decision and order - toronto › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 10 › 8f9f... ·...

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 11

DECISION AND ORDER

Decision Issue Date Tuesday, October 30, 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): ALI MASERRAT

Applicant: BANANARCH DESIGN AND BUILD

Property Address/Description: 367 DOUGLAS AVE

Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 18 122192 NNY 16 MV

TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB

Hearing date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

DECISION DELIVERED BY Ian James LORD

APPEARANCES

Name Role Representative

Bananarch Design & Build Applicant

Ali Maserrat Appellant/Owner Amber Stewart

David McKay Expert Witness

Nathan Morrow Participant

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from a refusal by the North York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) for variances to 367 Douglas Avenue (subject property) sought in order to construct a new two storey detached dwelling with integral garage.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.toronto.ca/tlab

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB

2 of 11

There were no changes to the Application post the COA decision; however, in response to concerns expressed by planning staff, the Applicant switched the proposed driveway location westerly to afford greater separation from the intersection of Douglas Avenue and Grey Road, to the east. The subject property is located at the south west corner of that intersection, north of Lawrence Avenue and west of Avenue Road.

BACKGROUND

The Applicant provided professional land use planning evidence through David McKay, a Registered Professional Planner whom the TLAB qualified to give expert opinion evidence. The only other person to speak to the matter was Mr. David Herzstein, son-in-law to Participant N. Morrow, adjacent owner at 369 Douglas Avenue, located to the immediate west of the subject property.

I advised that I had attended the subject property, reviewed the filed material but

expected matters of relevance to be addressed in evidence.

MATTERS IN ISSUE

As with every variance appeal, compliance with the statutory tests applicable to each variance sought is required. These tests are recited, below, under ‘Jurisdiction’.

In addition, Mr. Herzstein identified five aspects of impact consideration

applicable to the property at 369 Douglas Drive which he requested be considered in the event relief in the form of the variances requested, is contemplated to be granted. These five aspects centred, generally, on: tree preservation; fence preservation; consequential effects on light, view and air from redevelopment; impacts of height, scale and massing of the proposed site redevelopment.

JURISDICTION

In addressing an appeal of requested variances, the following statutory directions provide the framework for consideration:

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)


3 of 11

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

At the outset, Ms. Stewart on behalf of the Applicant identified three ‘new’ documents she sought to have filed:

a) List of variances, later modified with the request of an additional variance; b) Coloured rendering, available but not previously produced; c) Title document applicable to 369 Douglas Drive, Inst. TR083143 or otherwise

described. In the absence of any objection, I admitted these materials for discussion as

Exhibit 3 a, b, c. respectively, supplementary to the Witness Statement and Appendices of David McKay (Exhibit 1) and a combined electronic document disclosure book prepared by the Applicant (Exhibit 2). Exhibit 2 includes a comprehensive digest of pictures, research materials on area variances and a complete record of associated related decisions of the COA.

Through the use of these materials, Mr. McKay described the character of the

Bedford Park North neighborhood in two mapped scales of Study Area wherein he had evaluated some 200 instances of variance applications and approvals. While noting a consistency throughout both geographic areas (and 455 lots), he found the more immediate area depicted on air photography referenced in his Witness Statement, to be of relevance to normal daily resident exposure and built form.

I am satisfied that his extensive use of GIS data and own observation supported

his uncontested evidence that the neighbourhood is active in renewal and redevelopment and that there are multiple examples supportive of his advice that:

a) The neighbourhood is diverse in: architectural styles; roof designs; elevated

entrances with 5-10 steps; and integral garages, often with reverse slopes (not proposed) ;

b) Variances exceeding those sought for in lot coverage, main wall height, building height, side yard setbacks, deck inclusions in side yard setback reductions and elevated finished first floor heights, were relatively common.

c) A photographic study supported the Application reflective of maintaining existing conditions of front streetscape and rear wall alignments;


4 of 11

d) Corner lots, as with the subject property, demonstrated higher lot coverages dependent on lot size.

He described the subject property as having a frontage of 7.32 m (24 feet)

despite a zoning standard of 12 m. However, undersized lots are recognized under zoning as existing lots of record.

He described the proposal as an intended demolition of all existing improvements

and a rebuild with a different positioning on the lot. Namely, side yards would be slightly enhanced, the proposed home would be two storey, longer and higher consistent with contemporary building standards and include an integral garage. A pitched roof with flat roof top is proposed. The existing garage and shed are to be demolished.

With regard to the subject property survey dated February 28, 2018, he noted

that the existing wood fence identified to be on the common property line with 369 Douglas Avenue, would remain undisturbed, contrary to earlier representations and concerns. He advised that four identified trees adjacent the subject property had been identified for possible protection measures although Urban Forestry of the City had presented no objection to the project.

City planning staff had been satisfied with the reorientation of the integral garage

driveway and took no exception to the redevelopment beyond stating a preference that lot coverage not exceed 38%. The proposal requests authorization of 39.5% tied to the architect’s design for the proposed building and the undersized lot area arising, in part, from the reduced frontage of this corner lot.

