required height of 11 metres.

143In conclusion, I find that the requested building height variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 11 – Building Depth

144The permitted building depth is 17 metres, while the requested building depth variance is 24.51 metres.

145Building depth is not specifically noted among criteria to consider in ascertaining a proposal’s fit with Neighbourhood character per Policy 4.1.5. It is typically intended to ensure new development does not extend considerably beyond the rear wall of adjacent buildings. It is also one provision, along with rear yard depth, intended to ensure that there is a reasonable degree of consistency in the massing in relation to those dwelling units in the general surrounding area to appropriately limit impacts associated with building mass such as light, overlook, and privacy issues.

146Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the Subject Property does not abut a lot with a dwelling with the same orientation. The lots to the west front Manning Avenue with rear yards facing the Subject Property. Facing these lots, the proposal has no transparent windows to prevent overlook issues. To the east, the site abuts a public laneway where windows are appropriate. A by-law compliant 11-metre-tall dwelling and two-storey laneway suite facing the lane would all have windows facing east in an as-of-right condition.

147Mr. Uens opined that in addition to considering the actual measurement of building depth, it is also important to consider its relationship to overall lot depth to account for variations in the size of lots within a context. It is useful to consider the ratio of building depth to lot depth, in order to ensure that the proposed building depth is consistent with the pattern of open spaces, and to ensure that usable rear yard open space is provided. This analysis is particularly relevant in this case, given that lot depths vary across the Geographic Neighbourhood.

148Mr. Uens through a desktop analysis of the Geographic Neighbourhood, determined a range of the most frequently occurring building depths and buildings depths as a ratio of lot depths.

149The proposed development has a building depth to lot depth ratio of 46.7%. Across the 152 lots within the Geographic Neighbourhood, Mr. Uens found that the average building depth to lot depth ratio is 57.5% and the median is 55.3%. This means that the proposed building depth occupies less than half the depth of the lot, whereas the majority of other properties in the Geographic Neighbourhood have a building that occupies more than half the depth of the lot. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed depth fits with the pattern of lot depths in the Geographic Neighbourhood context, as it is consistent with the prevailing range of building depth to lot depth ratios.

150Mr. Uens also noted that the recent Council-approved Multiplex and Major Street 6-storey Apartment By-law changes acknowledge that multi-unit buildings require greater depth. The City’s Multiplex By-law provisions allow for 19-metre-deep multiplex buildings when sites have a depth of more than 36 metres and a frontage of less than 10 metres, which describes the Subject Property. The Major Street Apartment Bylaw amendments allow 25 metre depths for 6-storey buildings. Mr. Uens opined that it is reasonable to expect that these base as of right permissions may be varied where there are greater lot depths, as is the case on the Subject Property.

151Mr. Uens also noted that area apartment buildings fronting Barton Avenue also have depths comparable to, or greater than, the proposed development. The properties at 42 and 46 Barton Ave have a depth of approximately 23 metres, and 38 Barton Ave has a depth of 36 metres.

152In conclusion, I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion and find that the requested building depth variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 12 – Floor Space Index

153The maximum permitted Floorspace Index (FSI) is 0.6 times the area of the site. The proposed FSI is 1.94 times the area of the site.

154The area is located within both the Council-adopted Bathurst and Christie PMTSAs, which apply a minimum density requirement of 0.5 times the site.

155As the site is within the context of two Protected Major Transit Station Areas, where the Growth Plan and the Official Plan’s policies intend additional density beyond that which may be contemplated in Neighbourhoods outside PMTSAs, Mr. Uens provided his opinion that it is implicit that development in a PMTSA will exceed the as-of-right density limit in the By-law, as well as potentially other metrics regarding the overall scale of a building. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that when the By-law requirements apply evenly across lots inside and outside the PMTSA boundaries, as is the case here, the extent to which the development may exceed these standards should be based on qualitative analysis of fit and compatibility as opposed to a comparison of numerical figures.

