decision and order - toronto€¦ · planning act, r.s.o. 1990, c. p.13, as amended (the...

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

1 of 10

DECISION AND ORDER

Decision Issue Date Wednesday, May 02, 2018

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): ALEX AIDAN

Applicant: TAES ARCHITECTS INC

Property Address/Description: 23 SUNCREST DR

Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 17 165450 NNY 25 MV

TLAB Case File Number: 17 221581 S45 25 TLAB

Hearing date: Monday, April 23, 2018

DECISION DELIVERED BY L. McPherson

APPEARANCES

Name Role Representative

TAES Architects Inc. Applicant

Alex Aidan Furney Appellant

Lisa He Party/Owner Amber Stewart

Debra Kakaria Expert Witness

INTRODUCTION

On August 3, 2017, the Committee of Adjustment (“the Committee”) approved a minor variance application for 23 Suncrest Drive (the “subject lands”) to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling. The subject lands are located on the north side of Suncrest Drive, east of The Bridle Path. On August 23, 2017, Alex Aiden Furney appealed the decision of the Committee to the

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.toronto.ca/tlab

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: L. McPherson TLAB Case File Number: 17 221581 S45 25 TLAB

2 of 10

Toronto Local Appeal Body (“TLAB”). The TLAB scheduled a hearing for January 17, 2018. On December 4, 2017, the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion with the TLAB requesting an adjournment of the Hearing Date and a 45-day delay due to medical reasons which prevented him from his day to day business. The Appellant had not filed any disclosure material or Witness Statements. The Applicant did not oppose the Motion and the Motion for Adjournment was granted. The TLAB directed that the hearing exchange dates for disclosure and Witness Statements by the Appellant would be January 31, 2018, failing which the Applicant could seek further relief. The Appellant did not file any documents by the January 31, 2018 deadline. Due to scheduling logistics, a new hearing date was scheduled for April 23, 2018, which was significantly later than the 45-day extension requested. Further exchange dates were identified in the Notice. The Appellant did not file any documents or Witness Statements within the required timeframe as set out in the Notice. On April 16, 2018, the Appellant filed a second Notice of Motion requesting an adjournment of the April 23, 2018 Hearing date and requesting a further extension of 60 days due to medical reasons. Given the proximity to the Hearing Date, the Motion was heard on the Hearing date and the TLAB advised the Parties that the Motion would be heard in person and to be prepared to proceed with the Hearing should the Motion be denied. The Appellant, or a representative of the Appellant, did not attend the Hearing.

RULING ON THE MOTION

The TLAB is committed to fixed and definite Hearing dates. Rule 23.3 of the TLAB’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure states that in deciding whether or not to grant a Motion for an adjournment the Local Appeal Body may, among other things, consider:

a) the reason for the adjournment;

b) the interests of the Parties in having a full and fair Proceeding;

c) the integrity of the Local Appeal Body’s process;

d) the timeliness of an adjournment;

e) the position of the other Parties on the request;

f) whether an adjournment will cause or contribute to any existing or potential harm or prejudice to others, including possible expense to other Parties;


3 of 10

g) the effect an adjournment may have on Parties, Participants or other Persons; and

h) the effect an adjournment may have on the ability of the Local Appeal Body to conduct a Proceeding in a just, timely and cost effective manner.

The Applicant’s legal representative, Ms. Stewart, provided a Notice of Response to the Motion in which she indicated that her client objects to the adjournment request. The reasons included:

The Committee hearing which approved the application was over 8 months ago and the Applicant has since been awaiting the final outcome of the appeal in order to proceed with plans;

The Appellant has not met any of the filing obligations as an Appellant;

Ms. Furney, who has been corresponding with the TLAB on behalf of Mr. Furney, confirmed the new TLAB Hearing date of April 23, 2018;

The Appellant has not submitted any documents, Witness or Expert Witness Statement despite indicating that the first adjournment would allow him time to comply;

No written comments were submitted to the Committee;

The Applicant has submitted all documents within the original timelines and has incurred costs of legal and planning representation and delay as a result of the Mr. Furney’s appeal which he has made no efforts to substantiate;

While sympathetic to Mr. Furney’s illness, the Applicant is suffering prejudice as a result of the delays. The house is vacant pending a decision and mortgage payments are being made. The Applicant’s temporary living situation was made on the reasonable expectation of a timely hearing of the appeal;

Depending on a new hearing date, construction of a new dwelling could be delayed and further costs incurred;

The prejudice to the Applicant is significant and unwarranted given the Appellant has not demonstrated that the appeal is legitimate;

The intention of the appeal would appear to be delay based on various actions and not by planning concerns as no planning support has been demonstrated

Any prejudice to the Appellant in refusing the adjournment is minor and could be mitigated by having Ms. Furney attend the Hearing or alternative methods for Mr. Furney’s participation which the Applicant would agree to.

Ms. Furney, on behalf of the Appellant, provided correspondence to the TLAB the morning of the Hearing by email which was reviewed by the Panel prior to the Applicant’s submission. As there was no representative of the Appellant at the Hearing, there was no request to enter the correspondence into evidence.