Mr. McKay, in the course of his presentation, identified an additional variance not

previously considered by the Plans Examiner. He recommended that ‘out of an abundance of caution’, relief be sought from a requirement that driveway access for a corner lot be from the flanking street (Grey Road). While this is the present state condition, access to the proposed integral garage, characteristically common to new builds throughout the area, is intended from Douglas Avenue.

As the driveway access point from Douglas Avenue had been common to the

Application from the outset, I find that adding the additional variance for consideration is minor and an element for which no further notice is required pursuant to section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act. This request was not raised as an issue, is minor and is considered a preferable addition to the list of variances over the alternative of a possible re-application at the late stage of building permit consideration.

The complete list of variances sought on the appeal is reproduced as

Attachment 1 hereto. The Site Plan and elevations addressed by the witness McKay are attached as Attachment 2 hereto.

Mr. McKay reviewed each of the variances requested and identified in

Attachment 1 generally and specifically in relation to each Jurisdiction aspect, above.


5 of 11

His Witness Statement, Exhibit 1 further supplements his oral consideration and application of the tests.

I recite here some of the considerations raised in the evidence. There was no

contrary qualified evidence so it is not necessary to review the oral evidence in minute detail.

He noted: 1. Despite variances under both the new City By-law 569-2013 and North York

By-law 7625, the variances sought reflect considerable overlap and stem from differing measurement points respecting height and ground floor height (established grade and centerline of the street, respectively by by-law). The proposed building plans, Attachment 2, are a constant.

2. The staff concern for lot coverage is not further explained, however, he stated that the Study Area examination of actual built form shows coverages at 43 to 44%. He suggested the 30% cap is not relevant, especially in the circumstance of a corner lot with exempted frontage.

3. With respect to the concern for massing, several important indicia of overbuilding are simply not present in the Application as no variances are sought for: parking; driveway width; front or rear yard setback reductions; reductions to landscaped open space; building length and building depth; deck size or location; and side yards are both proposed to be increased from those existing.

4. With respect to the title document, Exhibit 3 c, it was his interpretation that the language ‘subject to a right to light and air’ shown applicable to the space between 367 and 369 Douglas Avenue was to the benefit of 367 Douglas Avenue, and not a constraint or encumbrance on its building scheme.

5. His planning opinion was to the effect (Witness Statement, Exhibit 1, paragraph 8.4) that the Application for variances was consistent with Provincial Policy and conformed to the Growth Plan. He applied the language of the Built Form, Neighbourhoods and Urban Design components of the Official Plan to the variances and concluded they presented a project that would fit harmoniously into the neighbourhood and that would respect and reinforce the streetscape. Further, that while there would be some shadow impact, it is proportionate to expectations in an urban setting and similar in kind and degree to as-of-right construction.

6. He noted the separation distance between adjacent buildings would maintain the standard of 2.4 m set by the new zoning by-law, albeit largely the derivative of space on the abutting lot and the protection afforded by the title provision for ‘light and air’ on the survey for 369 Douglas Avenue. He acknowledged some effect on view from the kitchen side wall window of 369 Douglas Avenue, while noting that effect would occur as-of-right with any building extension exercising rights under zoning and that no variance was sought to extend building length or depth beyond that permitted. On zoning standards, and the tests of minor and desirable, he concluded that with some


6 of 11

conditions, impacts offsite would be minimal and the height, massing and scale of the proposal was consistent with neighbourhood examples and offered no incompatibility rising to the standard of ‘undue adverse impact’.

7. On the height variances, he expressed commonality with relief in the neighbourhood affording architectural recognition of second floor window fenestration, the unlikelihood of seeing the flat portion of the roof and the repeat replication of steps to the main first floor, slightly elevated.

8. None of the zoning standards to be varied frustrated the purposes of the zoning provisions; he stated they maintained proportionality and a relationship to the street that resulted in a lot and neighbourhood ‘fit’ in keeping with adjacent and multiple redeveloped properties in the neighbourhood. He stated that the Application yielded a reasonable sized house (@2000 sq ft), with space and amenities typical of new builds.

9. A number of recommended conditions: i) Construction in accordance with the plans filed; ii) Compliance with the requirements of Urban Forestry; iii) Preservation and protection of existing fencing on the common

property line with 369 Douglas Avenue.

David Herzstein, speaking on behalf of the owners of 369 Douglas Avenue, raised a number of concerns, listed above. These were elicited and delivered in a concise manner befitting a reasoned approach to the Applicant’s appeal.

He expressed appreciation for the Applicant’s retraction of any attempt to remove existing fencing on the lot line, to be responsible for its maintenance and protection during construction and the undertaking to protect from injury trees that could be impacted, on 369 Douglas Avenue, by subscribing to City Tree Protection By-law measures.

His major expressed concern related to the implications of the coverage and

height variances impacting light and air to 369 Douglas Avenue from new construction, especially in the south east corner of the existing residence.

He suggested a possible conflict existed in the plans of survey depicting the

common property line between the respective properties. The deed notation of ‘subject to light and air’ was advanced only as indicia of elements worthy of consideration in relation to the variances sought.

