DECISION AND ORDER - Toronto€¦ · Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 17 164194 STE 21 MV...

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 7

DECISION AND ORDER

Decision Reissued Date Thursday, March 22, 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): KRISTINA JENNIE SMITH

Applicant: GOLDBERG GROUP

Property Address/Description: 6 MILLBANK AVE

Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 17 164194 STE 21 MV

TLAB Case File Number: 17 243682 S45 21 TLAB

Hearing date: Tuesday, March 06, 2018

DECISION DELIVERED BY Ian James LORD

APPEARANCES

Name Role Representative

KRISTINA JENNIE SMITH Owner/Appellant JOHN ALATI, Counsel

CITY OF TORONTO Party SARAH ROGERS, Counsel

PAULA ROCHMAN Party

INTRODUCTION

This matter concerns an appeal by the owner of a decision of the Toronto and East York District panel of the Committee of Adjustment (‘COA’) of the City of Toronto (‘City’) refusing 10 variances sought from City By-law 569-201 (‘new Zoning By-law’) and 8 variances sought from By-law 438-86 (‘old Zoning By-law’). The application before the COA, and on appeal, was for the permission to construct a new three-storey detached dwelling with an integral below grade garage, following demolition of the existing residence and detached garage at 6 Millbank Avenue (the ‘subject property’).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.toronto.ca/tlab

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. Lord TLAB Case File Number: 17 243682 S45 21 TLAB

2 of 7

The subject property is located a short distance west of Spadina Road, east of Bathurst Street north of Forest Hill Village and in an area referred to as Forest Hill West, one of the City’s more prestigious communities.

BACKGROUND

It is the responsibilities of the Parties, in accordance with the Rules of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’), to disclose any revisions to an application arising after the disposition by the COA.

Such transparency could help maintain neighbour relations and avoid disputes. The Rules are drafted to encourage declared Parties and Participants to consider their positions; full disclosure and accountability affords an environment for sober second consideration, the narrowing of issues and the prospect of settling differences, in part or whole.

No matter who takes the initiative in this regard, the dispute resolution process envisaged by the statute is better served where matters can be isolated in number or resolved entirely.

In this matter, several of the Parties worked successfully on solutions. On the opening of the TLAB Hearing, the Parties present, notably the Appellant and the City, announced their settlement of outstanding matters, including a reduction from formerly 18 variances down to 7, split between the two by-laws. An undisclosed couple attended much of the Hearing but did not give evidence or otherwise participate.

Despite agreement by the Parties and Participants, the TLAB is independently obliged to consider and find on the merits whether the appeal should be allowed, in whole or part. While not universally the case with proposed settlements, it is often the fact that the task of the TLAB is made materially easier in circumstances where responsible decisions are taken by persons of interest, based on sound principles of good community planning.

MATTERS IN ISSUE

The subject property is a crude ‘pie’ shaped lot with generous frontage and severe tapering to its rear yard in a less than uniform manner. At the COA and on appeal, objection was taken to the principle built form features of height (three- storeys), an integral garage relying on a reverse negative slope, and appreciations of scale, mass and built form.

JURISDICTION


3 of 7

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 form 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.

EVIDENCE

With the consent of the City, Mr. Alati called Michael Goldberg to present professional land use planning opinion evidence on the revised scope of the variances sought, the applicable tests, above cited and suggested conditions, if approval is granted. Mr. Goldberg has the credentials of a Registered Professional Planner, had signed the requisite acknowledgment of obligations attendant an expert witness and was therefore accepted as qualified to provide land use planning opinion testimony. He demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the Forest Hill West Community through extensive years of practice.

He reviewed: the revised plans dated January 22, 2018, Exhibit 1; the proposed list of variances sought, Exhibit 4; a proposed set of conditions derived from City circulation comments; and his own recommendations, Exhibit 5.

In introducing this settlement documentation, he noted the evolution of addressing City and neighbour concerns. A principle determinant in reducing the variances sought centered on building redesign and addressing the City‘s concerns with reverse sloped driveways.

On the first aspect, he noted the responsiveness of the applicant to adjust building design in shape, internal configuration and height to address the massing and built form objections that were well articulated before the COA and in letters of opposition.

By internal design modification, the ‘basement’ level definition in zoning was invoked, the upper (third) floor was removed entirely and the building shape was adjusted to better reflect the lot configuration. These adjustments and interpretations eliminated prior variance requests for relief from: building height; rear platforms; front deck; platform encroachment on setbacks and height of side exterior main walls (new


4 of 7

Zoning By-law); side lot line setbacks; rear yard setback and building height (old Zoning By-law).

As Mr. Goldberg described the variances before the Board, not only did these adjustments eliminate some 11 variances from the original relief requested, but the others remaining were improved as well. Under the City’s new Zoning By-law, the permitted floor space index (‘fsi’) was reduced from 1.24 times the lot area initially requested, to 0.807 against the allowable 0.65. The reduction under the old Zoning By-law moved from 0.99 requested, to 0.822 revised. Mr. Goldberg provided ample support for these revisions being consistent with existing and approved permissions in his Study Area. As a result of the revisions to provide redesigned new internal stairs and a landing, the fsi was reduced due to basement space being exempted from inclusion.