Having considered the evidence and the correspondence before me, the Motion for Adjournment is denied. The Appellant has not complied with any of the 3 opportunities provided to submit documents or Witness Statements in support of the appeal. I understand that there have been medical issues related to Mr. Furney; however, there


4 of 10

has been a period of 8 months since the appeal was filed by Mr. Furney and within that timeframe, there have been no actions by the Appellant to file any relevant material. Within that timeframe, there would have been a reasonable opportunity to assign a representative or to retain a witness to represent the appeal. The TLAB is committed to just, timely and cost effective proceedings. In any appeal, the Appellant has a responsibility to meet the requirements as set out in the Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Applicant did not object to the first adjournment which delayed the process by 3 months. With only one Appellant, a further delay would prejudice the Applicant and deny a just, expeditious and cost-effective determination of the appeal. The Hearing proceeded.

MATTERS IN ISSUE

The Committee approved the following variances:

1. Chapter 10.20.30.40. (1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 28.50% of the lot area. 2. Section 6A (5)(a), By-law No. 7625 The maximum permitted driveway width is 6.0m. The proposed driveway width is 9.00m. 3. Section 10.2.4, By-law No. 7625 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 28.50% of the lot area 4. Section 10.2.3(a), By-law No. 7625 The minimum required front yard setback is 12m. The proposed front yard setback is 9.14 m. The proposed variances before the Committee were based on a Zoning waiver prepared by the architect. Subsequent to the Committee meeting, the Applicant’s planner undertook a further review of the By-laws and confirmed with Building Department staff that the only required variance was to lot coverage. The variances for driveway width and front yard setback were not required due to an exception in the By-law. Further, since the approval of a number of provisions of 569-2013, the variance for coverage from the former North York By-law is no longer required, as confirmed by the planner with the Building Department. As a result, the Applicant is proposing one variance: 1. Chapter 10.20.30.40. (1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 28.50% of the lot area.

The matter at issue is whether the increase in coverage from 25% to 28.5% meets the 4 tests of the Planning Act and applicable provincial policy.


5 of 10

JURISDICTION

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 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.

Applicable provincial policy is also a relevant consideration.

EVIDENCE

As noted, the Appellant did not attend the Hearing and did not file any documents. Ms. Debra Kakaria was qualified to give professional land use evidence on behalf of the Applicant (CV, Documents - Exhibit 1). She described the subject lands and area. The subject lands back onto Sunnybrook Park and have a lot area of 1,122 m2, a lot frontage of 30.78 m on Suncrest Drive and a lot depth of 36.40 m. A one-storey detached dwelling currently exists on the subject lands with a coverage of 34%. The subject lands are located in the southern portion of the Bridle Path neighbourhood of Toronto. The proposal is for the construction of a two-storey replacement dwelling with an integral garage on the subject lands. She advised that Planning Staff, in a report to the Committee dated July 25, 2017, recommended that the coverage be reduced to between 27% and 29% as approved lot coverages in the area have generally ranged between 27% and 29%. There were no comments on the other proposed variances. At the Committee meeting, the Applicant’s representative indicated that the proposal had been revised in accordance with the Planning staff recommendation and the proposed coverage was now 28.5% (Revised Plans Exhibit 2– Appendix B). Ms. Kakaria noted that the neighbourhood streetscape consists mainly of partially landscaped front yards and the majority of dwellings have driveways leading to an integral garage on the front or side facade. Built form in the area comprises a wide variety of architectural styles including split-levels, classic Georgian or Colonial-style dwellings and some modern styles as well as more recent replacement dwellings with pitched roofs with dormers or Mansard style rooflines.


6 of 10

Ms. Kakaria defined a neighbourhood to evaluate the overall character of the buildings, streetscape and open space patterns (Witness Statement – Exhibit 2 and Visuals – Exhibit 1). She advised that the neighbourhood consists of primarily two (2) and two-and-a-half storey, detached houses. She described the neighbourhood as a typical Toronto stable residential area which is not static in that it is experiencing a significant amount of new construction and investment either through complete new builds or renovations. She advised that there have been there have been eight (8) variances recently approved for lot coverage above the permitted 25%. These lot coverages range from 27% (5 Peebles Avenue) to 30.9% (19 Royal Oak Drive and 1 Shady Oaks Crescent) (Applicable Surrounding Committee of Adjustment Decisions contained in Exhibit 1). Ms. Kakaria further undertook an analysis of lot coverages using the City’s Open Data Catalogue (see Tab 20 Exhibit 1) to estimate approximate lot coverages in the area within an area bounded by Saintfield Avenue to the north, Glenorchy Road to the west, and Sunnybrook Park and Edwards Gardens to the south and east. The analysis indicated that coverages in excess of 25% were common in the area for existing as well as new dwellings. With respect to provincial policy, Ms. Kakaria indicated that the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) directs development to established built-up areas where there is existing municipal infrastructure. Intensification and redevelopment is encouraged as is a range and mix of housing types and densities. She referred to Policies 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, and 1.4. In her opinion, the proposed variances are consistent with the policy objectives of the PPS. The approval of the proposed variance would permit the proposal and investment within a built-up area, which is compatible with adjacent uses and which would utilize existing infrastructure. Ms. Kakaria advised that the Growth Plan sets out broad policies for the development of urban areas in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including the promotion of compact urban form through the intensification of existing urban areas. The intent is to better use land and infrastructure to avoid the outward expansion of our communities as outlined in Policies 2.2.1.2 (a) and 2.2.1.4 (e) and (f). In her opinion, the proposed variances conform to the policy objectives of the Growth Plan. The subject lands are designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan as shown on Land Use Plan Map 20 and in Tab 6 of Exhibit 1. The subject lands also back onto the Green Space System as shown on Map 2 - Urban Structure and Parks as also shown on Land Use Plan Map 20. Mr. Kakaria stated that the Neighbourhoods designation is intended to provide a full range of residential uses including detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes and townhouses that are four storeys or less.