In questioning, he acknowledged that the measured distances of potential discrepancy were quite small, that the increased west side yard setback from existing was an enhancement and that the two by-laws provided different measurement and descriptive approaches to ‘flat roof’ design and measurement. While he preferred a shorter house and less of a ‘landing’ to the rear yard deck, he understood that ‘as-of-right’ provisions were not markedly different, even potentially of greater impact.


7 of 11

He responded, however, by reiterating that the Application proposed increased

coverage and massing and at a height causing many of the concerns raised that he had addressed.

ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, REASONS

The COA declined the variances sought in the Application but in the absence of substantive reasons. While it was speculated that the unease of the staff report and the concerns expressed by the participants might have led to the COA decision, such comments are little more than speculation.

Under section 2.1 of the Planning Act, I am obliged to give consideration to the

COA decision and the materials before it; I have done so. In addition, I have heard the evidence of a qualified professional planner and one neighbour’s representative.

I am satisfied that the public interest is best served in encouraging the

redevelopment of the subject property in the manner proposed based on the entirety of that evidence. Mr. McKay ably demonstrated that the Applications would, if built according to the plans filed in Attachment 2, deliver a project fully compatible with the neighbourhood in a manner that does not overpower the lot or transmit undue adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or the neighbourhood itself.

This is a neighbourhood of two storey detached dwellings, many demonstrating

integral garages and of pitched and flat roof design. I am satisfied that the setbacks proposed are an improvement and common in the area. The property benefits from a corner position and rear yard access is not compromised. The height, also characteristic of variances granted, is ameliorated by a pitched roof portion and by window fenestration pulling the eye to the building, reducing the appearance of mass. The size of the building is modest and is commensurate with the lot upon which it sits.

The lot is proposed to be cleaned up of accessory structures. I am also satisfied that the additional steps to the main floor height replicate

many existing examples on the street and in the neighbourhood. Extending the rear wall platform/deck along the alignment of the building face is not only practical but, through the re-orientation of the rear yard deck easterly, affords minimal opportunity for overlook or privacy derogation to the only adjacent property.

Requiring construction to be in accordance with the design plan assures that

some of the features argued in favour of the variances will be instituted. The coverage requested exceeds the by-law provision of 30% by a substantial

margin: to 39.5%. The resultant massing was ably expressed as a concern to the owners of 369 Douglas Avenue and I have no doubt that that is so. I appreciate that the


8 of 11

rear kitchen window of that property will have a view and partial shadow impact by the proposed house extension.

I am satisfied that this infraction to normal daily living activities does not amount

to the type or degree of undue adverse impact to warrant rejection of one, many or all of the variances requested. While it is true that the relatively new construction at 369 Douglas Avenue presents a window above the fence line between the properties, there was no evidence or measure as to the degree of impact resulting from the Application. Indeed, the evidence was that as-of-right construction, in building length, depth and height would have essentially the same effect as the proposed construction. Moreover, although irrelevant now, the construction of 369 Douglas Drive would have had a similar if not greater impact on the then bungalow residence on 367 Douglas Avenue.

These impacts are envisaged in the permitted performance standards under

existing and proposed zoning and are the product of living in modern urban centres where intensification of the use of property is often supported by policy and regulations.

In this case, I am unable to distinguish on the evidence provided a material

difference in impact between as-of-right allowances, and the relief requested. Mr. Herzstein is entirely correct to point out that it is the Applicant that is requesting relief from the provisions of existing zoning on whom the burden of justification rests. I am, however, content that that burden has been met through the evidence of the planner McKay who demonstrated the policy support for rejuvenation via replacement housing, compliance with the policy assessment criteria of section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, adherence to the spirit of the zoning regulations and the desirability of redevelopment.

I find the impacts on 369 Douglas Avenue to be minor and within the range of

implications normally attendant redevelopment, particularly in light of the conditions agreed to by the Applicant with the input of Mr. Herzstein.

It is regretful that the Applicant did not earlier assuage the Morrows of their

clearly expressed concerns respecting fencing, tree preservation and light and air considerations. Neither the Official Plan nor the zoning by-law expressly address these latter concerns in this particular fact circumstance. Nevertheless, the interpretation and application of the wording on the Morrow’s property survey/deed might well have been earlier discovered, thereby advancing the potential that this appeal might have been averted.

I accept Ms. Stewarts argument that no overall height variance is required under

the new By-law 569-2013. I also have no basis to refute the argument that on coverage, there is no demonstrable basis or impact arising from planning staff’s suggestion as to 38% v. 39.5% coverage nor to doubt that the more recent survey constituted part of the materials before the City Plans Examiner.


9 of 11

On all these aspects, I find that the permissions sought are supported by the evidence supplied by Mr. McKay and meet all relevant tests, subject only to appropriate conditions.

I was requested to produce a timely decision. This is similar to or the same request that is explicit or implied in all matters that come before the TLAB.

DECISION AND ORDER

The Applicant’s appeal from the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is allowed. The variances identified as proposed in Attachment 1 hereto are approved, subject to the following conditions:

1. Construction shall be substantially in accordance with the site plan andelevations attached as Attachment 2 , hereto prepared by Bananarch issued April 27, 2018 and being Appendix I, in Exhibit 1 attached to the Witness statement of David McKay.

