Decision: May 27, 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Telephone: 416-392-4697 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9 Fax: 416-696-4307 Email: [email protected] Website: www.toronto.ca/tlab DECISION AND ORDER Decision Issue Date Monday, May 27, 2019 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): SAHAND NOROUZI-FARSANGI Applicant: OE DESIGN Property Address/Description: 159 RIDLEY BLVD Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 18 216745 NNY 16 MV TLAB Case File Number: 18 250148 S45 16 TLAB Hearing date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 DECISION DELIVERED BY JUSTIN LEUNG APPEARANCES Name Role Representative OE Design Applicant Sahand Norouzi-Farsangi Owner/Appellant Amber Stewart David Anderson Party Diane Anderson Party Franco Romano Expert Witness South Armour Heights Participant Residents Association Kathy Guilfoyle Participant 1 of 10 Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: J. LEUNG TLAB Case File Number: 18 250148 S45 16 TLAB INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from a decision of the North York Committee of Adjustment (COA) which had refused a series of 10 variances for 159 Ridley Boulevard (subject property). The variances, if allowed by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB), would permit the construction of a new two storey detached dwelling. This property is located in the Cricket Club neighbourhood in the North York district of the City of Toronto (City) which is situated south of Wilson Avenue and bounded by Avenue Road to the west and Yonge Street to the east. The property is located on Ridley Boulevard, south of Wilson Avenue and north of Brooke Avenue. At the beginning of the hearing, I informed all parties in attendance that I had performed a site visit of this subject property and the immediate neighbourhood. BACKGROUND With respect to this TLAB appeal as filed by the original minor variance applicant, the applicant has made revisions to their proposal which is outlined in the attached document as Attachment 1 (and entered as Exhibit 1). A revised site plan which shows a re-configured driveway for this proposed detached dwelling was also submitted by the applicant as ‘Sheet No. A0.01’ prepared by OE Design Ltd. and attached herein as Attachment 2. Elevations relating to this revised proposal were also provided by the applicant as part of their ‘Expert Witness Statement of F. Romano’ and attached as Attachment 3. MATTERS IN ISSUE The applicant’s legal counsel, Amber Stewart, had requested the panel to allow the revised variances. Ms. Stewart indicated that changes have been made to their original proposal which has resulted in a reduced number of variance requests and other modifications to their proposal which she contends is a more appropriate form of development. The revised variances in comparison to the original variance requests are outlined below: 2 of 10 Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: J. LEUNG TLAB Case File Number: 18 250148 S45 16 TLAB Original variances requested to COA: Revised variances presented to TLAB: Chapter 10.5.40.70(1)(B), By-Law No. This variance request has been 569-2013: The minimum required front withdrawn. yard setback is 7.9m. The proposed dwelling will have a front yard setback of 7.3m. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(3)(A)(ii), By-Law No. This variance request has been 569-2013: Exterior stairs providing withdrawn. pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no wider than 2m. The proposed dwelling will have stairs that are 3.05m wide. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-Law No. This variance request has been 569-2013: The maximum permitted lot withdrawn. coverage is 35% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 35.6% of the lot area. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-Law No. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-Law No. 569-2013: The maximum permitted height 569-2013: The maximum permitted height of the exterior portion of main walls for a of the exterior portion of main walls for a detached house is 7.5m for either (A) for detached house is 7.5m for either (A) for no less than 60% of the total width of all no less than 60% of the total width of all front main walls and all rear main walls or front main walls and all rear main walls or (B) all side main walls: (i) for no less than (B) all side main walls: (i) for no less than 60% of the total width of the side main 60% of the total width of the side main walls facing a side lot line that abuts a walls facing a side lot line that abuts a street; and (ii) for no less than 100% of street; and (ii) for no less than 100% of the total width of the side main walls that the total width of the side main walls that do not face a side lot line that abuts a do not face a side lot line that abuts a street. The proposed dwelling will have a street. The proposed dwelling will have a height of the exterior main wall of 8.78m. height of the exterior main wall of 8.78m (remain unchanged). Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-Law No. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-Law No. 569-2013: The maximum permitted 569-2013: The maximum permitted building length is 17m. The proposed building length is 17m. The proposed dwelling will have a building length of dwelling will have a building length of 19.39 m. 18.57 m (reduction in request). 3 of 10 Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: J. LEUNG TLAB Case File Number: 18 250148 S45 16 TLAB Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-Law No. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-Law No. 569-2013: The minimum required side 569-2013: The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8m. The proposed yard setback is 1.8m. The proposed dwelling will have an east side yard dwelling will have an east side yard setback of 1.52m. setback of 1.52m (remain unchanged). Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-Law No. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-Law No. 569-2013: The minimum required side 569-2013: The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8m. The proposed yard setback is 1.8m. The proposed dwelling will have a west side yard dwelling will have a west side yard setback of 1.52m. setback of 1.52m (remain unchanged). Chapter 200.5.1.10.(2), By-Law No. 569 This variance request has been 2013: The minimum required width of a withdrawn. parking space is 2.9m. The proposed dwelling will have a parking space(s) width of 2.8m. Section 12.7, By-Law No. 7625: The Section 12.7, By-Law No. 7625: The maximum permitted building height is maximum permitted building height is 8.8m. The proposed dwelling will have a 8.8m. The proposed dwelling will have a height of 9.74m. height of 9.74m (remain unchanged). Section 6A(3), By-Law No. 7625: The This variance request has been minimum required parking space size is withdrawn. 5.6m x 2.9m. The proposed dwelling will have a parking space size of 5.6m x 2.8m. The proposed conditions for approval, as prepared by the applicant, are described here: 1. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan (revision dated January 18, 2019) and Elevations (revision dated April 17, 2019), prepared by OE Design Ltd. Revision. 2. For greater certainty, the driveway shall be positioned towards the east side of the lot, as shown on the Site Plan. 3. The overall dwelling height under By-law 569-2013 shall be a maximum of 9.6 m, as shown on the Front Elevation. 4. The Applicant shall satisfy all matters related to City and Privately-owned trees pursuant to Chapter 813 of the Municipal Code, Articles II and III. It should be noted that condition 1 is similar to a condition as recommended by Planning staff in their report prepared for this minor variance proposal (dated October 2, 2018, prepared by Yishan Liu). However, the applicant is requesting that 4 of 10 Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: J. LEUNG TLAB Case File Number: 18 250148 S45 16 TLAB this condition wording be altered so that it reflects the more recently submitted site plan which shows the re-configured driveway. JURISDICTION Provincial Policy – S. 3 A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’). Minor Variance – S. 45(1) In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet 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-laws; • are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and • are minor. EVIDENCE The applicant had called one expert witness, Mr. Franco Romano, a Registered Professional Planner, who was qualified to provide professional land use planning evidence. Mr. Romano stated that revisions in their proposal have been made which has resulted in a reduction in the number of variance requests.