It is noteworthy that this redesign triggered a new variance as the main floor level, at 1.91 m above established grade exceeds the by-law standard for first floor height: not to exceed 1.2 m above established grade. Mr. Goldberg opined this change could be considered minor; namely, neither the grade nor the elevation of the first floor level had changed in the evolution of the plans before the COA and as are revised in Exhibit 1. He suggested a new Notice would not be warranted as a result of the relabeling of ‘basement’ v. ‘first floor’ space and that variance 4 is warranted.

The previously contentious third floor, as indicated, has been removed.

At less than 3000 sq ft, the planner noted the proposed replacement house was modest in size given the lot configuration and setback constraints - as juxtaposed against the proliferation of much larger homes in excess of 5000 square feet, recently constructed in the immediate neighbourhood.

He noted a modest improvement in the requested front yard setback under the old Zoning By-law, from 2.11 m to 3.54 from the required depth from the front lot line of 4.08 m, on this inside lot.

He noted the rear of the proposed dwelling aligns with that at No. 8 Millbank.

Referring to 48 Millbank Avenue as a comparable example, Mr. Goldberg described the features of the proposed residence to have an elevated entry at the first floor level with a reverse grade integral garage. It is both of these features that occupied most of the descriptive time and evidentiary base to support the variances.

With respect to the elevated entrance, the settlement proposal underscored special landscape treatment proposed to screen the 15 steps and landings required to access the first floor level. A sketch diagram, entered as Exhibit 6, was proposed to reflect and ensure that the entrance feature of steps was properly screened. While elevated entrances are not new to Millbank Avenue and surrounding streets, they are distinguishable in design terms from abutting, adjacent and opposite parcels.

An analogous year round green vegetative screen is proposed along the subject properties rear lot line adjacent to an existing 6 foot fence which is supplemented by columnar trees (on the neighbours property), for enhanced privacy.


5 of 7

Perhaps the more contentious element of the application, original and revised, is the introduction of the reverse slope integral garage. Since 2009, Toronto Water has published Guidelines with a strong view towards discouraging reverse slope driveways. Mr. Goldberg produced a context map delineating in purple a great number of reverse slope driveways within his study area, of old and new vintage, some the product of distinct topography south and west of the subject property.

A design was tendered for the subject property showing a positive 2% slope from the street to the property line and a 10% downslope to the garage entrance. A series of catch basins, trench drain piping and pumping chamber depicted a return of collected storm water to the street level. The design met the concept satisfaction of Toronto Water and it is proposed to be advanced by way of condition, including provision for back-up sump pump capacity (battery or generator) and liability exclusion provisions secured by agreement.

Since a below grade garage is prohibited in the zoning by-law, significant time was expended describing the City’s satisfaction to recommend a settlement and acceptance that a variance could be properly secured to permit the feature, despite its prohibition, accessed by a reverse slope driveway. A permit remains required. Ms. Rogers expressed the City’s satisfaction with the ‘package’ of security envisaged in the permit process and the draft conditions, Exhibit 5.

Mr. Goldberg addressed the four tests, individually and cumulatively. He felt Provincial Policy was of limited applicability and that the application was a local planning matter. There was no dispute to the contrary.

He provided a comparison chart, Exhibit 3, of COA decisions compared to the revised application which itself was supported by a February 5, 2018 Zoning Examination. He felt Official Plan conformity was demonstrated by the reinvestment into the community of a residence that was compatible in type, scale, massing, character and fit. He noted there was no Official Plan policy direction on reverse sloped driveways.

He noted the purpose of the zoning by-law is to permit the use and provide for implementation through its standards, in conformity with the Official Plan. In suggesting the settlement demonstrated no undue adverse impacts, he asserted that the compatible building relationships demonstrated by the revised plans are acceptable in the immediate and broader neighbourhood: that there is ‘fit’ and sensitivity.

He described the prohibition on below grade garages as a ‘trigger’ for review and the provision of assurances, in the public interest, that the homeowner accept responsibility for the necessary reverse slope access driveway and its maintenance requirements. As well, to provide protection to the City and not be able to hold the City liable for design permission, if a below grade garage and its access are permitted. He noted the many driveway examples in the neighbourhood permitted by the COA - and on appeal.

In addressing minor, Mr. Goldberg concluded that both in magnitude and in impact, the individual requests fell within the numeric ranges of approvals - and that there was no planning perspective impact.


6 of 7

He felt that reinvestment in the community was desirable and contributed to its stability. He stated that the vernacular of housing and its architecture, as proposed, is in keeping with every street in his study area and is appropriate.

He felt it would be in the public interest to approve the relief sought on the conditions proposed including the plans presented, with construction to be substantially in accordance with the site plans and elevations only.

ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, REASONS

DECISION AND ORDER

In the circumstances with all active Parties present and in agreement, as indicated, the TLAB has benefited from the comprehensive assessment provided by Mr. Goldberg and the assent of counsel to the revised plans, variances and conditions.

I am in full agreement with him that the identification of new Variance 4 under the new Zoning By-law, related to the proposed height of the first floor, is minor. I find no new notice is required under section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

Mr. Goldberg was somewhat cavalier on the role played by Provincial Policy. The TLAB notes that its obligation is to consider consistency with the Provincial Policy Statements and conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe at the time of its decision. This is a mandatory obligation imposed by the Legislature and it is not replaced by the often cited policy direction in these documents that a primary vehicle for their implementation is the local official plan. Indeed, the current provincial contributions are more recent, in many cases, than the local Official Plan.