7 of 10

She noted that in Chapter 2.3, Neighbourhoods are considered to be physically stable areas but not static. They are not to be “frozen in time” – “Some physical change will occur over time as enhancements, additions and infill housing occurs on individual sites” (S 2.3.1). There have been eight (8) Committee of Adjustment Decisions that have approved variances to lot coverage within the neighbourhood. Ms. Kakaria advised that these approved variances, along with her observations of the area, demonstrates that this is not a static neighbourhood. These approved lot coverages ranged from 27% to 30.9% and the proposed variance to lot coverage (28.5%) falls within this range. Development within Neighbourhoods is to be respectful of the existing neighbourhood context and is to reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas. She noted Chapter 4.1 which states “Physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and generally “fit” the existing physical character.” Further, Policy 4.1.5 states (in part) that “Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including in particular: c) heights, massing, scale and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; In Ms. Kakaria’s opinion, the proposed lot coverage is consistent with the existing physical character of the area and is within the range of recently approved variances in the neighbourhood. The proposed scale, height, and massing is similar to several replacement dwellings in the neighbourhood; it therefore respects the existing physical character of the area, specifically the building massing. Based on the above analysis, it was Ms. Kakaria’s opinion that the proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. With respect to zoning, Ms. Kakaria advised that the subject site is zoning RD (f30.0; a1100)(x971) in the new City By-law 569-2013 and R1 (1) in the Former North York Zoning By-law 7625. In her opinion, the general intent and purpose of a maximum lot coverage zoning provision is to ensure consistency among dwellings and to ensure that adequate ground floor remains for landscaping, parking, and pedestrian access. She advised that the proposed dwelling meets all setback requirements and will continue to have a sufficient amount of front and rear yard landscaping, along with adequate room for pedestrian access and parking. Further, the proposed variance is within the range of other recently approved for lot coverages and is below the current lot coverage of 34%. As such, she advised that the variance would bring the subject lands closer in compliance with the By-law requirement.


8 of 10

In summary, it was Ms. Kakaria’s opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. In Ms. Kakaria’s opinion, the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The proposed reinvestment in the housing stock in the form of a 2-storey dwelling is appropriate and desirable. The coverage is in keeping with other approved variances in the neighbourhood, is lower than the current coverage and respects the existing physical character of the neighbourhood. In her opinion, the proposed lot coverage would not set a precedent in the neighbourhood and represents only a slight increase in lot coverage from 25% to 28.5% and is consistent with other lot coverage variances found to be appropriate and approved in this neighbourhood. With respect to the test for minor, in Ms. Kakaria’s opinion, the variance is minor in nature. The variance will have limited impact on the streetscape and will be in keeping with the scale of massing of replacement dwellings in the neighbourhood. The proposal meets all other provisions for height, side yard setbacks and soft landscaping. The proposed lot coverage was reduced to be within the range approved for the neighbourhood, as requested by Planning staff. The front yard setback is similar to the adjacent dwellings as noted on the revised site plan. Ms. Kakaria addressed the planning concern related to safety raised in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal regarding the width of the driveway. While stating that the variance was not required as an exception in the former By-law provided for a driveway width of 9 m, she noted that there are currently 2 curb cuts leading to the subject lands and that the elimination and consolidation of driveways would likely be a safer solution. She further noted that the City transportation division did not indicate any issues with the proposal. In conclusion, Ms. Kakaria recommended to the TLAB that the requested variance be approved, subject to the a condition requiring that the dwelling be constructed substantially in accordance with the revised Site Plan and Elevations submitted and the Urban Forestry condition imposed by the Committee.

ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, REASONS

I am satisfied that no further notice pursuant to section 45 (18.1.1) is required with respect to the reduction in variances that were before the Committee, as the revisions involved are deletions of requested variances. I accept the evidence of the professional planner that the proposed variance meets the criteria set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and applicable provincial policy. City Planning staff recommended that a coverage of between 27% and 29% would be in the range of other approvals in the area. The Applicant revised the plans to address this issue. The coverage variance is within the range of recent coverage approvals and less than the current coverage on the


9 of 10

subject lands. The resulting 2-storey dwelling respects the physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood and fits within its context.

