July 15, 2008 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario

Transcription

1 ISSUE DATE: July 15, 2008 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: S & A Frantzis Subject: Minor Variance Variance from By-law No.: 6752 Property Address/Description: 1143 Broadview Avenue Municipality: Toronto OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Municipal No.: A-0229/08TEY A P P E A R A N C E S : Parties Stylianos and Anastasia Frantzis Agent G. Morris DECISION DELIVERED BY S. J. STEFANKO AND J. G. WONG AND ORDER OF THE BOARD This was a hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board in the matter of an appeal by Stylianos and Anastasia Frantzis ( Appellants ) from a decision of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment (File A0229/08TEY) that refused to authorize minor variances for their property known municipally as 1143 Broadview Avenue in the City of Toronto. The variances relate to the conversion of a one-storey, single-family detached dwelling into a five-unit apartment building, by constructing a one and one-half storey addition over the existing building.

2 - 2 - Variances Sought The variances sought are from By-law 6752 of the City of Toronto (formerly East York) and are as follows: Issue 1. The minimum required front yard setback is 6.0 metres and in this case, the additions will be located 5.49 metres from the front lot line ( Front Yard Variance ). 2. The minimum required number of on site parking spaces is 7 and in this case, only 4 on site parking spaces will be provided ( On Site Parking Variance ). 3. The minimum required parking space size is 2.6 metres by 5.6 metres (without obstructions) and 2.9 metres by 5.6 metres with obstructions. In this case, the parking spaces will have dimensions of 2.5 metres by 5.6 metres and the parking space nearest the rear wall is obstructed ( Parking Space Variance ). 4. The minimum north side yard setback is 2.4 metres and in this case, the addition will be located 0.57 metres from the north side lot line ( North Yard Variance ). 5. The minimum required south yard setback is 2.4 metres and in this case, the addition will be located 0.0 metres from the south lot line ( South Yard Variance ). 6. No part of any apartment building containing windows to habitable rooms is permitted to come closer to the lot line that half the height or length of the respective building. In this case, the required north and south side lot line setback is 8.7 metres and the addition will be located 0.57 metres and 1.19 metres from the north and south side lots lines respectively (Window Variance ). The issues to be determined are whether each of the requested variances meets the four tests as prescribed in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

3 - 3 - Evidence The Board heard from Grant Morris, a qualified land use planner and Trevor Gain, a design consultant; both were retained by the Appellants. Mr. Morris provided planning evidence and Mr. Gain provided details on the building design and specifications for the proposed project. In opposition to the Appeal were four local residents who appeared as Participants ( Participants ) before the Board: Danica Milley, 1145 Broadview Avenue; Konstantina Dianne Stathpoulous, 1141 Broadview Avenue; Chris Foti Dimas, 10 Gowan Avenue; and Isabell MacIver, 2 Gowan Avenue. Mr. Morris suggests a number of reasons why the proposal should be approved and the appeal allowed. In his view, the proposed five unit apartment building is consistent with the intensification policies if the Official Plan, is in keeping with the character of the area, is a permitted use under the applicable zoning by-law and will positively impact surrounding properties. Although, Mr. Morris did not give evidence as how each variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act ( Act ), he did state that in his view the requested variances did comply with the provision. The Participants on the other hand argued, among other things, that the proposed apartment building creates unresolvable parking problems and that if approved, a congested development would result. Findings In cases of this type it is essential that any panel of the Board be satisfied that each of the four tests under s.45(1) of the Act be met for each variance sought. We have the following comments and observations regarding the On Site Parking Variance: (1) The Appellants did not establish how this variance maintained the purpose and intent of the zoning by-law and when asked by the panel how this test was being met, Mr. Morris replied that the property was zoned for the apartment use in question. This explanation, in our view, falls far short of establishing that the purpose and intent of the by-law is maintained because the number of required parking spaces is almost being halved. (2) The Appellants suggest that this variance should be authorized because there are other apartment buildings in the vicinity of the subject site. No

4 - 4 - evidence was presented however that any of these apartment buildings had obtained parking variances either similar to, or identical with, the parking variances being sought in this case. (3) The Appellants argued that parking was not of particular importance because of the existing transit facilities nearby. Although this type of argument does mitigate, to a small extent, the need for required parking, it is by no means determinative. Nonetheless, the By-law ties parking spaces to the number of apartment units. (4) Whenever a panel of the Board considers a parking variance, the availability of on street parking in the immediate vicinity is addressed. In this case, the panel was advised that there is no on street parking along Broadview Avenue, that only five parking spaces exist along Gowan between Broadview and Burley and these five spaces accommodate 20 homes in this block. Moreover, although no evidence was given regarding City permits for these five spaces it is possible that some or all are presently accounted for. As a result, the on street parking argument does not, in our view, assist the Appellants. (5) One of the proposed parking spaces will abut a wall of the proposed building. This location calls into question the functional nature of this space. (6) It is important to note that, in our view, not only are the proposed outdoor parking spaces deficient in number, they are also based on the Parking Space Variance, deficient in size. This further exacerbates the problematic nature of the On Site Parking Variance. (7) Of the parking spaces proposed, three were outdoors and immediately adjacent to the home of Isabell MacIver. Based on the evidence heard, we are the view that the odour and privacy concerns expressed by Ms MacIver are real. Simply put, therefore, it is our view that the On Site Parking Variance is neither minor nor does it meet the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

5 - 5 - In relation to the other variances sought, namely the Front Yard Variance, the Parking Space Variance, the North Yard Variance, the South Yard Variance and the Window Variance, we are satisfied that they each meet the four tests imposed by s.45(1) of the Act either in the form of variance presented or with a condition imposed. We also note that these variances reflect the existing footprint of the building currently on the lot. Conclusion Based on all of the foregoing: (1) Front Yard Variance, the Parking Space Variance, the North Yard Variance and the South Yard Variance are hereby authorized and the appeal in relation to them is hereby allowed. (2) The Window Variance is hereby authorized on condition that any such windows not be transparent. The appeal in this regard, therefore, is allowed in part. (3) The On Site Parking Variance (which requests 4 spaces instead of 7, required under the By-law) is not authorized and the appeal in relation thereto is dismissed. It is so Ordered. S.J. Stefanko S. J. STEFANKO MEMBER J.G. Wong J.G. WONG MEMBER