1941120 Ontario Ltd (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 222

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-05-06

20 209020 S45 11 TLAB

1941120 Ontario Ltd (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 222

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

May 6, 2024

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):

1941120 Ontario Ltd

Applicant(s):

1941120 Ontario Ltd

Property Address:

57 Major St.

COA File No.:

20 138367 STE 11 MV (A0395/20TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

20 209020 S45 11 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

September 1, 2021,

June 2, 2021,

February 10, 2022,

February 14, 2022,

March 15, 2023

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

April 5, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant/Owner/Appellant

1941120 Ontario Ltd

M. Mazierski

Party

M. Perin

Party

J. Sit

R. Penslar

Participant

R. Penslar

Participant

Y. Karshon

Participant

C. Carvalho

Participant

C. Ing

Participant

S. Hastie

Participant

J. Hastie

Participant

D. Penslar

Participant

S. Aggarwal

Participant

T. Grant

Participant

S. McDonald

Participant

T. Cheney

Participant

W. Su

Participant

Sakamoto

Participant

DeSousa

Participant

Hune

Participant

Von Lieres

Participant

E. Bearrs

Witness

M. Zwarenstein

Witness

R. Brown

Witness

X. Xia

Witness (Summons)

M. Wang (City of Toronto)

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This matter comes to me as a result of a Decision and Order of Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) Chair, Dino Lombardi on March 26, 2024, to assign a new Member to dispose of this matter appropriately. The Member presiding at the Hearing, Member Gopikrishna, was unable to complete the Decision due to unprecedented circumstances.¹

2Following the direction of the Chair to dispose of the matter appropriately and to promptly issue a final decision and order, I have visited the property, reviewed all of the filed documents and watched recordings of the five separate hearing days (19.5 hours).

3The discussions and testimony captured in the recordings are exhaustive and there are 163 documents entered into the record. I find that there are no outstanding questions that require any further evidence or testimony and given the circumstances, I have elected to issue this Final Decision and Order without any further attendance by the Parties or Participants.

4TLAB Rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.12 and 2.17 provide the procedural framework within which I have issued this Decision.

5The Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused the requested variances for the property known as 57 Major St (subject property). An appeal was filed on behalf of the Owner.

6The subject property is located in the Harbord Village neighbourhood of the former City of Toronto. It is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan and zoned R under Zoning By-law 569-2013.

7There has been a notable lapse of time since the completion of the Hearing. In the intervening time, amendments to the Zoning By-law² have been made to permit up to four dwelling units in a townhouse. I acknowledge that the consideration of this variance application is perhaps an academic discussion as the Applicant is likely to have acted on the more permissive zoning permissions in the meanwhile. Nonetheless, it is my assignment to complete this Decision and close the file of the TLAB.

8I acknowledge that the more recent By-law change to the number of permissible units was not in evidence at the time of the Hearing. I do not rely on this information as a fact subject to judicial or adjudicative notice, but I note it here simply as updated as information for the Parties.

9REQUESTED VARIANCES:

1. Chapter 150.10.20.1.(2), By-law 569-2013

A secondary suite is a permitted use within a townhouse provided each dwelling

unit has a maximum of one secondary suite.

In this case, the townhouse will have two secondary suites.

2. Chapter 150.10.40.40., By-law 569-2013

The interior floor area of a secondary suite, or all secondary suites where more

than one is permitted, must be no more than 45% of the interior floor area of the

dwelling unit within which it is located.

In this case, the two secondary suites will occupy 56.36% of the interior

floor area of the dwelling unit within which they are located.

3. Chapter 200.5.10.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of one parking space is required to be provided for each secondary

suite in excess of one.

In this case, zero on-site parking spaces will be provided for the secondary suite

in excess of one.

10I visited the site and the surrounding area prior to hearing and reviewing the evidence.

11At the beginning of day 3 of the Hearing, when the hearing of evidence was to commence, the TLAB was advised that Ms. Sit, a Party, would not be able to participate in the Hearing any longer. The Presiding Member agreed to allow Ms. Penslar (registered as a Participant) to represent Ms. Sit.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

12TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure

Rule 2.2 – These Rules shall be liberally interpreted to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every Proceeding on its merit.