That said, Mr. Goldberg did not suggest that provincial policy had no applicability and in the absence of it being challenged insofar as the relief requested is concerned, no issue has appeared in this circumstance.

I therefore accept, on the uncontested evidence of the planning witness, counsel’s acknowledgement of a settlement and the apparent positive contribution, on the evidence, that the redevelopment of the subject property can bring to respecting and reinforcing the character of this prestigious community - all as being compelling.

I find that the statutory policy considerations and the four ‘tests’ have been met by the revised proposal and the seven variances sought.

The decision of the COA is set aside and relief is granted and approved in accordance with the following:

1. The plans dated January 22, 2018 identified in Exhibit 1 and attached asAttachment 1 hereto are approved. Construction shall be permitted insubstantial compliance thereto related to the site plans and elevations only;


7 of 7

X

Ian James Lord

Panel Chair, Toronto Local Appeal Body

Signed by: Ian Lord

2. Despite paragraph 1, only the variances identified in Exhibit 4 and attachedhereto as Attachment 2 are authorized;

3. The approval herein is subject to the conditions of approval identified inExhibit 5, attached hereto as Attachment 3.

4. Landscaping substantially as depicted in the sketch found in Exhibit 6, p. 269Rear Elevation and Planting drawing dated February, 2018 and attachedhereto as Attachment 4 shall be an additional condition required prior tooccupancy.

If there are any difficulties arising from the implementation of this decision and order the TLAB may be spoken to.

FH

TOP=155.33

XX

XX

XX

XX

2

B

O

L

E

S

CENTRE LINEOF PAVEMENT

U

/

P

0.31W

0

.

8

2

4.26

4.99

4.63

0

.

4

0

N

7

3

°

3

5

'

2

0

"

E

5

.

7

1

N

2

4

°

1

7

'

0

0

"

W

4

.

3

9

N

3

5

°

4

6

'

1

0

"

W

1

5

.

8

6

N

4

7

°

1

3

'0

0

"W

1

1

.3

1

N58°14'00"W

26.30

N34°28'10"E

B

O

A

R

D

F

E

N

C

E

2

1

2

S

T

O

R

E

Y

4.10

3.90

0

.6

0

W

0

.2

3

W

0

.8

5

W

2

1

2

STOREY

1 STOREY

BRICK GARAGE

ROOF= 164.6

EAVE= 161.4

DOOR SILL= 156.15

DECK

CURB

SIDEWALK

F

H

A=C

=14.95

CURB CUT

R

O

O

F

=

1

6

4

.5

E

A

V

E

=

1

6

1

.0

D

O

O

R

S

IL

L

=

1

5

5

.7

1

0.59E

0.59E

R=149.23

TIM

BE

R R

/W

0.52

F

E

N

C

E

F

c

O

N

L

I

N

E

F

c

0

.

1

9

N

Fc 0.09W

F

c

0

.

0

4

S

F

c

0

.

2

3

W

B

F

B

F

B

F

F

c

0

.

3

9

W

D

E

C

K

0

.

1

0

E

F

c

0

.

1

7

W

0

.

4

0

0

.

2

3

0

.

2

3

0

.

2

3

0

.

3

0

0

.3

0

0.28W

0

.

3

0

0

.

4

0

1

.

7

0

W

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

B

F

1

S

T

O

R

E

Y

A

D

D

IT

IO

N

BRICK GARAGE

TO BE REMOVED

LINE OF DECK

TO BE REMOVED

No. 6

PROPOSED 2 STOREY

STONE DWELLING

ORIGINAL WALKWAY

(SHOWN DASHED)

LINE OF EXISTING 2

1

2

STOREY

BRICK DWELLING TO BE REMOVED

(SHOWN DOTTED)

EX

IS

TIN

G S

TO

NE

D

RIV

EW

AY

TO

B

E R

EM

OV

ED

DRIVEWAY

ST

ON

E R

ET

AIN

IN

G W

ALL

19'-8 1/4" [6.00]

10'-9" [3.28]

7'-3 1/2" [2.22]

3'-4 1/4" [1.02]

3'-9" [1.15]

3'-4 1/4" [1.02]

4'-3 3/4" [1.32]

5'-10 1/2" [1.79]

3'-6 1/2" [1.08]

3'-7 3/4" [1.11]

13'-8" [4.17]

14'-11 3/4" [4.57]

35'-1 1/2" [10.71]

PORCH

DN11R

REAR

DECK

18'-6

3/4

" [5.

66]

DN4R

R/W

10% SLOPE

1

5

4

.8

7

1

5

4

.

9

9

1

5

4

.

8

7

154.84

154.96

1

5

5

.

0

5

1

5

5

.

0

8

1

5

5

.

0

6

155.04

1

5

4

.

9

7

154.90

2% SLOPE

7'-0"

[2.13

]

16'-4 1/4" [4.99]

3'-8" [1.12]

45'-6 1/2" [13.88]

AVG. FRONTSETBACK

48'-0

3/4

" [1

4.65

]

13'-4 1/2" [4.08]

25'-1

" [7.

64]

6'-4 1

/2" [1

.95]

3'-3 1/4" [1.00]

PERMEABLE PAVERS7'-3 1/2"

TREE NO LONGER THERE

(SEE ARBORIST REPORT)

DN7R

5'-10 1/2" [1.79]

DN7R

PRIVACY PLANTINGS10' MINIMUM HEIGHT

6'-1

0" [2

.08]

1

5

4

.

