Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 24 171396 S45 08 TLAB
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: October 18, 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): ROHAN SADANA
Applicant(s): THE PLANNING AGENCY INC
Property Address: 96 BELGRAVIA AVE
COA File No.: 24 149311 NNY 08 MV (A0260/24NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 171396 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): October 15, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member G. SWINKIN
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type First Initial. Last Name Representative
Applicant THE PLANNING AGENCY INC.
Appellant ROHAN SADANA IAN FLETT
Expert Witness C. CHAN
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) concerns the property known municipally as 96 Belgravia Avenue (the “Property”).
The Property is located two blocks north of Eglinton Avenue West, west of Marlee Avenue within what was the limits of the former City of York.
The Property is improved with an older bungalow form of dwelling, with a paved parking pad in the front yard and a garage in the rear yard.
The owner of the Property (the “Appellant”) wishes to demolish the structures presently on the Property and to construct in their stead a new multiplex dwelling three storeys in height, accommodating four two-bedroom units.
For that purpose, certain Zoning By-law variance relief is required.
To that end, an application was made to the Committee of Adjustment for the following heads of relief: 1. An east yard setback of 0.61 metres (“m”) in lieu of the required 1.2m; 2. A height of 11.53m in lieu of the maximum of 11m; 3. A lot area of 255.52 square metres in lieu of the required minimum of 360 square metres; and 4. A lot frontage of 7.62m in lieu of the required minimum of 12m.
It should be identified here that the lot area and lot frontage relief is meant to recognize the existing characteristics of the lot and basically to regularize them for the purpose of the proposal.
The Committee of Adjustment refused the application and the Appellant then appealed that decision to the Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
- Provincial Interest - Section 2 of the Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as clauses (a) – (s) in Section 2 of the Planning Act.
- Provincial Policy – Section 3 of the Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan).
- Variance – Section 45(1) of the Planning Act
In considering an application for variance from the Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application meets all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning 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-law;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The Tribunal received professional planning evidence from Christian Chan, who was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters in the proceeding due to his educational and professional qualifications and his considerable experience in this field.
Mr. Chan filed a comprehensive Expert Witness statement and disclosure material in advance of the hearing and spoke to the key points in that material in his oral testimony.
Mr. Chan described the neighbourhood and established that the area was populated primarily by one and two storey dwellings but that as a result of the recent planning policy initiatives which have been taken by Toronto City Council, there were now emerging three storey structures in the general neighbourhood which were functioning as multiplex structures similar to what is being proposed for the Property.
With respect to the lot characteristics for which relief was being sought, that is, lot frontage and lot area, Mr. Chan advised that more than 90% of the properties in the general neighbourhood do not comply with the minimum frontage requirement under the Zoning By-law and most are less than 8m. The reduced frontage connects to the lesser lot area. This parcel of land is a lot of record and is not itself being altered.
The proposal will fully comply with the west side yard setback requirement. As Mr. Chan described it and as it is illustrated on the plans, the new structure will be more centred on the lot and allow for access on both sides even with the reduction of the east side yard setback to 0.61m.
The head of relief which apparently caused the greatest concern for the Committee was the proposed height. The application requested a height of 11.53m. Due to the comments expressed by one or more members of the Committee, Mr. Chan indicated to them that his client was prepared to modify the height down to 11.31m as this was a height otherwise found in the neighbourhood.
The additional height was being sought partly to comply with certain requirements under the Ontario Building Code as it relates to the basement unit, allowing for above-grade window exposure, and also to result in minimum eight foot clear ceiling heights in all of the units.
It should be noted here that Mr. Chan advised that he had had a discussion about the application with the assigned community planner in the City Planning Division ahead of the Committee hearing and was advised that the Planning Division had no issues with the application and thus, in keeping with department practice, would not be communicating any comment to the Committee.
Mr. Chan provided background regarding the relevant Official Plan (“OP”) policies. His focus in this regard was on Site and Area Specific Policy 846, which details policies for multiplex development.
In his opinion, the proposal reinforces the OP’s objective of gentle intensification and maintains the general intent and purpose of OPA 649 (Multiplex OPA) by respecting neighbourhood character and built form.