2. The Applicant/owner shall meet the tree preservation requirements, if any, ofthe City Trees By-law, satisfactory to the Manager, Urban Forestry Division ofthe City respecting trees in proximity to the subject property, 367 DouglasAvenue.

3. Any damage or replacement of fencing on the property line between 367 and369 Douglas Avenue shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant/ownerand shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner of like or superiorvalue, prior to building occupancy.

4. The existing garage structure shall be demolished and the curb on Grey Roadrestored to a complete and uninterrupted state.

If difficulties arise in the implementation of this decision, the TLAB may be spoken to.

ATTACHMENT 1

REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 10.5.40.50, By-law No. 569-2013A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The proposed west side yard setback is 0.91 m to the deck.

2. Chapter 10.5.40.50, By-law No. 569-2013


10 of 11

A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The proposed east side yard setback is 0.62 m to the porch. 3. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m. The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.54 m. 4. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of the first floor above established grade is 1.2 m. The proposed height of the first floor above established grade is 1.87 m. 5. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 m. The proposed east side yard setback is 0.6 m. 6. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 m. The proposed west side yard setback is 0.9 m. 7. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 39.5% of the lot area. 8. Section 14-A(8), By-law No. 7625 The maximum permitted building height is 8 m. The proposed building height is 10.43 m. 9. Section 6(30)a, By-law No. 7625 The maximum finished first floor height is 1.5 m. The proposed finished first floor height is 2.3 m. The following additional variance shall apply: 10.Chapter 10.5.80.40 (3), By-law No. 569-2013: Despite any provision to the contrary, vehicular access to the lot shall be from Douglas Avenue.


11 of 11

X

Ian J. Lord

Chair, Toronto Local Appeal Body

Signed by: Ian Lord

367 DOUGLAS AVE. ISSUED FOR CofA

TORONTO, ON APRIL 27, 2018

Attachment 2

367 DOUGLAS AVE. PROPOSED TWO STOREY

DWELLING175.50 ft2

16.30 m2

DN

DRIVEWAY

547.10 ft2

50.83 m2

183.20 ft2

17.02 m2

82.80 ft2

7.69 m2

306.50 ft2

28.47 m2

142.20 ft2

13.21 m2

97.90 ft2

9.09 m2

UP

UP

PROJECT NORTH

BANANARCHdesign + build

NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES

DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:

367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132

THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.

ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.

©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.

THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.

IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.

* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS

TORONTO, ON

1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18


3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18

4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18

5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18

3/64" = 1'-0"

A003SITE STATISTICS

PROJECT STATISTICS

PROJECT STATISTICS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ZONE=RD

GROUND FLOOR

METRIC IMPERIAL

SECOND FLOOR

BASEMENT(INCLUDING MECHANICAL & COLDROOM)

BASEMENT(NOT INCLUDING MECHANICAL & COLDROOM)

GARAGE

PROJECT STATISTICS ZONE=RD

SITE AREA

METRIC IMPERIAL

LOT FRONTAGE

LOT DEPTH (EAST)

FRONT YARD

METRIC IMPERIAL

REAR YARD

SIDE YARD (EAST)

SIDE YARD (WEST)

SETBACKS

LENGTH

METRIC IMPERIAL

WIDTH

HEIGHT

LOT COVERAGE

PROPOSED DWELLING

1NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES

TOTAL GFA

LANDSCAPING STATISTICS ZONE=RD

FRONT YARD AREA

METRIC IMPERIAL

DRIVEWAY AREA

FRONT YARD

REAR YARD AREA

METRIC IMPERIAL

AREA OF WALKOUT,WALKWAY,DECK

SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA

REAR YARD

SIDE YARD AREA (EAST)

METRIC IMPERIALSIDE YARD

STEP+PORCH+WALK AREA

SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA (EAST)

SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA (WEST)

SIDE YARD AREA (WEST)

SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA

LANDSCAPING AREA

LANDSCAPING AREA

LOT DEPTH (WEST)

12.22 m 40'-1"

16.52 m 54'-2 1/2"

5.80 m 19'-0 1/4"

10.00 m 32'-9 3/4"

93.30 m² (39.5%) 1,004.20 ft² (39.5%)

92.14 m² 991.70 ft2

93.73 m² 1,008.90 ft²

185.87 m² 2,000.60 ft²

51.73 m² 556.90 ft²

34.70 m² 373.60 ft²

LANDSCAPING STATISTICS CALCULATION

0.30 m 1'- 0"

572.60 ft ²

183.30 ft ²

53.19 m²

17.02 m²

722.40 ft ²67.12 m²

175.50 ft ²16.30 m²

547.10 ft ²50.83 m²

97.90 ft ²9.09 m²

82.80 ft ²7.69 m²

306.50 ft ²28.47 m²

236.35 m² 2,544.00 ft²

7.32 m 24' - 0"

32.31 m 106'-0"

389.30 ft ²36.17 m²

32.31 m 106'-0"

97.90 ft ²9.09 m²

142.20 ft ²13.21 m²

142.20 ft ²13.21 m²

722.40 ft ²67.12 m²

6.98 m 22' - 11 1/2"