7

6

1

5

4

.

2

9

D

R

I

V

E

W

A

Y

PRIVACY SCREENHEIGHT TO BE DETERMINED

WITH NEIGHBOURSAT 17 STATHEARN BLVD

11'-7

1/4"

[3.54

]

LEDGE

1

A11

PROVIDE NATURAL LANDSCAPEDSCREENING IN FRONT OF STAIRCASE

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:

www.murakamidesign.com

murakami122 PEARS AVENUE

TORONTO CANADA M5R 1T2

TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A1

SITE PLAN6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/32" = 1'-0"

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5

ISSUED FOR REVISED ZONING NOTICE 27/10/2017

N.L.

6

RE-ISSUED FOR REVISED ZONING NOTICE 02/11/2017

N.L.


N.L.

7

14/11/2017RE-ISSUED FOR REVISED ZONING NOTICE

ISSUED FOR T.L.A.B. 06/11/2017

REVISED & RE-ISSUED FOR T.L.A.B. 17/11/2017 N.L.

8REVISED & RE-ISSUED FOR T.L.A.B. 22/01/2018 N.L.

Attachment 1

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

REGISTERED PLAN M-408

AutoCAD SHX Text

No. 8

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRICK & STUCCO DWELLING

AutoCAD SHX Text

No. 4

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRICK DWELLING

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 34

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 33

AutoCAD SHX Text

(N75°48'00"E PLAN)

AutoCAD SHX Text

10.95 REG

AutoCAD SHX Text

(REFERENCE BEARING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

(5.72 REG)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(N73°56'00"E REG)

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

(N35°44'00"W REG)

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

(N47°06'00"W REG)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(A=14.94 REG)

AutoCAD SHX Text

PIN 10466-0385 (LT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 28

AutoCAD SHX Text

PIN 10466-0384 (LT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

PIN 10466-0383 (LT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 27

AutoCAD SHX Text

AREA=315.5 m

AutoCAD SHX Text

PIN 10466 - 0379 (LT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.61 REG

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.61 REG

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.61 x 20.37 RIGHT OF WAY

AutoCAD SHX Text

AS IN PARCEL REGISTER

AutoCAD SHX Text

SOUTH-EASTERLY ANGLE OF LOT 27

AutoCAD SHX Text

PLAN&SET

AutoCAD SHX Text

overhead wires

nforde2

Received

ZONING BY-LAW 569-2013 RD

PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE : N/A

3'-11.94" (1.2 m)24'-7.32" (7.5 m)

55'9.29" (17 m)

2'1/4" (0.61 m)

14'10.75"(4.54 m)

62'-4" (19 m)

SITE INFORMATION

MIN. FRONT (EAST) YARD SB.

BUILDING DEPTH

ALLOWABLE EXISTING PROPOSED13'-4.6" (4.08 m) (AVERAGE)

PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA

SECOND FLOOR (EXCLUDES ELEVATOR SHAFT)

TOTALS:

LOT AREA: 3396.0 SQ.FT. (315.50 SQ.M.)

FRONTAGE 49'-0 3/4" (14.95 M)

ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE : N/A

LOT DEPTH 98'-7" (30.05 M)

ZONING

MIN. SIDE (SOUTH) YARD SB.

MIN. SIDE (NORTH) YARD SB.

MIN. REAR (WEST) YARD SB.

BUILDING LENGTH

MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA 65% 2,207.4 SQ. FT. (205.07 SQ.M.)

3'-11.94" (1.2 m)

5'11.25" (1.81 m)51'10.75"(15.82 m)

3'-4.25" (1.02 m)

3'-6.5" (1.08 m)25'-1" (7.64 m)

= 82.2% 2,792.96 SQ. FT. (259.47 SQ.M.)

PROPOSED(SQ.FT/SQ.M)

1363.70 SQ.FT. (126.29 SQ.M.)

48'-0 3/4'' (14.65 M)

45'-6 1/2" (13.88 M)

SITE PLAN OF

6 MILLBANK AVE.PLAN OF PART OF LOTS 27, 28, 33 & 34

CITY OF TORONTOREGISTERED PLAN M-408

PART 1

1376.60 SQ.FT. (127.89 SQ.M.)

3,670.96 SQ. FT. (341.04 SQ.M.)

30'-4.5'' (9.26 m)

30'-4" (9.25 m)

14'11.75"(4.57 m)

BASEMENT (EXCLUDES ELEVATOR SHAFT & GARAGE) 930.66 SQ.FT. (86.46 SQ.M.)