156Mr. Uens reviewed FSIs of various buildings within the Geographic Neighbourhood and provided his opinion that there are numerous buildings that have an FSI which compares to the requested FSI of 1.94.

157Mr. Uens also noted a project analogous to the proposed development was approved by the Committee of Adjustment in 2023 at 208 Bartlett Avenue. The 208 Bartlett proposal was for an 8-unit 4-storey apartment with an FSI of 2.18. It was also located in a Neighbourhood designation on a Collector Road with a maximum FSI in the Zoning By-law of 0.6.

158Mr. Uens also noted that recent By-law amendments to multiplex and low-rise apartment forms through EHON initiatives remove FSI as a criterion for multi-unit buildings. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the intention is to only leave FSI in place to effectively prevent excessively large single unit houses and incentivize the construction of multi-unit developments by permitting larger, denser built forms. The February 2022 EHON Update Report states the following about FSI – “Based on staff’s experience developing permissions for Laneway and Garden Suites, which follow a more form-based zoning approach, an FSI provision is of very limited use when the maximum building setbacks, width, depth, height, and maximum area relative to the main house are all otherwise prescribed.” Mr. Uens provided his opinion that in this case, the proposed development meets the required coverage, width, rear yard setback, main wall height, and other requirements.

159In conclusion, I find that the requested Floor Space Index variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 13 – Front Yard Setback

160The minimum required front yard setback is 6.0 metres. The proposed front yard setback is 0.7 metres.

161This provision is intended to ensure consistency in front yard setbacks along a street further to Policy 4.1.5, taking the average of the two adjacent frontages, In cases where there are no abutting properties for the purpose of establishing an average, such as on the subject site, a minimum of 6.0 metres is required. Mr. Uens stated that in this case, the ‘adjacent’ property at 89 Barton Avenue is not considered because of the laneway separating that property from the Subject Property.

162Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed 0.7 metre setback reflects the front setbacks along the south side of Barton Avenue, specifically 89 and 87 Barton Avenue, which have 0.3 metre front yard setbacks, and 776 Euclid Avenue and 761 Manning Avenue, which have 0.0 metre side yard setbacks facing Barton Avenue. Along the north side of Barton Avenue, front yard setbacks across addresses 80 to 104 Barton Avenue vary from over 4 metres at 104 Barton Avenue to 0.0 metres at 92 to 96 Barton Avenue. Mr. Uens opined, and I accept that the proposed front yard setback reflects an appropriate setback which will provide for a consistent streetscape along Barton Avenue.

163In conclusion, I find that the requested front yard setback variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 14 – Apartment Side Yard Setback

164The minimum side yard setback for an apartment building with a height of more than 13 metres is 7.5 metres. The proposed apartment building is located 0 metres from the east and 0.08 metres from the west.

165The intent of this provision is to ensure that larger apartment buildings on larger lots within Neighbourhoods are sited to provide appropriate setbacks where side windows face an abutting residential lot line. Mr. Uens noted that in this case there are no primary or transparent windows facing the abutting residential lot line to the west. To the east, the building faces a public laneway and Mr. Uens opined that the windows as proposed are both appropriate and expected in this context.

166Mr. Uens opined that the side yard provision should be interpreted in the context of contemporary policy that intends the proposed type of low-rise, multi-unit infill intensification in a transit-oriented context that the Official Plan prescribes on this site and others in a similar context.

167In conclusion, I find that the side yard setback proposed is consistent with infill housing in a transit supported urban condition, does not result in privacy or overlook issues on the adjacent neighbours to either side and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and the Official Plan.

Variance 15 – Building Separation Distance

168The minimum required distance between main walls for an apartment building is 11 metres. In the proposed case, the distance between main walls is 2.43 m on the ground floor.

169The minimum separation distance provision is intended to regulate the distance between two walls in an apartment building with a facing condition that includes openings; specifically, windows that could present a direct privacy impact into facing units.

170Mr. Uens’ provided his opinion that this scenario is not the case for the proposed development, since the 2.43 metre distance refers to the recessed area at the centre of the building facing the laneway with secondary access doors onto the landing. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that this provision is being applied to the proposal not for the reason it is intended but based on a technicality.