1.20 m 3' - 11 1/4"

58.10 m² 625.40 ft²

+100

.54

+100.44+1

00.4

9


DWELLING

DECK

LANDING

DN

+100

.24

DRIVEWAY

UP

PORCH

UP

2' -

0"

(0.6

2m

)7' -

7 1

/2"

(2.3

2m

)11' -

5"

(3.4

8m

)2' -

11 1

/2"

(0.9

0m

)

1' -

6 1

/2"

(0.4

7m

)8' -

1 1

/2"

(2.4

8m

)7' -

0"

(2.1

4m

)3' -

3 1

/2"

(1.0

1m

)

1' -

11 1

/2"

(0.6

0m

)

1' - 9" (0.53m)50' - 5 1/2" (15.38m)2' - 0" (0.61m)5' - 3 1/2" (1.61m)9' - 0 1/2" (2.76m)

6' - 10 1/2" (2.10m)4' - 0" (1.22m)

3' - 8 1/2" (1.12m)

3' - 2 1/2" (0.98m)

2' - 3" (0.69m)

3' - 0 1/2" (0.93m)6' - 6" (1.98m)42' - 8" (13.00m)4' - 1" (1.24m)6' - 2" (1.88m)20' - 7 1/2" (6.29m)

5' - 2 1/2" (1.59m) 7' - 0 1/2" (2.15m) 4' - 1" (1.24m)

30' - 10 1/2" (9.42m)

28' - 10 1/2" (8.81m)

2' -

0"

(0.6

0m

)

1' -

8"

(0.5

1m

)9' -

5 1

/2"

(2.8

9m

)7' -

10 1

/2"

(2.4

0m

)3' -

0"

(0.9

1m

)

19' -

0 1

/2"

(5.8

0m

)

19' -

0 1

/2"

(5.8

0m

)1' -

0"

(0.3

0m

)

1' -

11 1

/2"

(0.6

0m

)

3' -

11"

(1.2

0m

)9' -

2 1

/2"

(2.8

0m

)7' -

10 1

/2"

(2.4

0m

)3' -

0"

(0.9

1m

)

DO

UG

LA

S A

VE

NU

E(

BY

RE

GIS

TE

RE

D P

LA

N 1

53

7,

PIN

. 1

01

91

- 02

59 (

LT

) )

( A

S C

ON

FIR

ME

D B

Y P

LA

N B

A-1

881

)

CE

NT

RE

LIN

E O

F R

OA

DCO

NC

RE

TE

CU

RB

+100

.06

CB

CBCONCRETE CURB

OVERHEAD WIRE

OVERHEAD WIRE

HYDRO POLE

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

HYDRO POLE

GREY ROAD( BY REGISTERED PLAN 1537, PIN. 10191-0259 (LT) )

( AS CONFIRMED BY PLAN BA-265)

TWL: 100.80

PORCH

369 DOUGLAS AVE. 2 STOREY

STUCCO DWELLINGFFE=102.19

GARAGE ELEVATION=99.42

OV

ER

HE

AD

WIR

E

DT 0.80 Ø

CT 0.60 Ø

DT 0.30 Ø

CT 0.15 Ø

CENTRE LINE OF ROAD

+100

.12

52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






3/32" = 1'-0"

A101SITE PLAN

0.2

7 W

0.3

3 E

0.3

3 E

17.54

4.71

4.09

4.70

6.981.5

3

1.5

3

0.3

3 E

0.3

6 E

0.7

90.6

5 E

0.6

2 N

0.55 N

99.96

99.92

99.92

100.5

9

100.8

0

99.42

100.3

9 100.22

0.34 N16°17'30"W 32.31

N16°17'30"W 32.31N

73°4

1'4

0"E

7.3

2

N73°4

1'4

0"E

7.3

2

O

T

9

8

4

1 5

3 7

CE

NT

ER

LIN

E O

F R

OA

D

AP

PR

OA

CH

CO

NC

RE

TE

CU

RB

1 S

TY

.

BR

ICK

DW

ELLIN

GN

o. 3

67

FF

E=

CONCRETE PAD

PO

RC

H

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

SH

ED

OV

ER

HE

AD

WIR

E

VA

LV

EH

YD

RO

NA

ILS

ITE

BE

NC

HM

AR

K

ELE

V=

No. 3

69

ST

UC

CO

DW

ELLIN

G

FF

E= 2 S

TY

.