All of the variances contained within in the Committee’s Notice of Decision were approved by the Committee and appealed to the TLAB. Whether or not they are required, I have considered them in light of the evidence in its entirety as well as the Committee’s decision and the relevant tests. As all of the matters were appealed to the TLAB, for completeness, the TLAB has included all of the variances in its decision.

The general purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws is maintained. The proposal results in an appropriate and desirable development for subject lands and the variances are considered minor in the context. The TLAB is satisfied that the variances are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Growth Plan. The approval is subject to the conditions below.

DECISION AND ORDER

The appeal is denied and the following variances are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Chapter 10.20.30.40. (1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 28.50% of the lot area. 2. Section 6A (5)(a), By-law No. 7625 The maximum permitted driveway width is 6.0m. The proposed driveway width is 9.00m. 3. Section 10.2.4, By-law No. 7625 The maximum permitted lot coverage is 25% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 28.50% of the lot area 4. Section 10.2.3(a), By-law No. 7625 The minimum required front yard setback is 12m. The proposed front yard setback is 9.14 m. Conditions:

1) The proposal be developed substantially in accordance with the revised site plan and elevations, attached as Attachment 1, dated November 10, 2017.

2) The Applicant submit a complete application for a permit to injure or remove privately owned trees, satisfactory and to the attention of the City’s Urban Forestry division.


10 of 10

XLaurie McPherson

Panel Chair, Toronto Local Appeal Body

Project number

"ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT AND MUST BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. REPRODUCTION OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS IN PART OR IN WHOLE IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT."

DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK & VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.

THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.

TAES Architects Inc.12 UPJOHN ROAD, SUITE 2A

TORONTO, ONTARIO M3B 2V9T: 416 800 3284F: 416 800 3485

Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.A000

Cover

T2017027

Residence23 Suncrest Drive

North York,ON

RESIDENCE23 Suncrest DriveNorth York,ON

No. Revision Date By1 Variance Application 2017-11-10 S.R

Attachment 1

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

DN

DN

SUNCREST DRIVE

H E D G E

∅0.4∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.2

∅0.5 ∅0.6

∅0.3

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.4

∅0.2

∅0.2

∅0.6

∅0.5

∅0.5

∅0.3

H E D G E

APPROXIMATE CENTRE LINE OF PAVEMNET

IB(OU)

CURB CUTCURB CUTTOP OF CURB

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

TOP OF CURB TOP OF CURB

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

APPROXIMATE CENTRE LINE OF PAVEMNET

SIB(OU)

P L A N T E R

IP(OIB(OU)

0.02W

IB

SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT AS IN INST. No.A52047 SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT AS IN INST. No.A52047SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT AS IN INST. No.A52047PLANTER

UP

UP

MH

MHMH

MH

UP

LS

LS

UP

(SILL)

(ROOF&EAVES)

(SILL)

(ROOF&EAVES)