171I find that the requested building separation distance variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 16 – Visitor Parking

172A total of 2 visitor parking spaces are required. No visitor parking spaces are proposed.

173Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the Official Plan intends that new development in transit supported areas be designed to limit personal automobile use.

174Mr. Uens noted that the subject site is located within two Council-adopted PMTSAs. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that once the PMTSA delineations are approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the City’s Zoning By-laws will no longer require visitor parking on this site.

175I find that the requested visitor parking variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 17 – Bicycle Parking

176A total of 10 bicycle parking spaces are required. Technically speaking, no bicycle parking spaces are provided. However, the site does provide bike parking spaces within the units, and additional parking in the boulevard. The applicant worked with City of Toronto Transportation Services staff to arrive at an alternative approach to the provision of Bike Parking, detailed as follows:

• Two (2) visitors bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be located at the

front of the site adjacent to the sidewalk.

• One (1) bike parking space is proposed within each unit for a total of eleven

(11) bike parking spaces within the development.

177Mr. Uens opined that the proposal satisfies the required number of bike parking spaces in the Zoning By-law and is supported by Transportation Services staff. However, a variance is still required since By-law Section 230.10.1.20.(1) precludes bicycle parking spaces from being located within a dwelling unit in an apartment building.

178Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the building form is more characteristic of a multiplex than the type of larger apartment building the zone provisions contemplate. Mr. Uens opinion is that providing bicycle parking spaces within the individual dwelling units is appropriate for the nature of the site and proposal and will still ensure that there is adequate and secure space available onsite for residents to store bicycles.

179In conclusion, I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion and find that the requested bicycle parking variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Laneway Suite Variances

Variance 18 – Two Units in a Laneway Suite

180A maximum of one unit may be located within a laneway suite. In this case, two units are proposed within the laneway suite.

181The laneway suite policies generally intend that a suite contain one unit; they also specifically intend that the footprints of an existing garage or accessory structure be utilized for the location of new laneway suites where possible. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that in this case, the existing garage on the site is uncommonly large.

182Mr. Uens noted that the Subject Property is 52 meters in depth, and the site shares the entire east property line with a public lane. Mr. Uens opined that if this expanse of side yard was in fact the rear yard of the abutting properties to the West, as is the case along the rest of the lane for the lots along Manning and Euclid Avenues, there could reasonably be up to 13 laneway suites built along this stretch of lane. Mr. Uens further opined that this outcome would look no different than a more typical laneway suite context with rear yards abutting either side of the lane.

183Mr. Uens noted other two-unit laneway suites have been constructed at 68 Foxley Street, 5 Mariposa Avenue, and 378R Leslie Street. Mr. Uens opined that all of these sites have non-standard lot configurations that accommodate buildings with two suites, like the anomalous lot depth and side yard / laneway orientation at 91 Barton Avenue.

184Mr. Uens opined that the proposed laneway suite occupies the space of the existing garage, has been set back from the west property line in excess of the By-law requirements to limit impacts on adjacent yards, and is located on a uniquely situated and dimensioned lot where a two-unit suite is appropriate and is consistent with general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. I agree with Mr. Uens.

Variance 19 – Laneway Side Yard Landscaping

185A minimum of 85% (57.6 m2) of the rear yard must be soft landscaping. In this case, 79% (53.4 m2) of the rear yard is provided as soft landscaping.

186Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the intent of the soft landscaping requirement is to “limit the reduction of soft landscaping on the property” per the Laneway Suite SASP 546, to preserve Neighbourhoods’ green characteristics, to maintain the overall level of softscape in neighbourhoods for the purposes of stormwater retention, and to ensure properties provide sufficient greenspace for amenity use.

187Mr. Uens noted that the proposed rear yard is entirely soft landscaping save for a staircase leading to the lower level of the building. Mr. Uens opined that these stairs are required by the Ontario Building Code.