- (INCL. FIRST, SECOND FLOOR & BASEMENT STAIR LANDING)

36'-1" (11 m)BUILDING HEIGHT

N.A.: NOT APPLICABLE

36'-0'' (9.97 M)31'-4.37'' (9.56 m)

FLOORS

(BY-LAW NO. 438-86)

PROPOSED FLOOR SPACE INDEX = 0.807 2,740.30 SQ. FT. (254.58 SQ.M.)- (INCL. FIRST & SECOND FLOOR)(BY-LAW NO. 569-2013)

FIRST FLOOR (EXCLUDES ELEVATOR SHAFT)

SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED FRONT LANDSCAPING CALCULATIONS

A1

2

UP UP DRIVEWAY204.33 SQ.FT (18.98m²)

PORCH

LAND

ING

10%

SLOP

E

SOFT LANDSCAPING249.22 SQ.FT (23.27m²)

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGSO

FT LA

NDSC

APING

68.80

SQ.FT

(6.39

m²)

16'-4

1/4"

[4.99

]

14'-5

1/4"

[4.40

]

16'-4

1/4"

[4.99

]

12'-4

1/4"

[3.77

]

19'-8 1/4" [6.00]

49'-0 3/4" [14.95]

4'-8 3/4" [1.44]11'-3" [3.43]33'-0 3/4" [10.08]

FRONT YARD: 581.96 SQ.FT. (54.06 SQ.M.)

DRIVEWAY: 204.33 SQ.FT. (18.98 SQ.M.) - 35%LANDSCAPING: 377.63 SQ.FT. (34.19 SQ.M.) - 65%SOFT LANDSCAPING: 328.36 SQ.FT. (30.50 SQ.M.) - 87% OF LANDSCAPING

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:



ORONTO CANADA M5R 1T2

TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A1.1

SITE INFO6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





T

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

RECREATION ROOM23'10"x17'2"

MECHANICAL11'4"x5'

W/C7'8"x5'

TOWELSTORAGE

30

4'-1 1

/2" [1

.26]

42'-1

" [12

.83]

45'-3

1/2"

[13.8

0]

20'-8

1/2"

[6.31

]6'-

6 1/2"

[1.99

]14

'-10"

[4.52

]3'-

2 1/2"

[0.98

]

13'-1

1 1/2"

19'-2"

23'-10"

3'-2 1

/2"

11'-4 1/2"7'-8 3/4"

20'-2"3'-8"

45'-3

1/2"

[13.8

0]

2'-3 1

/4" [0

.69]

12'-6

3/4"

[3.83

]

LINE OF FIRST FLOOR ABOVE

LINE OF PORCH ABOVE

3'-2 1

/2" [0

.98]

5'-0"

2'-4" 2'-4"15

'-10"

36

GARAGE22'0"x20'CLG. HT. 7'-6"

20'-0

"

19'-11"

UP11R

UP4R

18'-0" [5.49] 2'-7" [0.79]

4'-1 1

/2"4'-

0"

3030

1'-6 1/2" [0.47]

6'-1" [1.85] 2'-4" [0.71] 21'-6" [6.55] 2'-4" [0.71]

5'-0" 14'-10"

OUTLINE OF PATIO ABOVE

UP22R

4'-0" 2'-3 1/2" 4'-0"10'-3 1/2"

6'-10

1/2"

2'-0"

4'-0"

5'-10

"

6'-0"

14'-0

"

22'-0"

2'-1"6'-3 1/2"

4'-0"4'-4 1/2"

5'-6 1

/2"

UP7R

30

3'-5 1/2"

5'-0"

2'-10"

UP4R

STOR

AGE

LANDING

3'-2 1

/2"

6'-0" 2'-9"

4'-6"

5'-0"

6'-3 1/4"

1'-8"

3'-6"

UP7R

30

14'-3 1/2" [4.36]

BUILT

-ON

STOR

AGE

17'-2

"

OPEN TO BELOW

4'-1 1

/2"

3'-1 3/4" [0.96]

3'-2" [0.96]

1436.77SQ. FT. - 31.25 (ELEVATOR SHAFT)- 437.5 (GARAGE)

= 971.02 SQ.FT. (90.21m²)

ELEVATORINFINITY 40"x54"

36

34'-10 1/2" [10.63]

2'-5"

5'-0"

5'-2 1/2"

9'-6"

LANDINGAREA= 52.66 sq.ft.

(4.89m²)

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A2

BASEMENT6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





FIRST FLOOR PLAN

ENTRANCE HALL6'x16'1"

DINING ROOM13'1"x11'6"

STUDY11'3"x10'6"

KITCHEN/ FAMILY ROOM25'x24'6"

PANT

RY7'9

"x6'

36

BUILT

-INBU

ILT-IN

36

GASF.P.TC 36

DW

13'-0 3/4"

10'-6

"

6'-0" 13'-0 3/4"

11'-6

"

8'-0"

24'-6"

3'-2 1

/2" [0

.98]

42'-4

" [12

.90]

2'-6"

[0.76

]LE

DGE

14'-11 3/4" [4.57] 5'-2" [1.57]

2'-6" [0.76]

10'-0" [3.05] 2'-6" [0.76]

35'-1 1/2" [10.71]

20'-1

1 1/2"

[6.39

]5'

-6 1

/2"

[1.6

9]15

'-10"

[4.83

]3'-

2 1/2"

[0.98

]

6'-0"

7'-9 1/2"4'-9"

26'-4

"16

'-0"

45'-6

1/2"

[13.8

8]

16'-0

"

45'-6

1/2"

[13.8

8]

DN11R

UP19R

4'-0" [1.22] 2'-6" [0.76] 28'-7 1/2" [8.72]

8'-0"

[2.44

]

4'-0"

5'-0"4'-0" 4'-0"

34

GASF.P.TC 36

11'-3 3/4"

6'-1" [1.85] 2'-4" [0.71]2'-7 1/2" [0.80]

1'-2" 1'-2"

