Committee of Adjustment
Comité de dérogation
DECISION
CONSENT/SEVERANCE
Panel: 1 - Urban
Application: Consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act
Owner/Applicant: Estate of Beryl Ruth Herrick
Property Address: 304 Fairmont Avenue
Ward: 15 - Kitchissippi
Legal Description: Lot 195 & Part of 196 on Registered Plan 114306, Lot 3 & Part of Lot 4 on Registered Plan 233925
Zoning: R1QQ
Zoning By-law: 2008-250
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024, in person and by videoconference
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
1The Owner wants to subdivide its property into two separate parcels of land to create a new lot for residential development. The existing dwelling will remain, and the existing shed will be removed, if necessary.
CONSENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING
2The Owner requires the Committee’s consent to sever land.
3The severed land is shown as Parts 2 & 3 on a draft 4R plan filed with the application, and will have a frontage of 18.29 metres, a depth of 23.06 metres, and an area of 421.8 square metres. This parcel will be vacant and known municipally as 75 Gwynne Avenue.
4The retained land is shown as Part 1 on said plan, and will have a frontage of 18.29 metres, a depth of 23.07 metres, and an area of 421.5 square metres. This parcel is known municipally as 304 Fairmont Avenue and will contain the existing detached dwelling.
PUBLIC HEARING
5At the scheduled hearing on April 3, 2024, the application was adjourned to allow the Applicant more time to review the City’s requested conditions of provisional consent. With the concurrence of all parties the hearing was adjourned to April 17, 2024.
Oral Submissions Summary
6Jim Cocks, Agent for the Applicant, responded to a question from the Panel Chair and agreed that the Municipal Ward was incorrect on the public notice of this application, as the property is located within Ward 15 – Kitchissippi.
7City Planning Forester Nancy Young responded to the Committee’s questions regarding the revised conditions requested by the City, and provided a summary of the revisions and the City’s process for retaining securities for tree protection.
8Mr. Cocks confirmed his agreement to the conditions.
9City Planner Margot Linker was also present.
DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE:
APPLICATION GRANTED
Application Must Satisfy Statutory Tests
10Under the Planning Act, the Committee has the power to grant a consent if it is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Also, the Committee must be satisfied that an application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and has regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Act, as well as the following criteria set out in subsection 51(24):
Criteria
(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); [2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/astat/so-2016-c-25/latest/so-2016-c