188Mr. Uens opined that the Laneway Suite By-law provisions specifically exempt rear yard walkways from soft landscaping requirements to allow for access to the buildings. This exemption is however not applied to staircases despite them having the same function as a walkway. Mr. Uens opined that if this exemption were applied to staircases, as is appropriate in this case, the requested variance would not be necessary.

189Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed development maintains significant rear yard landscaped space, which reflects the prevailing patten of rear yard landscaped spaces in the surrounding context.

190I agree with Mr. Uens and find that the requested laneway side yard landscaping variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 20 – Laneway Suite Length

191The maximum permitted building length for a laneway suite is 10 metres. The proposed laneway suite length is 14.42 metres.

192The laneway suite policies intend that that footprint of the existing garage, and any other structural elements, be utilized in construction of the suite, partly to limit construction waste and to situate the suite on the same location as the existing garage where possible. The intent of the suite length provision in the By-law, and its associated width provision, was to set a benchmark size limit on the ground floor area of suites to discourage the construction of suites that are incompatibly large for the lot on which they were proposed and to ensure that the size of the laneway suite remains subordinate to the size of the main house.

193It is also intended that the width and depth provisions be read alongside the other two laneway suite size restriction provisions in the By-law:

• the lot coverage provision (150.8.60.70), which limits the coverage of accessory structure including laneway suites to 30% of the lot; and,

• the provision (150.8.60.50 (2)) that requires that the interior floor area of the laneway suite be less than the gross floor area of the main residential building on the lot.

194Mr. Uens noted that in the case of the above provisions, the lot coverage of the suite is 27% of the lot and the gross floor area of the suite – 199.5 square metres – is significantly less than the 818.3 square metres of gross floor area of the main building.

195Mr. Uens opined that the proposed suite is situated on the footprint of the existing garage, which has a length of 14.18 metres. The resulting suite is sized appropriately for the considerably deep lot on which it is located and remains subordinate in scale to the main building on the site, as intended by policy and the by-law standards.

196Mr. Uens opined that given the side yard orientation of the laneway to the lot, the added length of the suite does not result in a laneway building that appears incongruous with the context of continuous garage structures facing the lane.

197In conclusion, I agree with Mr. Uens and find that the requested laneway suite length variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Variance 21 – Laneway Suite Setback from the Laneway

198The required setback for a laneway suite abutting a lane is 1.0 metres. The proposed laneway suite setback to the lane is 0.78 metres.

199The intent of this provision is to ensure safe access to the suite from the laneway and provide space for landscaping. The provision also intends that suites generally align with garage setbacks along laneways, though most garages are set back less than this amount.

200Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the laneway side yard facing Ciamaga Lane provides sufficient space for safe, individual access to both suites in the building and is landscaped to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Uens further opined that the setback also reflects the varied nature of setbacks along the laneway, which range from roughly 1.5 metres to what appears to be 0.0 metres.

201Mr. Uens noted that a 0.22 metre lane widening is required by the City. Between the widening and the proposed setback, a full 1.0 metres is provided from the current extent of the lane. Mr. Uens noted that prior to the second Committee of Adjustment Hearing, an email from Transportation Services staff advised that they had reviewed the revised plans and the proposal “addressed our concerns regarding … the safety of the residents entering and leaving the building from the laneway…We have no objection to the proposed minor variance application.”

202Mr. Uens opined that By-law 569-2013 provision 2.1.1(4) Reduction of Lot Area – Conveyance to a Public Authority, states that if a conveyance or dedication required by a Federal, Provincial or Municipal government causes a lot to not comply with the required minimum building setback regulations of the By-law, the lot is deemed to comply with those regulations if the reduction creates a building setback that is at least 75% of the required minimum building setback for the zone in which the lot is located. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed setback is 78% of the required setback and that this variance is not required. Nonetheless, Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the requested setback variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. I agree with Mr. Uens.