145.22

145.70

145.30

145.22

145.28

145.24

145.21

145.64

145.29

145.31

145.18

145.73

145.73

145.69

145.13

145.13

145.13

146.00 1

45.35

145.35

145.33

145.40

145.14

145.26

1

145.13

145.15

145.20

145.19

145.20

145.40

145.64

145.77

145.62

145.63

145.76

145.82

145.76

145.61 1

45.59

145.57

145.57

145.65

145.79

145.77

145.67

145.64

145.81

145.78

145.67

145.75

145.74

145.73 1

45.76

145.64

144.12

144.10

144.13

144.34

144.80

146.07

146.73

144.47

144.75

144.71

144.72

144.81

144.82

144.16

144.84

144.60

144.61

144.60

144.66

144.49

144.59

144.64

144.64

144.28

144.32

144.75

144.85

144.84 1

44.83

144.86

144.82

144.85

144.85

144.84

144.83

144.83

144.60

144.84

144.84

145.64

145.61

145.57 1

45.58

145.55

145.57

144.82

144.82

144.80

144.78

144.76

144.72 1

44.72

144.70

144.69

144.66

144.46

144.33

144.49

144.45

144.49

144.62

144.63

144.96

145.60

145.59

145.64

144.92

145.80

145.76

144.59

145.80

145.57

145.57

145.60

145.62

145.57

145.69

146.89

145.59

145.63

145.65 145.67 145.68

146.16

146.12

146.72

145.74

145.64

145.66

145.67

145.67

145.57

145.67

145.69

145.73

145.57

145.99 1

45.99

145.52

145.59

87

145.62

145.58

145.48

145.74

145.67

153.14

151.61

145.68

145.60

145.46

145.92

145.77

145.61

145.62

145.66

145.62

145.53

145.53

145.52

145.76

145.71

145.72

145.52

145.62

145.54

145.66

145.60

145.62

145.60

145.55

145.65

145.63

145.63

145.58

145.29

145.51

144.93

144.99

145.56 1

45.68

145.71

145.66

145.82

145.68

145.28

145.39

145.29

145.19

145.05

145.16

145.07

144.92

144.91

144.94

145.12

145.08

145.15

145.23

145.36

145.32

145.34

145.39

145.41 1

45.37

145.34

145.41

145.39

145.41

145.44

145.35

145.31

145.28

145.63

145.36

145.32

145.11

144.93

145.11

145.28

145.35

145.32

145.26

145.42

144.98

145.34

PORCH

ALUMINUMSHED

WOODEN DECK

No.21

SILL ELEVATION=145.58

BRICK DWELLING

2 STOREY

SILL ELEVATION=146.00

2 STOREY

No.21

STUCCO DWELLING

ALUMUNUM

SHED

LANDING

SHED

ALUMUNUM

GLASS

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

0.35SFENCE

0.09ETIMBER RT.WALL

RETAINING WALL

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL E/FACE 0.37 EAST

BOARD FENCE

BOARD FENCE

BOARD FENCEBOARD FENCE

0.10NFENCE

BOARD FENCE

0.05W

FENCE0.05W

FENCE0.20W

FENCE0.20W

BOARD FENCE

RETAINING WALL

E/FACE 0.67 EAST

0.05EFENCE

30.78

SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AS IN INST. Nos.NY507977 AND NY750528

LOT 3, CONCESSION 2, EAST OF YONGE STREET

PIN 10368-0460(LT)

PIN 10540-0232(LT)(BY REGISTERED PLAN M-809)

ASPHALT DRIVEWAY

20.12(PL&MEAS)

REGISTERED PLAN M-809

ASPHALT DRIVEWAY

N74°08'00"E

248.37 (MEAS)

248.41(PL)

(PL&SET)(PL&MEAS)61.57

LOT 17

LOT 14PIN 10540-0120(LT)LOT 16

PIN 10540-0118(LT)

9.26

9.24

9.26

9.59

9.57

9.24

1.91

1.95

5.32(P1&MEAS)

5.36(P1&SET)

1.93

1.92

4.29(MEAS)(FR)

4.40(P1&MEAS)(BR)

12.15(P1&MEAS)

9.12

9.23(P1&M)

36.41(MEAS)

36.37(PL)

4.40(P1)(BR)

N15°52'00"W(PL&MEAS)

36.40(PL,P1&SET)

N15°52'00"W(PL&MEAS)

(PL&MEAS)30.78

N74°09'05"E

10.30

0.66

0.57

0.63

0.49

INTERLOCKING WALKWAY

0.25

0.25

(REFERENCE BEARING)

WALL0.20W

1.22

1.22

(MEAS)

N74°05'00"E(PL)

xx

xx

xx

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

x

x

x

x

N

145.57 145.62

REA

R Y

ARD

SET

BAC

K36

' - 5

" [11

.10

m]

WOOD DECK

PROPOSED 2-STORY STONE DWELLINGFFE=146.20

BUILDING WIDTH75' - 6" [23.01 m]

EXISTING 1 STORY DWELLING TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING SHED TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED

13' - 2" [4.01 m]

SIDEYARD SETBACK9' - 10" [3.00 m]

SIDEYARD SETBACK12' - 4" [3.75 m]

FRO

NTY

ARD

SET

BAC

K30

' - 0

" [9.

14 m

]

LOT FRONTAGE101' - 0" [30.78 m]

LOT

DEP

TH11

9' -

5" [3

6.40

m]

19' - 10" [6.05 m]

DRIVEWAY WIDTH29' - 6" [9.00 m]

BUIL

DIN

G L

ENG

TH &

DEP

TH (B

YLAW

569

-201

3)53

' - 0

" [16

.15

m]

27' - 8" [8.43 m]28' - 0" [8.53 m]19' - 10" [6.05 m]

4' -

9" [1

.45

m]

MIN

. FR

ON

TYAR

D S

ETBA

CK

39' -

4" [

12.0

0 m

]BU

ILD

ING

LEN

GT H

(BYL

AW 7

625)

43' -

7" [

13.2

9 m

]

PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYPROPOSED

PAVED WALKWAY

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1" = 20'-0"

A001

Site Plan

T2017027


North York,ON


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

ZONING

PLAN NO.

LOT FRONTAGE

DESCRIPTIONMIN.LOT FRONTAGE

MIN. LOT AREA

MAX. BUILDINGLENGTHMAX.BUILDINGHEIGHT

NO. OF STORIES

BUILDING WIDTH

DRIVEWAY WIDTH

BUILDING AREA

MAX LOT COVERAGE

FRONT YARDLANDSCAPING AREAFRONT YARD SOFTLANDSCAPING AREAFIRST FLOOR ELEVATION

SETBACK

FRONT (SOUTH)

SIDE (WEST)

SIDE (EAST)

REAR (NORTH)

LOT NO.