Rule 2.3 - The TLAB may exercise any of its powers under these Rules or applicable law, on its own initiative or at the request of any Person.

Rule 2.12 – The TLAB may grant all necessary exceptions to these Rules, or grant other relief as it considers appropriate, to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate matters before it in a just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.

Rule 2.17 – If a Member presiding over a hearing resigns from the TLAB before a decision or determination in that Proceeding is given, the Chair may appoint another Member to complete the Proceeding and issue a decision.

13Provincial Interest - S. 2

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.

14Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) for the subject area.

15Variance – 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.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

16A summary of evidence is presented here for the purpose of providing some context for the following sections of this Decision. All of the evidence and testimony in this matter has been carefully reviewed and the omission of any point of evidence in this summary should not be interpreted to mean that it was not fully considered, but rather that the recitation of it is not material to the threads of reasoning that will be outlined in the Issues and Analysis section below.

Mr. Xia (Witness for Owner)

17Mr. Xia described the property as follows:

• The dwelling on the property is a townhouse. Vehicular access is from a laneway behind the property.

• There is no change proposed to the outside of the building.

• The townhouse on the property currently contains a suite on the main floor and a suite comprising the second and third floors.

• When the Owner bought the property, there was a basement with a separate entrance. The basement is currently vacant. This is the component that the variances would legalize as an additional (second) secondary suite.

18Mr. Xia reviewed the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law and the other statutory tests. He provided the following information in support of his assertion that the proposal meets the tests.

• The property is well served by public transit, and shopping.

• The Planning Department did not send any reports to the COA.

• For each of the three variances, examples were provided of other similar variances approved by the COA.

• For variance 1 (more than two suites) and 3 (parking), examples drawn from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) information website and from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) were provided in further support of the assertion that the proposal reflects the character of the neighbourhood.

• The Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto have progressively moved to increase the options for adding different forms of housing in Neighbourhoods, such as garden suites, laneway houses and secondary suites.

Mr. Brown (Witness for Parties Sit and Perin)

19Mr. Brown asserted that the dwelling type is a “rowhouse” and not really a townhouse.

20He also suggested that once there was a secondary suite in the structure, it would no longer qualify as a townhouse. It was his opinion that a “secondary suite cannot be above or below another suite”.

21He asserted that the total area of the building that would be devoted to secondary suites is “beyond what would be deemed minor”. He asserted that “if Council wanted three units in a townhouse, they should change the By-law”.

22Mr. Brown did not provide other COA Decisions for comparison, although he said he had reviewed them.

Ms. Perin (Party)

23Ms. Perin’s testimony focused on “health and safety issues” with respect to the use of the building.

24Ms. Perin advised that the neighbourhood was established in the 1890’s. She provided some history of how the houses had been occupied in the past.

25She questioned the accuracy of the plans that had been submitted, as well as Mr. Xi’s calculation of the percentage of the total floor area that would be consumed by the two secondary suites if the variances were approved. (Variance 2).

Ms. Penslar (Participant)

26Ms. Penslar asserted that multi-tenant dwellings present serious health and safety risks. She and her neighbours object to “unsafe housing that poses risk to the building inhabitants and the neighbours.”

27She asserted that the appeal body has a right to refuse a variance even if it does meet the four tests; that the TLAB can take into account anything that reasonably has a bearing.

28It was Ms. Penslar’s opinion that the language of the Planning Act regarding provincial interest in the “orderly development of safe and healthy communities” means that health and safety are within the mandate of the TLAB.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

29There were a number of procedural issues, including the relevance of certain lines of argument and the standing of Mr. Brown in the Hearing, that were set aside by the Presiding Member for consideration in the Final Decision. I will address these concerns before setting out the reasons for my Decision in relation to the four statutory tests.

• Status of Mr. Brown.

30Mr. Brown was retained by Parties Perin and Sit. He submitted an Expert Witness Statement and wished to be qualified as an expert qualified to give opinion evidence in this matter.

31Mr. Mazierski challenged the qualification of Mr. Brown as an expert qualified to give opinion evidence in this Hearing. He reviewed Mr. Brown’s curriculum vitae (c.v.) and noted that Mr. Brown had not been qualified as an expert in land use planning in cases he cited in his c.v.