203By way of overall conclusion, I find that each of the variances individually and cumulatively maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law. I also find that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

204Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposal will result in a range of units on large underutilized lot. It will replace a detached house that is currently vacant and uninhabitable. In addition, Mr. Uens opined that new housing creation is important in addressing a Seaton Village population decline, especially considering that Toronto has grown considerably over the same time period. The population within the Seaton Village census tract has declined from 6,450 persons in 1981 to 5,358 persons in 2021. There is an undersubscribed local public school. In addition, Mr. Uens noted the discrepancy between a declining population in the Seaton Village and the fact that it is located in a transit and amenity rich area.

205Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the February 2022 EHON report, Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods - Update Report, discussed current progress of EHON initiatives and forecasted work in the future, including making it easier to build walk up apartments in interior neighbourhoods. The Housing TO 2020-2030 Action Implementation Plan aims to monitor the City’s progress delivering housing over 10 years and explicitly references the missing middle housing form in Toronto neighbourhoods.

206Mr. Uens provided his opinion that laneway suites and laneway adjacent developments are intended to improve laneways and make them safer. In addition, these projects provide opportunities for public art.

207In conclusion, while this analysis of this phase of the test is brief, I have considered my analysis in the context of each of the requested minor variances. I find that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property and area. The proposal is in an appropriate neighbourhood of the City and is compatible with surrounding uses. This phase of the test has been met.

Are the variances minor?

208The criteria for determining whether a proposed variance is minor in nature is an assessment of impact. This is not solely a mathematical exercise as the effect of a requested variance may be considered minor in its context even if the numeric figure is large.

209Mr. Uens opined that several of the requested variances are technical, relating to the unique context and size of the lot, or my not even be applicable. Mr. Uens further opined that the building is evaluated as an apartment building due to the number of units and that this triggers many of the variances. However, Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the building is more typical of a multiplex form as it has no common entry, no common stairwells, or common interior corridors/amenity rooms. Each dwelling unit has a direct entrance to grade. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that if the proposal were evaluated as a multiplex, many of the variances would not be required or would be smaller in magnitude. I accept Mr. Uens’ opinions as outlined above.

210Mr. Uens opened that variance 1 – solid waste storage, and variance 17 – bicycle parking, are more of a site plan control matter and less of a matter for the Zoning By-Law to address. Transportation Services staff have no objection to the way these items are handled. I find that these variances are minor and do not result in an undue adverse impact.

211For variance 2 – front yard setback and variance 13 – porch and deck projections, Mr. Uens provided his opinion that this results due to the way the By-law measures the front setback, and is not a consideration of the prevailing character of front yard setbacks in the immediate context. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that the proposed development has been sited to align with the front yard setbacks along Barton Avenue. I accept Mr. Uens’ opinion on this matter, and find that these proposed variances are minor, and do not have an undue adverse impact.

212The variance 10 - building height variance deals with the safety railings installed on the two rooftop patios and the upper portion of the stairwell structure needed to access the rooftop patios. The roof level of the building sits below the as-of-right building height of 11 meters. In addition, the stair projections are 2.5 meters, which is half the permitted height for a stair enclosure that provides access to the functional elements required to operate a building. I find that the height variance is minor in nature and has no planning impact which would be considered an undue adverse impact.

213Variance 6 – Centre line setback from a lane has been reviewed by Transportation Services staff who agree that the provided lane width is appropriate for its intended function. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that this variance meets the test of minor, and I agree.

214Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the variances dealing with visitor parking, soft landscaping in the rear yard, and the laneway suite setback from the laneway should not likely be required. For example, provincial policy amendments prevent the City from requiring vehicle parking for development within PMTSA areas. The soft landscape variance arises due to the stairway in the rear yard required by the Ontario Building Code, however, if a walkway to access the building was provided in the same space, it would be exempt from landscape requirements and the variance would not be required. In addition, the laneway setback of 1.0 metres is deemed to comply if the resulting setback following a conveyance is at least 75% of the original requirement, and the setback meets this requirement as it is 0.78 meters. Without weighing in on the need for these variances, I find that they are minor in nature.