FRONT PORCH60.58 SQ.FT. (5.6m²)

2'-6"

32

4'-11

1/2"

36

3'-2 1

/2"8'-

6 1/2"

13'-3

1/2"

17'-6"

25'-0

1/2"

6'-6 1

/2"6 1

/2"14

'-3 1/

2"3'-

2 1/2"

13'-7 1/4"

DN7R

DN7R

DN4R

2'-4" [0.71]

7'-3" [2.21] 6'-10

1/4"

[2.09

]4'-

2" [1

.27]

11'-0

1/4"

[3.36

]

PATIO102.77 SQ.FT. (9.54m²)

PRIVA

CY W

ALL

11'-0" [3.35]

14'-6" [4.42]

LEDGE

2'-9 1

/2"

MILLWORK - WINDOW SEAT

6'-6"

3'-6"

WC4'9"x6'

1442.11 SQ. FT. - 33.25 (ELEVATOR SHAFT)= 1408.86 SQ.FT. (130.88m²)

3'-8 1/4" [1.12]

3'-3 3/4" [1.01]

11'-2 3/4"1'-4" 9'-10 3/4"

21'-9" [6.63]

2'-0"

ELEVATORINFINITY 40"x54"5'-

0"

5'-6 1/2"

DN22R

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A3

FIRST FLOOR6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





SECOND FLOOR PLAN

CLOS

ET

BEDROOM 210'11"x10'6" BEDROOM 3

11'7"x10'6"

UPPER HALLHE

R CL

OSET

7'6"x

15' 1

0"

23'-4

3/4"

[7.13

]

30

32

12'-9 1/2"

10'-6

"

8'-6"

6'-5 1

/2"W/C8'6"x6'51/2"

10'-6

"

5'-3"

LAUNDRY5'3"x5'6"

10'-7 1/2"

18'-7

1/2"

9'-3"

14'-8 1/2"

35'-1 1/2" [10.71]

3'-2 1

/2" [0

.98]

42'-4

" [12

.90]

20'-1

1 1/2"

[6.39

]5'-

6 1/2"

[1.69

]15

'-10"

[4.83

]3'-

2 1/2"

[0.98

]

42'-4

" [12

.90]

4'-1 3/4" 6'-8" 6'-8 3/4" 6'-8 3/4" 6'-8" 4'-2"

16'-0

"4'-

11 1/

2"

DN19R

BUILT -IN

32

3232

17'-6

"

26'-5" [8.05]6'-1" [1.85]2'-7 1/2" [0.80]

30

5'-9"

4'-1"

6'-0"

EQ2"

EQ2"

EQ

7'-6 3/4"

36

15'-1

0 1/2"

7'-6 3/4"

10'-11 1/2" 8'-6" 11'-7"

6'-0" 13'-4"

5'-6"

8'-6"

HIS

CLOS

ET5'3

"x8'6

"30 30

30

6'-11"12'-4 3/4" 3'-2 1

/2"

5'-0"4'-3"

10'-5

"

6'-5"

2'-4"

3'-2 1

/2"14

'-3 1/

2"

2'-4"

BUILT

-IN

WIN

DOW

SEA

T

SHOWER

LINEN

CLOSET

MASTERBEDROOM

14'8"x17'6"

MASTERBATHROOM

9'3"x13'7"

1454.98 SQ. FT. - 33.25 (ELEVATOR SHAFT)= 1421.73 SQ.FT. (132.08m²)

LEDGE BELOW

18'-1

1 1/4"

[5.77

]

45'-6

1/2"

[13.8

8]

2'-4" [0.71] 21'-9" [6.63] 2'-4" [0.71]

ELEVATORINFINITY 40"x54"5'-

0"

5'-6 1/2"

5'-3"

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A4

SECOND FLOOR6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





1214

1214

ROOF PLAN

37'-3 1/4" [11.36]

23'-1

1/4"

[7.04

]5'-

6 3/4"

[1.69

]15

'-10"

[4.83

]3'-

2 1/2"

[0.98

]

47'-8

1/2"

[14.5

4]

2'-7 1/2" [0.80] 6'-1" [1.86]

37'-3 1/4" [11.36]

3'-2 1

/2" [0

.98]

44'-5

3/4"

[13.5

6]

2'-7 1/2"

1214

1214

28'-6 3/4" [8.71]

2'-4" 23'-11" 2'-4"

1'-11 3/4" [0.60]

FLAT

ROOF

LINE O

F SEC

OND F

LOOR

BELO

W

LINE O

F SEC

OND F

LOOR

BELO

W

1214

1214

NOTE:FLAT ROOF = 26% OF TOTAL HORIZONTAL ROOF AREA

LINE OF SECOND FLOOR BELOW

LINE OF SECOND FLOOR BELOW

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A5

ROOF PLAN6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





FIN. 2ND FL.11'-2"

FIN. 2ND FL. CLG.20'-2"

FIN. BSMT. FL.-12'-10 3/8"

1'-2"

1'-2"

9'-0"

26'-4

1/2"

[8.04

]

36'-0

" [10

.97]

12'-1

0 1/2"

[3.92

]11

'-2" [

3.40]

10'-0

"

9'-0"

[2.74

]

FRONT ELEVATION (EAST)

ESTABLISHED GRADE 154.93

7'-0"

8'-6"6'-

9"

8'-6"

8'-6" 6'-

9"

7'-1"

5'-0"

7'-1"

7'-1"

9'-7 1

/2" [2

.94]

FIN. 1ST FL.0'-0"

7'-6"

[2.29

]

6'-3 1

/4" [1

.91]

1214

1214

FIN. GARAGE FL.-8'-3 3/8"

PROP

ERTY

LINE

1

5

4

.