LOT AREA

LOT DEPTH

PROPOSEDEXISTING REQUIRED

EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED

R 1 (BY-LAW 7625)

9.5 M

3

6.0 M

25%

50%

75%

1.50 M

SECTION

10.2.6 (i)

10.2.4

7.4A (i)

6.30 (a)

10.2.1 (1)

10.2.2 (1)

10.2.3 (a)

6A (5) (a)

10.2.3 (b)

10.2.3 (c)

MIN.LOT WIDTH

GROSS FLOOR AREA

15

M-809

100'-0"(30.78 M)

12054.38 SF(1119.85 SM)119'-5"(36.40 M)

2

43'-7"(13.29 M)

75'- 6"(23.01 M)

3437 SF319.29 SM

30' - 0" (9.14 M)*

12'-4"(3.75 M )

9'- 10"( 3.00 M) 36' - 5"

(11.10 M)

12 M

3.0 M

3.0 M

9.5 M

30 M

1100 SM

3'- 7 "(1.09 M)

31' - 2"(9.50 M)

29'- 6"(9.00 M)*

100'-0"(30.78 M)

12054.38 SF(1119.85 SM)

6253 SF580.95 SM

3437 SF319.29 SM 28.5%*

100'-0"(30.78 M)

2226 SF206.81 SM1826 SF

169.40 SM

73.65%

81.91%

4511.65 SF419.13 SM 37.4%

ZONING

PLAN NO.

LOT FRONTAGE

DESCRIPTIONMIN.LOT FRONTAGE

MIN. LOT AREA

MAX. BUILDINGLENGTH

MAX.BUILDINGHEIGHT

NO. OF STORIES

BUILDING WIDTH

DRIVEWAY WIDTH

BUILDING AREA

MAX LOT COVERAGE

FRONT YARDLANDSCAPING AREAFRONT YARD SOFTLANDSCAPING AREAFIRST FLOOR ELEVATION

SETBACK

FRONT (SOUTH)

SIDE (WEST)

SIDE (EAST)

REAR (NORTH)

LOT NO.

LOT AREA

LOT DEPTH

PROPOSEDEXISTING REQUIRED

EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED

11.5 M

2

9.0 M

25%

60%

75%

1.20 M

SECTION

10.20.40.10 (1)(3)

MAX. BUILDINGDEPTH

MAIN WALL HEIGHT

10.20.30.40(1)(A)

10.5.50.10(1)(C)

10.10.40.10 (6)

10.20.40.70(2) (B)

10.5.50.10(1)(D)

10.20.30.20

10.20.30.10

900.3.10 (971)

10.20.40.70 (3) (G)

10.5.100.1 (1)

1100.0 SM

30.0 M

RD(f30; a1100)(x971) 15

M-809 12054.38 SF(1119.85 SM)

119'-5"(36.40 M)

100'-0"(30.78 M)

2

29'- 6"(9.00 M)

28.5%*

9.14 M

3.00 M

3.00 M

36.40X25%=9.10 M

FLOOR AREA INDEX

75'- 6"(23.01 M)

53'-0"(16.15 M)

3437 SF319.29 SM

30' - 0" (9.14 M)

36' - 5"(11.10 M)

9'- 10"( 3.00 M)

13' - 4"(4.08 M )

2' - 0" (0.61 M)

36' - 2"(11.02 M)

3437 SF319.29 SM

10.20.40.10 (2)9.0 M

100'-0"(30.78 M)

12054.38 SF(1119.85 SM)

53'-0"(16.15 M)

2226.17 SF206.81 SM1826.44 SF169.40 SM

73.65%

81.91%

4511.65 SF419.13 SM 37.4%

23' - 0"(7.01 M)

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

6" = 1'-0"

A002

Site Statistics

T2017027


North York,ON


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

UP

UP

13' -

6" [

4.11

m]

8' -

4" [2

.54

m]

28' -

0" [

8.53

m]

3' -

2" [0

.97

m]

53' -

0" [

16.1

5 m

]

20' - 2" [6.15 m]10' - 6" [3.20 m]14' - 0" [4.27 m]20' - 2" [6.15 m]14' - 0" [4.27 m]

1' -

1" [0

.33

m]

9' -

10" [

3.00

m]

40' -

0" [

12.1

9 m

]3'

- 2"

[0.9

7 m

]

54' -

1" [

16.4

8 m

]

UTILITY

UNEXCAVATION

WINE CELLAR

5' - 8"

11' -

2"

26' -

2"

17' - 8"

4' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 0"47' - 10"

11' -

2"

6' -

1"3'

- 9"

10' -

6"

4' -

0"

1' -

2"18

' - 1

0"

7' - 8"

SAUNA

78' - 10" [24.03 m]

2' - 8"

R @18 10"1' - 6 1/2"2' - 10"6"

1' -

2"

3' -

2"

BATH

13' - 6"18' - 6"11' - 4"

PRAY ROOMNANNY ROOM

GAS FIREPLACE

WALKOUT

4' -

6"

9' - 2"