DR

IVE

WA

Y

INT

ER

LO

CK

DR

IVE

WA

Y

AS

HP

HA

LT

FLO

OR

=G

AR

AG

E

HY

DR

OM

ET

ER

HEDGE

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

T/W

=

STONE RETAINING WALL

HY

DR

OP

OLE

HY

DR

OP

OLE

PO

RC

H

CENTER LINE OF ROAD

CO

NC

RE

TE

CU

RB

CONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURB

OVERHEAD WIRE

APPROACH

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

BOARD FENCE

T/W

=

T/W

=

T/W

=

CT

0.6

0�

DT

0.8

0�

WIR

EA

NC

HO

R

CT

0.1

5�

DT

0.3

0�

10

1.2

9

10

0.0

8

10

0.3

5

100.8

0

100.8

1

10

2.1

9

99

.42

100.6

7 100.7

2

10

0.4

6

100.0

0

VA

LV

ES

ER

VIC

E

FLO

OR

=G

AR

AG

E

OVERHEAD WIRE

BOARD FENCE

D O U G L A S

A V E N U E

G R E Y R O A D

(BY

RE

GIS

TE

RE

D P

LA

N 1

537, P

.I.N. 1

0191

-025

9 (L

T) )

(BY REGISTERED PLAN 1537, P.I.N. 10191-0258 (LT) )

( AS CONFIRMED BY PLAN BA-265)

P.I.N

. 10191-0

110 (L

T)

( AS

CO

NF

IRM

ED

BY

PLA

N B

A-1

88

1)

100.2

2

100.1

2

100.0

1

100.0

610

0.19

100.1

8

100.0

6

100.0

9

100.1

1

100.0

7

100.0

4

100.1

8

100.2

4

100.2

9

100.2

0

100.2

1

100.3

1

100.3

023

99.88

99.93

100.55

100.5

3

100.5

5

100.5

1

100.4

5

100.2

9

100.1

610

0.10

100.2

9

100.4

2

100.61

100.54100.54

100.47

100.47

100.48

100.3

9

100.25

100.1

7

100.1

1100.1

5

100.2

5

100.3

3

100.3

0

100.4

1

100.5

0

100.5

5100.4

4

100.5

5100.4

1

100.5

5

100.5

2

100.4

3

100.4

710

0.48

100.1

110

0.14

100.63

100.6

0

100.6

4

100.6

6 100.6

1

100.60100.65

100.6

6

100.6

1

100.5

9

100.5

9

100.5

5

100.5

4

100.45

99

.41

99.76

100.1

3

100.1

010

0.14

100.1

6

100.6

610

0.85

100.7

4

100.6

3

100.6

7

100.5

1

100.5

3

100.6

7

100.5

0

100.47

100.4

5

10

0.6

5

100.5

8

10

0. 5

7

100.4

7

100.3

2

.48

100.42

100.44

100.2

0

100.1

9

100.2

310

0.41

100.1

1

100.1

7

100.2

4

100.3

0

99.96

CB

CB

MAN HOLE

MAN HOLE

+100.44+1

00.4

9


DWELLING

DECK

LANDING

DN

UP

PORCH

UP

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132

THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELYTO BANANARCH.





©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEYMAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEYMAYNOT BE ALTERED IN ANYWAYWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.



THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANYOTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.


TORONTO, ON






3/32" = 1'-0"

A101aSITE PLAN W/SURVEY

L

RE

GI

ST

ER

ED

PL

AN

100.

100

UP

UP 13R @ 7.38"

UP

6R

@

6.7

8"

H/T FURNACE

UNEXCAVATED

10' - 3" 31' - 10 1/2" 10' - 9 1/2" 6' - 6" 3' - 0 1/2"

2' - 0" 50' - 5 1/2" 4' - 0" 6' - 10 3/4"

11 3

/4"

11' -

5"

7' -

7 1

/2"

19' -

0 1

/4"

(5.8

0m

)

11' -

5"

1' -

0 1

/2"

10"

4' -

11"

10"

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

10' -

6"

10"

6' -

0 1

/4"

10"

19' - 6"1' - 6"8' - 8 1/2"3 1/2"8' - 7"3 1/2"11' - 0"1' - 6"5' - 0"5' - 3"

16' -

0 1

/4"

8' -

4 3

/4"

3 1

/2"

3' -

11"

4' -

0"

E. PANEL BOX

10 1

/4"

9' -

5 3

/4"

7' -

10 1

/2"

10"

7' -

0 1

/2"

10"

18' -

2 1

/4"

(5.5

5m

)

PLANTER

HIDDEN DOORWITHIN WALLPANELLING

52' - 5 1/2" (15.99m)

52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)

4' - 5 1/2" 3 1/2" 3' - 10" 3 1/2" 4' - 5" 3 1/2" 4' - 0"

6' -

4 1

/2"

4' -

0"

7' -

10 1

/2"

6' -

5 3

/4"

1' -

8 1

/4"

MECHANICAL

ROOM

GREAT ROOM

3' -

4 1

/2"

3 1

/2"

3' -

8"

3 1

/2"

3' -

10 1

/4"

4' -

6 1

/2"

BATHROOM

LAUNDRY STORAGE

GARAGE

LOW HEADROOM5'-1 1/2"

GARBAGE AREA

WALK OUT

5' - 6"

8' -

4 3

/4"

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






3/16" = 1'-0"

A102BASEMENT

DN

3R

@ 7

.5"

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

1' - 9"50' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"5' - 3 1/2"

2' -

11 1

/2"

(0.9

0m

)19' -

0 1

/4"

(5.8

0m

)2' -

0 1

/4"

(0.6

2m

)

1' -

11 1

/2"

11 3

/4"

11' -

5"

7' -

7 1

/2"

3' - 0 1/2"6' - 6"42' - 8"4' - 1"

2' -

0"

3' -

0"