215Mr. Uens’ opinion is that variance 18 – two laneway suites, does not create a suite which is incongruously large with other suites that may be built in the surrounding context. Mr. Uens cites the fact that the second storey is set back 2 meters further than is required by the Zoning By-law in order to limit impacts to adjacent properties. I agree and find that the laneway suites present as two normal laneway suites in this context, are minor in nature, and do not have an undue adverse impact.

216Variance 20 – laneway suite length in Mr. Uens’ opinion is appropriate considering that it reflects the footprint of the existing accessory structure on the site. In Mr. Uens’ opinion, the proposed design results in a building that does not appear out of context. I agree and find that this variance is minor in nature.

217I will now briefly mention the apartment landscaping variances, being variances 7, 8, and 9. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that the rear yard landscape open space requirement related to a laneway suite behind an apartment building reflects the most appropriate standard which to consider the appropriateness of the development. Mr. Uens’ further opinion is that the proposed on-site landscaping is overall consistent within the prevailing patterns of rear yard landscaping found in the area. I agree and find the variances to be minor in nature.

218Mr. Uens opinion is that the building depth and apartment side yard setback variances, being variances 11 and 14, are dated provisions. Mr. Uens’ opinion is that current policies at the provincial and City level intend this type of development, so these By-law provisions do not align with current policy objectives around infill housing. In addition, only a small portion of the stairway access exceeds the height of 13 meters which triggers the 7.5 meter side yard setback requirement. Without weighing in on the dated nature of the By-laws, I find the proposed variances to be minor in nature and not to result in an undue adverse impact.

219Mr. Uens also opined that variance 12 – FSI is a dated provision which is not suited to regulate the form and scale of new infill housing in Neighbourhoods. Regardless, I find that the FSI is generally consistent with other area buildings and recent Committee of Adjustment decisions referred to by Mr. Uens, and find that the proposed variance is minor.

220In terms of variance 11 – depth, I agree with Mr. Uens that when considered in relation to the Subject Property’s considerable depth, which is nearly double the standard lot dept of 30.0 m, upon which the Zoning By-law is generally based, the relative building depth is consistent with the area context. This variance is minor in nature.

221Variances 3, 4, and 5 deal with side yard balcony and deck encroachments. Mr. Uens provided his opinion that they do not result in any impacts on the functioning of the side yards of the building and that they include screening to limit privacy impacts to the west. I agree with Mr. Uens and find these variances to be minor and not to have an impact that rises to the level of undue adverse impact.

222In conclusion, I find that the variances individually and cumulatively are minor in nature and will not cause an impact which rises to the level of undue adverse impact.

CONCLUSION

223I find that each of the variances individually and cumulatively meet the four statutory tests for a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

224The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the requested variances as noted herein are approved on the following conditions:

1. The owner is required to build the proposal substantially in accordance with the plans titled “2024-07-09 - 91 Barton Ave - COA - Drawings - R3”, received by the Committee of Adjustment on July 16, 2024.

2. 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.

3. 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 sites involved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.

4. The owner shall satisfy the following requirements of Transportation Services:

a. Subsequent to the issuance of a demolition and building permit, and the demolition of the existing building on the lands, the owner shall prepare all documents and convey to the City, at no cost to the City, a 0.22-metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site along the east frontage of the site abutting Ciamaga Lane, such lands to be free and clear of all other physical and title obstructions, encumbrances and encroachments. The applicant must submit to the General Manager, Transportation Services, a draft Reference Plan of Survey in metric units and integrated into the Ontario Coordinate System, with coordinate values shown on the face of the plan and delineating thereon, by separate PARTS as lands to be conveyed to the City and any appurtenant right-of-way, for review and approval, prior to depositing it in the Land Registry Office;

b. Prior to any conveyance of the land to the City, the Owner shall provide written confirmation from an Ontario Land Surveyor certifying that there are no physical encumbrances on the lands to be conveyed to the City, all to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

5. The owner shall include in the basement one 1-bedroom affordable rental unit, which satisfies the requirements of s 4.1 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member