He further went on to opine that in analysing the physical characteristics in the Geographic Neighbourhood, especially in regard to the proposed building massing, scale, and height, the proposed development respects and reinforces the prevailing characteristics of the Broader and Immediate Context and is materially consistent with the prevailing physical character of properties in the Geographic Neighbourhood as this neighbourhood is developing.
He further asserted that the proposal will add to the City’s missing middle housing stock. Housing Policies in Chapter 3.2.1 of the OP seek to encourage a full range of housing, and this proposal will improve and modernize the rental housing stock in the neighbourhood.
In his view, the proposal and variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Mr. Chan provided background with respect to the RM zoning on the property, that it specifically allows the type of building proposed by this application.
He reviewed the four requested variances in terms of the intent of the by-law and, based on his analysis, he concluded that the requests fell within the intent of the by-law.
With respect to the test of desirability, Mr. Chan offered the view that the proposed fourplex will contribute to the reinvestment into the neighbourhood in providing additional residential units in a compact built form in the neighbourhood and on Belgravia Avenue, and will add to the City’s missing middle housing stock.
He also said that in terms of the housing context and housing needs in the Briar Hill-Belgravia neighbourhood, it is desirable to add additional rental dwelling units in multiple-unit buildings in the neighbourhood in an area that is well supported by transit (as the Property is in the vicinity of the Eglinton West and Oakwood Mass Transit Station Areas), and generally considering the affordability of housing in the city and need for increased housing supply.
Lastly, with respect to the test of whether the variances can be considered minor, Mr. Chan confirmed to the Tribunal that “Minor” is not just an assessment of the numerical variance; it is also one of whether the impact rises to a level of undue adverse impact of a planning nature. Cumulative impacts as well as individual impacts are considered.
In this case, the proposed building height of 3 storeys is permitted within the RM Zone and in a Neighbourhoods Designation, and the east setback is consistent with and in fact increased over the prevailing and within the range of the Committee of Adjustment approved building setbacks in the Immediate Context.
He adds that the impact of the minor increase in height is offset by compliance with the minimum west side setback, and compliance with the permitted building depth and length for a multiplex.
Finally, on questioning by the Tribunal, Mr. Chan offered his opinion that the increase in height beyond the 11m permitted by the Zoning By-law would essentially be imperceptible by a passing pedestrian.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Mr. Chan confirmed that there was no issue with respect to consistency with the PPS or regarding conformity to the Growth Plan. And in light of the fact that the current PPS and the Growth Plan are to be rescinded as of October 20, 2024, he further advised that he has reviewed the new PPS (to come into effect on October 20, 2024) and was of the view that there would be no issues as to consistency with that policy document either.
Mr. Chan advised that the immediately abutting neighbour at 94 Belgravia, which lies to the east of the Property and is currently improved with a bungalow dwelling, is not opposed to the proposal and acknowledged that in written form earlier submitted.
The Tribunal recognizes that the Property is a lot of record and that the proposal is entirely consistent with the objectives of City Council to introduce multiplex dwellings in the Neighbourhoods.
The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Chan and is satisfied from the evidence that the Section 45(1) variance tests are satisfied in this instance.
The Tribunal also accepts the submission by counsel, Mr. Flett, that Section 45(18) of the Planning Act allows this tribunal on appeal to make any decision that the committee could have made on the original application. That original application sought a variance to permit a height of 11.53m. So, although in the course of presenting the application, the applicant indicated a willingness to reduce that height request to 11.31m, that does not take away from what was sought in the original application and what can therefore be dealt with on this appeal.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence that the requested variances are appropriate and satisfy the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
Consequently, the Tribunal will be allowing the appeal and approving the originally requested variances, which will be formally detailed below in the Order.
DECISION AND ORDER
- The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the following variances are approved:
Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3)(D), By-law 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setback for a fourplex/apartment building is 1.2m.
The proposed east side yard setback is 0.61m.
Chapter 10.80.40.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of the building is 11m.
The proposed height of the building is 11.53m.
Chapter 10.80.30.10.(1)(C), By-law 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 360m².
The lot area is 255.52m².
Chapter 10.80.30.20B)(iv), By-law 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage for a (fourplex/apartment building) is 12m.
The lot frontage is 7.62m.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member