R @12 10"

FD

3' - 4" [1.02 m]27' - 8" [8.43 m]27' - 2" [8.28 m]20' - 8" [6.30 m]

78' - 10" [24.03 m]

10' -

11"

WOOD DECK ABOVE

ENTERTAINMENT

14' -

6"

4' -

0"

8' -

6"3'

- 4"

THEATRE14

' - 8

"8'

- 0"

17' -

10"

1' -

4"

14' -

2"

27' - 6"

9' - 8"

7' -

6"

4' - 10 1/2"11' - 7 1/2"

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1/8" = 1'-0"

A101

Basement Floor

T2017027


North York,ON


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

UP

18R DN

21R UP

DN

DN

DN

19' - 0"25' - 4" 20' - 0"

3' - 10"4' - 0"

19' -

0"

6' -

4"12

' - 0

"

19' - 0"

12' -

4"

5' -

3"11

' - 6

"

9' -

6"

17' - 8"

9' - 10" 14' - 0"3' - 10"

22' -

2"

FAMILY ROOM

DINING ROOM

KITCHEN

3-CAR GARAGE

LIVING ROOMFOYER

LIBRARY

LAUNDRY

2' -

4"4'

- 0"

7' - 0" 11' - 8"

14' -

4 1

/2"

3' - 10"14' - 0"

7' -

9"

30' - 2"

5' -

0"

4' - 10"

7' - 10"

4' -

0"

8' -

2"

6' -

8"12

' - 4

"

13' -

6"

18' - 8 1/2"

18' -

10"

3' - 4" [1.02 m]27' - 8" [8.43 m]47' - 10" [14.58 m]

78' - 10" [24.03 m]

21' -

10"

[6.6

5 m

]28

' - 0

" [8.

53 m

]3'

- 2"

[0.9

7 m

]

20' - 2" [6.15 m]10' - 6" [3.20 m]14' - 0" [4.27 m]20' - 2" [6.15 m]14' - 0" [4.27 m]

78' - 10" [24.03 m]

3' -

2" [0

.97

m]

40' -

0" [

12.1

9 m

]9'

- 10

" [3.

00 m

]

53' -

0" [

16.1

5 m

]

53' -

0" [

16.1

5 m

]

PWD

1' -

9"9'

- 0"

1' -

7"

2' - 0"3' - 10"

1' -

2"

6' - 8"9' - 8 1/2"

28' - 0" [8.53 m]19' - 10" [6.05 m]

4' -

9" [1

.45

m]14

' - 7

" [4.

44 m

]

WOOD DECK7' - 8"

PANTRY

KITCHEN

4' -

0"

5' - 3"GAS FIREPLACE

BREAKFAST

14' -

8"

15' -

2"

8' -

0"

12' - 6"

5' - 8"6' - 0"

3' -

8"10

' - 1

1"

6' - 0"22' - 0"2' - 6"

3' -

0"11

' - 7

"

18' - 6"11' - 8"

20' -

0"

26' - 8"5' - 8"8' - 2"8' - 2"5' - 8"

Project number



CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK & VERIFY ADIMENSIONS ON SITE.

THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOCONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.

TAES Architects I12 UPJOHN ROAD, SUIT

TORONTO, ONTARIO M3B T: 416 800 3F: 416 800 3

Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1/8" = 1'-0"

Ground Floor Plan

T2017027


North York,ON

No. Revision Date1 Variance Application 2017-11-10

LL

R

nc.E 2A2V9284485

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

A102

ByS.R

DN

13' -

0"

16' -

4"

2' -

4"11

' - 6

"

5' - 6"13' - 6"

5' - 0"

7' -

6"4'

- 0"

7' - 6"

8' - 8"

5' -

0"

20' - 6"

18' - 6"3' - 10"

5' -

2"2'

- 6"

13' - 6"

5' -

3"

5' - 3"

7' -

8"

26' - 0"

4' -

0"

OPEN TOBELOW

BEDROOM 3

ENSUITE

BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 5 BEDROOM 1

MASTERBEDROOM

ENSUITEW.I.C.

LAUNDRY

BEDROOM 2

W.I.C.

UTILITY

SITTING

13' - 6"

12' -

4"

19' - 0"

5' - 0"

2' -

2"8'

- 8"

7' - 6"

5' -

2"7'

- 2"

5' -

2"

7' - 0"5' - 0"

12' - 4"5' - 0"

13' -

0"

33' - 10"

4' -

6"12

' - 1

0"

2' -

4 3/

4"4'

- 8

1/4"

31' - 0" [9.45 m]47' - 10" [14.58 m]

49' -

10"

[15.