3' -

6"

4' -

8 1

/4"

4' -

0"

DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM

PORCH

DN

9R

@ 7

.33"

16' - 10 1/2"13' - 2"

9' -

2 1

/4"

4' -

6 1

/2"

3 1

/2"

3' -

2"

FOYER

POWDER

ROOM

KITCHEN

FAMILY ROOM

HIDDEN DOORWITHIN WALLPANELLING

2' -

11 3

/4"

7' -

10 1

/2"

9' -

5 3

/4"

1' -

8 1

/4"

1' -

11 3

/4"

DECK

DN

FIREPLACE

D.WG

52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)

6' - 10 3/4" (2.10m)4' - 0" (1.22m)52' - 5 1/2" (15.99m)

7' -

10 1

/2"

7' -

7 3

/4"

1' -

8 1

/4"

2' - 0" 13' - 2 3/4" 17' - 1 1/4" 3 1/2" 8' - 2" 3 1/2"

2' - 3"

3 1/2" 7' - 0"

UP 17R @ 7.75"

DN 13R @ 7.38"

AREA 5.50 m2

17' -

2 1

/4"

CLOSET

19' -

0 1

/4"

(5.8

0m

)

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






3/16" = 1'-0"

A103GROUND FLOORPLAN

8' -

5 3

/4"

3 1

/2"

8' -

5 1

/4"

10' - 3"0"3 1/2"7' - 9"3 1/2"3' - 7"3 1/2"12' - 11 1/4"3 1/2"12' - 11 1/4"2' - 0"

6' -

2 3

/4"

3 1

/2"

10' -

8"

1' - 9"50' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"

19' -

0 1

/4"

(5.8

0m

)

7' -

10 1

/2"

9' -

5 3

/4"

1' -

8 1

/4"

19' -

0 1

/4"

(5.8

0m

)

7' -

11 1

/2"

3 1

/2"

3' -

8"

3 1

/2"

5' -

0"

8' - 11" 3 1/2" 2' - 5" 7' - 8" 3 1/2" 10' - 0" 5 1/2" 7' - 10 1/2" 5 1/2" 12' - 0"

8' -

7 1

/4"

3 1

/2"

4' -

0"

1' -

6 1

/2"

8' -

1 1

/2"

9' -

4 1

/2"

4' -

10 3

/4"

3 1

/2"

6' -

8 1

/2"

BEDROOM 1

BEDROOM 2BATHROOM

BATHROOMLAUNDRY

BEDROOM 3

ENSUITE

WIC

MASTER

BEDROOM

1' -

4 1

/4"

7' -

5 3

/4"

1' -

10"

1' - 9"50' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"

52' - 5 1/2" (15.99m)

52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)

3 1

/2"

5' -

6 3

/4"

8' -

3 3

/4"

DN 17R @ 7.75"

3' - 8"

6' - 1 1/2"3' - 11 1/2" LINE OF SKYLIGHT ABOVE

4' -

0 1

/4"

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






3/16" = 1'-0"

A104SECOND FLOORPLAN

1' - 9"1' - 8 1/2"11' - 5 1/4"3' - 4"7' - 1 1/4"8' - 4"4' - 11"2' - 10"6' - 3 1/4"2' - 10"2' - 8"

49' - 8 3/4" (15.16m)

21' -

0 1

/4"

(6.4

1m

)

25' - 8 1/4" 17' - 11 1/4" 3' - 5 1/2"

49' - 8 3/4" (15.16m)

11' -

10 3

/4"

8' -

1 3

/4"

1' -

0"

21' -

0 1

/4"

(6.4

1m

)

17" / 12"

17"

/ 12"

17" / 12"

17"

/ 12"

MIN 2% SLOPE

1' -

0"

1' - 0"

1' -

0"

1' - 0"

1' -

0"

2' -

8 1

/2"

9' -

5 3

/4"

1' -

7 1

/2"

4' -

9 3

/4"

2' -

5"

6' - 1 1/2" (1.87m)

1' -

4 1

/4"

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






3/16" = 1'-0"

A105ROOF PLAN

PROJECT STATISTICSROOF AREA CALCULATIONS BY-LAW 569-2013

TOTAL ROOF AREA

METRIC IMPERIAL

FLAT ROOF AREA

99.95 m2 1,075.85 ft²

49.71 m² 535.07 ft² (50%)

0' - 0"

ESTABLISHED AVG GRADE

19' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

32' - 9 1/2"

T/O ROOF

SECOND FLOOR CEILING

28' - 0"

24' - 7 1/2"

SIDEWALL HEIGHT

28' - 8 1/2"

MIDPOINT OF ROOF

-4' - 0"

BASEMENT LEVEL

LIVING ROOM CEILING

18' - 0"

8' - 0"

FAMILY ROOM

CENTRE LINE OF ROAD @DOUGLAS

-1' - 5"

32' -

9 3

/4"

(10.0

0m

)

4' -

9 3

/4"

9' -

0"

1' -

0"

10' -

0"

1' -

0"

7' -

0"

4' -

0"

+ 100.06

+ 99.27

30' -

1 1

/4"

(9.1

8m

)