32Mr. Brown asserted that he had been qualified as a “local knowledge expert” and suggested that he had developed a knowledge of the zoning by-law through his involvement with the COA and with the Annex Residents’ Association.

33Mr. Mazierski also raised concerns regarding Mr. Brown’s understanding of the role of an Expert in these proceedings as he, Mr. Brown, had filed documents advocating for the Parties while an Expert is expected to acknowledge their duty to give objective evidence to the tribunal.

34The Presiding Member qualified Mr. Brown for the meanwhile as a local knowledge expert and indicated he would hear closing submissions about the weight that could be accorded to Mr. Brown’s evidence.

35I find that Mr. Brown does not have the qualifications to be acknowledged as an Expert qualified to give opinion evidence on land use planning matters. He does not hold appropriate educational qualifications and is not a registered professional planner. His experience as a community representative for his residents’ association, and previously as a COA Member, do not give him more than an observer’s knowledge of the discipline of City Planning.

36Mr. Brown could perhaps have been qualified to give evidence as a local knowledge expert if he had some elevated knowledge of the Harbord Village area. I do not find that he can claim such, as he does not reside in the area and provided no intimation of a deeper knowledge of the history, context or development of the area than any other resident of the City. Also, this kind of intimate local knowledge was not a feature of Mr. Brown’s evidence.

37I find that Mr. Brown should not be qualified as an Expert Witness in this matter. Overall, I give little weight to his evidence which I found to be heavy on opinion and light on substantiation, sometimes mistaken, and mostly irrelevant to the grounds for a decision – the four tests set out in the Planning Act.

38I will note here that Mr. Xia did not request to be qualified as an Expert and gave evidence on his own behalf as a non-expert, including an analysis of data to support his assertion that the application met the four tests.

• Concerns not within the jurisdiction of the TLAB

39The concern underlying much of Ms. Perin’s evidence (numbers of bedrooms etc.) was that the requested variances for an additional second suite will facilitate the use of the property as a “rooming house”.

40In conjunction with the expressed concern about multi tenant houses³, Ms. Perin and Ms. Penslar associated risks to health and safety from contraventions of the Property Standards bylaw and the building code. Other issues such as landlord – tenant complaints and unauthorized building works were raised.

41The mandate of the COA and the TLAB are situated within a broader framework of legislation and policy. The Provincial Policy Statement sets out broad goals for land development in the Province. The Toronto Official Plan sets out the land use planning vision for the City of Toronto. The Zoning By-law implements the policies of the Official Plan by identifying performance standards and numerical site standards.

42The Zoning By-law sets out the provisions that a proposal must meet in order to obtain a building permit. A proposal that qualifies in this way is referred to as proceeding “as-of-right”. Should a development proposal exceed one or more of the Zoning By-law provisions, variances are required via a Committee of Adjustment approval, or a TLAB Decision and Order, before a building a building permit can be issued. The mandate of the TLAB is to decide whether the specific variances requested meet the four tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

43In this case, what is before the TLAB, and within its jurisdiction to consider, is whether three variances that were required to legalize a second secondary suite in the property meet the four tests set out in the Planning Act. Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and are they Desirable and Minor?

44Compliance with the Zoning By-law is only one of the requirements building plans must demonstrate. Very obviously, the Ontario Building Code sets the standards for safe buildings, including construction standards addressing fire safety and structural integrity. Regulations such as the Ontario Fire Code are also applicable law and must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit.

45Many of the concerns of the opposing Parties relate to structural safety and fire risk. I understand these concerns on the part of contiguous building owners. However, these concerns are the jurisdiction of the building permit process and not the TLAB. The TLAB is neither qualified nor mandated to make a decision on these matters. There is a robust body of regulation and dedicated enforcement personnel within the municipality to manage compliance.

46Ms. Penslar went to great efforts to assert that the Provincial Policy Statement identifies health and safety as a concern for planning and therefore asserted that the concerns regarding structural and fire safety are grounds for refusing the variances. They are not. The considerations of health and safety in a land use planning context do not include construction or occupancy standards. These are the purview of the Ontario Building Code and other regulations. Concerns regarding the use of a property as multi-tenant household and property standards concerns are the purview of City staff, the Multi-Tenant House Licensing Tribunal, the Landlord Tenant Board and the Property Standards Committee, amongst others.