19 m

]3'

- 2"

[0.9

7 m

]1'

- 8"

[0.5

1 m

]

9' -

10" [

3.00

m]

40' -

0" [

12.1

9 m

]3'

- 2"

[0.9

7 m

]1'

- 8"

[0.5

1 m

]

54' -

8" [

16.6

6 m

]

78' - 10" [24.03 m]

20' - 2" [6.15 m]10' - 6" [3.20 m]14' - 0" [4.27 m]5' - 6" [1.68 m]9' - 2" [2.79 m]5' - 6" [1.68 m]14' - 0" [4.27 m]

78' - 10" [24.03 m]

54' -

8" [

16.6

6 m

]

10' -

4"

3' -

6"8'

- 0"

12' - 0"

11' - 0"

13' -

6"

4' -

2"

2' - 6"10"6' - 2"

10' -

8"

9' - 10"

6' - 0"6' - 4"R @21 10"

5' - 6"

SKY LIGHT ABOVE

13' - 6"

4' -

10"

5' -

10 1

/2"

12' -

4"

4' - 9"4' - 9"

9' - 0" [2.74 m]8' - 2" [2.49 m]8' - 2" [2.49 m]5' - 8" [1.73 m]

7' - 0"5' - 6"

8' -

6"4'

- 6"

21' - 4"5' - 0"

5' -

8"6'

- 4"

11' -

6"

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

pyrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

1/8" = 1'-0"

Second Floor Plan

T2017027


North York,ON


CoA103

81' - 10" [24.94 m]

81' - 10" [24.94 m]

52' -

10"

[16.

10 m

]

52' -

10"

[16.

10 m

]

23' - 2"7' - 6"51' - 2"

43' -

0"

9' -

10"

34' - 0"47' - 10"

3:12

3:12

3:12

3:12

3:12

10:1

2

10:12

10:12

10:1

2

10:12

10:12

10:1

2

10:1

210:1

2

12:12 12:12

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1/8" = 1'-0"

A104

Roof Plan

T2017027


North York,ON


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

+146.20Ground Floor

+149.86Second Floor

+152.91Ceiling

+142.87Basement

+145.59Established GradeFF

E (5

69-2

013)

2' -

0" [0

.61

m]

10' -

0" [

3.05

m]

12' -

0" [

3.66

m]

10' -

11"

[3.3

3 m

]

+156.61Top of Roof

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 5

69-2

013)

36' -

2" [

11.0

2 m

]

7' -

0"2'

- 0"

+152.60Eaves

+145.74Garage Level

+145.11Centre Line of Street

+154.61Mid. of Roof

EQEQ

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 7

625)

31' -

2" [

9.50

m]

FFE(

7625

)3'

- 7"

[1.0

9 m

]

1' -

0"

3:12

10:1

2

10:1

2

10:1

2

10

12 10

12

312

312

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1/8" = 1'-0"

A201

North Elevation(Front)

T2017027


North York,ON


Area Schedule (Gross Building)

Name Area Aera(SM) Comments

Ground Floor Area 2796.33 SF 259.79 m²Second Floor Area 3457.19 SF 321.18 m²Grand total: 2 6253.53 SF 580.97 m²

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

+146.20Ground Floor

+149.86Second Floor

+152.91Ceiling

+142.87Basement

+145.59Established Grade

+156.61Top of Roof

10' -

0" [

3.05

m]

12' -

0" [

3.66

m]

10' -

11"

[3.3

3 m

]

+152.60Eaves


+154.61Mid. of Roof

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 7

625)

31' -

2" [

9.50

m]

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 5

69-2

013)

36' -

2" [

11.0

2 m

]

1' -

0"

MAI

N W

ALL

HEI

GH

T23

' - 0

" [7.

01 m

]

10

12

10

12

10:1

2

10:1

2

312

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

pyrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

1/8" = 1'-0"

East Elevation (Side)

T2017027


North York,ON


CoA202

+146.20Ground Floor

+149.86Second Floor

+152.91Ceiling

+142.87Basement


+156.61Top of Roof

10' -

0" [

3.05

m]

12' -

0" [

3.66

m]

10' -

11"

[3.3

3 m

]

+152.60Eaves


+154.61Mid. of Roof

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 5

69-2

013)

36' -

2" [

11.0

2 m

]

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 7

625)

31' -

2" [

9.50

m]

1' -

0"

10

12

10

12

312

10:1

2

10:1

2

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1/8" = 1'-0"

A203

West Elevation (Side)

T2017027


North York,ON


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.

+146.20Ground Floor

+149.86Second Floor

+152.91Ceiling

+142.87Basement


+156.61Top of Roof

10' -

11"

[3.3

3 m

]12

' - 0

" [3.

66 m

]10

' - 0

" [3.

05 m

]

+152.60Eaves


+154.61Mid. of Roof

10:1

2

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 7

625)

31' -

2" [

9.50

m]

PRO

POSE

D B

UIL

DIN

G H

EIG

HT

(BYL

AW 5

69-2

013)

36' -

2" [

11.0

2 m

]

1' -

0"

12

12

12

12

10:1

2

3:12

10

12

312

10

12

10

12

312

Project number







Drawn

Checked

Scale

Date

Drawing No.

1/8" = 1'-0"

A204

South Elevation (Rear)

T2017027


North York,ON


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

1 TA

ES A

rchi

tect

s In

c.