9

0

1

5

4

.

9

7

ESTABLISHED GRADE:(154.90+154.97) / 2 = 154.93

5'-7 1

/2" [1

.72]

1

5

4

.

9

9

1

5

4

.

3

0

"GRADE" 154.65

GRADE:(154.99+154.30) / 2 = 154.65

LEGEND

32'-7

1/4"

[9.94

](H

EIGH

T TO

MID

-POI

NT O

F RO

OF)

5'-0"

5'-0"

4'-7"

[1.40

]

11'-8

1/2"

6'-7 1

/4" [2

.01]

3'-2"

[0.96

]

8"

PROP

ERTY

LINE

7'-6"

FIN. GARAGE CLG.

3 1/2"

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A6

FRONTELEVATION

6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

1/8" = 1'-0"

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





DATE:REVISIONS:No.

SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH)

6'-9

"

ESTABLISHED GRADE

5'-5

"5'

-5"

1214

1214

3'-2"

[0.96

]3'-

9 1/2"

[1.16

]

6'-11

1/2"

[2.12

]

36'-0

" [10

.97]

6'-7 1

/4" [2

.01]

"GRADE"

5'-7 1

/2" [1

.72]

5'-7 1

/2" [1

.72]


GRADE:(154.99+154.30) / 2 = 154.65

LEGEND

3'-6 1

/4" [1

.07]

2'-0 1

/4" [0

.62]

6'-6"

[1.98

]

PRIVACY WALL

3'-6 1

/2" [1

.08]

LINE OF BASEMENTWALKOUT

3'-0"

[0.91

]

3 1/2"

[0.09

]

1'-2"

1'-2"

1'-2"

9'-0"

11'-2

" [3.4

0]

10'-0

"

9'-0"

[2.74

]

11'-8

1/2"

12'-1

0 1/2"

[3.92

]

FIN. BSMT. FL.-12'-10 3/8"

FIN. 1ST FL.0'-0"

FIN. 2ND FL.11'-2"


PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A7

REARELEVATION

6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

1/8" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





REAR ELEVATION (WEST)

ESTABLISHED GRADE

7'-1"

26'-4

1/2"

[8.04

]

36'-0

" [10

.97]

6'-3 1

/4" [1

.91]

9'-7 1

/2" [2

.94]

6'-7 1

/4" [2

.01]

1214

1214

"GRADE"

5'-7 1

/2" [1

.72]


GRADE:(154.99+154.30) / 2 = 154.65

LEGEND

5'-0"

5'-0"

PRIVACY WALL

3'-9 1

/2" [1

.16]

1'-2"

1'-2"

1'-2"

9'-0"

11'-2

" [3.4

0]

10'-0

"

9'-0"

[2.74

]

11'-8

1/2"

12'-1

0 1/2"

[3.92

]

FIN. BSMT. FL.-12'-10 3/8"

FIN. 1ST FL.0'-0"

FIN. 2ND FL.11'-2"


8'-6"

[2.59

]

3'-8"

[1.12

]

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A8

REARELEVATION

6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

1/8" = 1'-0"

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





DATE:REVISIONS:No.

LIN

E O

F D

RIV

EW

AY

= 1

0%

SLO

PE

DO

W

N

1'-2"

1'-2"

1'-2"

9'-0"

11'-2

" [3.4

0]

10'-0

"

9'-0"

[2.74

]

SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH)

6'-9"

8'-6"

8'-6"

5'-0"

2% S

LOPE UP

ESTABLISHED GRADE

PROP

ERTY

LINE

ESTABLISHED GRADE2'-2 1

/4" [0

.67]

3'-9 1

/2" [1

.16]

3 1/2"

[0.09

]5'-

11 3/

4" [1

.82]

1214

1214

GARAGE FIN. FL.-9'-2"

4'-7"

2'-0 1

/4"6'-

3 1/4"

8'-3 1

/2"

5'-0"

7'-1"

"GRADE"


GRADE:(154.99+154.30) / 2 = 154.65

LEGEND

11'-8

1/2"

12'-1

0 1/2"

[3.92

]3'-9 3

/4" [1

.16]

2'-0 1

/4" [0

.62]

1

5

4

.

7

6

1

5

4

.

2

9

8" [0

.20]

FIN. BSMT. FL.-12'-10 3/8"

FIN. 1ST FL.0'-0"FIN. GARAGE CLG.