24' -

7 1

/4"

(7.5

0m

)

+ 100.49

C/L OF ROAD @ GREY

-1' - 2 1/2"

11' -

0"

CEILING

5' - 1 1/2"

GROUND FLOOR

6' - 1 1/2"

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

+ 102.36

+ 102.93

+ 106.28

+ 110.49

12"

12"

17"

1' - 0 1/2" (0.32m)

1' - 0" (0.30m)

1' - 11" (0.59m)

1' - 0" (0.30m)

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






3/16" = 1'-0"

A200FRONT ELEVATION

FRONT ELEVATION (NORTH)A

A200 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"

0' - 0"


19' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

32' - 9 1/2"

T/O ROOF


28' - 0"

24' - 7 1/2"

SIDEWALL HEIGHT

28' - 8 1/2"

MIDPOINT OF ROOF

-4' - 0"

BASEMENT LEVEL

LIVING ROOM CEILING

18' - 0"

BASEMENT CEILING

7' - 0"

8' - 0"

FAMILY ROOM


-1' - 5"

32' -

9 3

/4"

(10.0

0m

)

4' -

0"

7' -

0"

1' -

0"

10' -

0"

1' -

0"

9' -

0"

4' -

9 3

/4"

11' -

0"

+ 110.49

+ 109.24

+ 106.28

+ 102.93

+ 100.49

+ 100.06

+ 99.27

24' -

7 1

/4"

(7.5

0m

)

C/L OF ROAD @ GREY

-1' - 2 1/2"

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

29' -

11"

(9.1

2m

)

30' -

1 1

/4"

(9.1

8m

)

28' -

0"

(8.5

4m

)

12"

12"

17"

3' -

3"

(0.9

9m

)

PROJECT NORTH

BANANARCdesign + build

NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132

THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND RANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELYTO BANANARCH.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEPROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.



IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEAPPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.

©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVEBANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONTHEREOF. THEYMAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEYMAYNOT BE ALTERED IN ANYWAYWITHOUT THEXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.


IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCRESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONETITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THDRAWINGS.

THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCEUSED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANOTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.

* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEAREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS

TORONTO, ON

1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEJAN.12.18

2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEJAN.26.18

3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEFEB.13.18



3/16" = 1'-0"REAR ELEVATION (SOUTH)A

A201 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"

H

NO:

EPORT

TOR. FORE

ST

D.

S

E

Y D ESE

D OR Y

SE

W

W

W

A201REAR ELEVATION

0' - 0"


0' - 0"


19' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

32' - 9 1/2"

T/O ROOF

32' - 9 1/2"

T/O ROOF


28' - 0"

24' - 7 1/2"

SIDEWALL HEIGHT

28' - 8 1/2"

MIDPOINT OF ROOF

-4' - 0"

BASEMENT LEVEL

8' - 0"

FAMILY ROOM


-1' - 5"

4' -

9 3

/4"

9' -

0"

1' -

0"

10' -

0"

1' -

0"

11' -

0"

32' -

9 3

/4"

(10.0

0m

)

30' -

1 1

/4"

(9.1

8m

)

+ 99.27

+ 100.06

+ 102.93

+ 106.28

+ 109.24

+ 110.49

GROUND FLOOR

6' - 1 1/2"

6' -

1 1

/2"

11' -

10 1

/2"

1' -

0"

9' -

0"

4' -

9 3

/4"

+ 100.49

+ 110.49

+ 102.36

+ 100.49

24' -

7 1

/2"

(7.5

0m

)

28' -

0"

(8.5

4m

)

12"

12"

17"

24' -

7 1

/4"

(7.5

0m

)

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






1/8" = 1'-0"

A202WEST ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION (WEST)A

A203 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"

0' - 0"


19' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

32' - 9 1/2"

T/O ROOF


28' - 0"

24' - 7 1/2"

SIDEWALL HEIGHT

28' - 8 1/2"

MIDPOINT OF ROOF

-4' - 0"

BASEMENT LEVEL

8' - 0"

FAMILY ROOM


-1' - 5"

4' -

9 3

/4"

9' -

0"

1' -

0"

10' -

0"

1' -

0"

11' -

0"

29' -

11"

(9.1

2m

)

+ 99.27

+ 100.06

+ 102.93

+ 106.28

+ 109.03

+ 109.24

+ 110.49

+ 100.49

32' -

9 3

/4"

(10.0

0m

)

C/L OF ROAD @ GREY

-1' - 2 1/2"

GROUND FLOOR

6' - 1 1/2"

7' -

0"

30' -

1 1

/4"

(9.1

8m

)

12"

12"

17"

28' -

0"

(8.5

4m

)

PROJECT NORTH


NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:SCALE:

DRAWING TITLE:

DATE:

DRAWING NO:

DESCRIPTION


DATE

PROJECT:

(416) 414-4900TEL:

[email protected]


367 DOUGLAS AVE.

M.G

N.A

JAN 2018

F-0132











TORONTO, ON






1/8" = 1'-0"

A203EAST ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION (EAST)A

A202 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"

decision and order - toronto › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 10 › 8f9f... ·...

Documents