7'-6"

[2.29

]

FIN. 2ND FL.11'-2"


3'-9 1

/2" [1

.15]

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A9

NORTH SIDEELEVATION

6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

1/8" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





FIRST FLOOR GFA KEY PLAN3/32" = 1'-0"1391.41 SQ. FT. - 27.70 (ELEVATOR SHAFT)= 1363.70 SQ.FT. (126.29m²)

SHAFT

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR GFA KEY PLAN3/32" = 1'-0"1376.60 SQ. FT. - 27.70 (ELEVATOR SHAFT)= 1376.60 SQ.FT. (127.89m²)

SECOND FLOORSHAFT

BASEMENT GFA KEY PLAN - FOR BY-LAW 438-863/32" = 1'-0"52.66 SQ. FT. (4.89m²)

SHAFT

GARAGE

BASEMENT

LANDING

BASEMENT AREA KEY PLAN3/32" = 1'-0"1384.93 SQ. FT. - 26.04 (ELEVATOR SHAFT)

- 427.49 (GARAGE)= 930.66 SQ.FT. (86.46m²)

SHAFT

GARAGE

BASEMENT

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A10

GFA KEY PLANS6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/32" = 1'-0"

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

N.L.2

N.L.3

4

5


N.L.

6


N.L.


N.L.

7





DRIVEWAY SECTION

2% SLOPE UP

PROP

ERTY

LINE

1

5

4

.

7

6

CENT

ERLIN

E OF

ROA

D

1

5

4

.

6

8

1

5

4

.

5

6

1

5

4

.

5

1

FIN. BSMT. FL.-12'-10 3/8"

FIN. 1ST FL.0'-0"

FIN. GARAGE CLG.

℄ OF ROAD

FIN. GARAGE FL.

9 1/2"

[0.24

]

6'-10

1/2"

[2.09

]

7 1/2"

[0.19

]

4'-7"

[1.40

]

11'-8" [3.56] 20'-11 1/2" [6.39]

EDGE

OFAS

PHAL

TROADWAY BOULEVARD

1

5

4

.

4

6

1

5

4

.

2

9

SIDEWALK LINE OF DRIVEWAY = 10% SLOPE DOWN 2% SLOPE UP

LINE OF EXISTING CURB

GARAGE

TRENCH DRAINSUMP PIT

PROJECT: DRAWING:

DRAWING

No:

SCALE:




TELEPHONE: 416.944.9900

FAX: 416.944.3006 A11

DRIVEWAYSECTION

6 MILLBANK AVE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

3/16" = 1'-0"

1

2

3

4

ISSUED FOR T.L.A.B. 17/11/2017 N.L.

5

6

7

ISSUED FOR T.L.A.B. 22/01/2018 N.L.

DATE:REVISIONS:No.

LIST OF VARIANCES 6 MILLBANK AVENUE

Variances Under By-law 569-2013

1. The new detached dwelling will have a floor space index equal to 0.807 times the area of thelot (254.58m2), WHEREAS the maximum permitted floor space index is 0.65 times the areaof the lot (205.07m2) [ch. 10.20.40.40.(1)(A)].

2. The new detached dwelling will be located 1.08m from the north side and 1.02m from thesouth side, WHEREAS the minimum required side yard setback is 1.2m [ch.10.20.40.70.(3)(C)].

3. The proposed elevation of the lowest point of a vehicle entrance in a main wall of thebuilding is lower than the point where it intersects a lot line abutting a street, WHEREAS fora detached house, the elevation of the lowest point of a vehicle entrance in a main wall ofthe building must be higher than the elevation of the centreline of the driveway at the pointwhere it intersects a lot line abutting a street [ch. 10.5.80.40.(2)].

4. The proposed height of the first floor above established grade is 1.91m, WHEREAS themaximum permitted height of the first floor above established grade is 1.2m [ch.10.20.40.10.(6)].

Variances Under By-law 438-86

5. The new detached dwelling will have a gross floor area equal to 0.822 times the area of thelot (259.47m2), WHEREAS the maximum permitted gross floor area is 0.65 times the area ofthe lot (205.07m2) [s. 6(3) Part I 1].

6. The new detached dwelling will be located 3.54m from the front lot line, WHEREAS theminimum required front lot line setback of a building on an inside lot is 4.08m [s. 6(3) Part II2(II)].

7. The new detached dwelling will have an integral below grade garage, WHEREAS an integralgarage in a building where the floor level of the garage is located below grade and thevehicle access to the garage is located in a wall facing the front lot line is not permitted [s.6(3) Part IV 3(II)].

241Attachment 2

Proposed Conditions for 6 Millbank Ave (17 243682 S45 21 TLAB)

1. The Owner shall submit plans and a report prepared by a licenced professionalengineer demonstrating that drainage from the area will not lead to flooding andmeets the Reverse Slope Driveway Guideline outlined in the Design Criteria forSewer and Watermains, November 2009 and obtain approval from GeneralManager, Toronto Water for the proposal. Further information can be obtained bycontacting Lu Liu, P. Eng., Toronto Water Infrastructure Management(416.338.5464); and

2. The Owner shall enter into a legal agreement with the City of Toronto in order toindemnify the City against any loss or damage that may result from basementflooding caused by the below grade garage and furthermore, the Owner shallagree that it will not commence any legal action against the City as a result ofany damage caused by basement flooding as a result of the reverse gradedriveway. This agreement shall be registered on title to the property in perpetuity,to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

3. The Owner shall submit confirmation from the General Manager, Toronto Water,that conditions Nos. 1 and 2 above have been satisfied

4. The Owner agrees to plant and maintain front yard landscaping substantially inaccordance with the Front Elevation and Planting drawing dated February 2018as shown as Exhibit 6, attached.

Attachment 3

268

269Attachment 4

Date post:	22-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

DECISION AND ORDER - Toronto€¦ · Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 17 164194 STE 21 MV...

Documents