47It is perhaps redundant to state that suspicions that the Owner would, or will, make illegal or unauthorized changes to the property under shelter of these variances, are not grounds for refusing the variances. The Owner in this case will be credited with the same probity as any other applicant.

48The mandate of the TLAB is to consider whether the plans as presented meet the four tests. Any variations from the plans are not sheltered by approval of the requested variances and neither are any future transgressions of multiple other By-laws and regulations.

49I understand why it is that the neighbours have brought these particular concerns to the TLAB even though they are outside of the mandate of this tribunal. This TLAB Hearing was perhaps the last opportunity for the neighbours to be heard in a public forum.

50It is common for the TLAB to impose a condition on approval of variances which stipulates that construction must be substantially in accordance with the drawings that have been justified through the course of the proceedings. The premise being that construction would proceed through the building permit process and that all requirements of the Building Code will be certified through that process.

51In order to vouchsafe to the neighbours that the construction will indeed meet Building Code standards, I shall supplement the customary TLAB condition requiring substantial accordance with the submitted drawings. This condition should not be an imposition for the Owner since compliance with the Ontario Building Code is already their legal obligation and the condition of approval on the variances would simply be a reinforcement of this standing requirement.

• Rezoning or “conversion”, not a variance.

52There was an assertion by Mr. Brown and Ms. Perin that approval of two secondary suites within a dwelling constitutes a “conversion” which goes beyond the approval of a variance. When questioned by the Presiding Member, Mr. Brown suggested that such a proposal requires a rezoning instead of a variance.

53No supporting analysis of the Planning Act, the Policies of the Official Plan, or the language of the Zoning By-law was provided in support of this proposition.

54The proposal does not constitute a change in use. The use of the property would remain as a residential use, albeit with an additional suite within the dwelling. No changes are to be made to the exterior of the building. The R Zoning on the property permits the full range of residential building types, including townhouses, triplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings, as of right.

55Even if I were to agree that the addition of a second secondary suite constituted a conversion into another building type, which I do not, all of the other possible building types into which it could be morphed are in any event permitted within the R zone.

56The number of secondary suites within a townhouse is controlled by a specific provision in the Zoning By-law (150.10.20.1.(2)).

57Permission for two secondary suites within the dwelling at 57 Major St is appropriately addressed through a variance. A rezoning is not required.

• Accuracy and correctness of the Proposed Plans

58Ms. Perin, in her evidence, had identified a number of errors and inaccuracies in the plans submitted by Mr. Xia.

59On the fourth Hearing day, the Presiding Member requested that the Owner obtain a Zoning Notice from the Zoning Examiner to confirm the magnitude of the variance required for Variance 2, (the percentage of the interior floor area that would be occupied by the secondary suites).

60Prior to the last Hearing day, Mr. Mazierski submitted revised plans incorporating corrections to the errors Ms. Perin had identified, and a Zoning Notice from the Zoning Examiner on the basis of those revised plans.

61I will rely on the authority of the plans examiner to identify the necessary variances to the Zoning By-law prior to consideration of a building permit.

THE FIRST TEST: GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

62Mr. Xia referenced Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;

d) prevailing building type(s);

e) prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages;

f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;

h) continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and

i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.

63Mr. Xia’s evidence was that there are no changes proposed to the exterior of the building or to the site and therefore the proposal does not change or influence the physical character of the neighbourhood at all.

64Mr. Brown’s Witness Statement did not identify the reasons for his opinion that the variances do not meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

65During his testimony, Mr. Brown referred to criterion c) in OP Policy 4.1.5. He suggested that:

• “density” could refer to population density potentially;

• the building type was not a townhouse, but actually a “rowhouse”; and

• “rowhouses” are not the prevailing dwelling type in the neighbourhood.

66I do not find merit in Mr. Brown’s suggestions.

67The criteria for development in Neighbourhoods are physical, not social or demographic. “Prevailing density” refers to physical density, i.e. the amount of building/ floor space on a lot, not the number of persons living on the property, their relationship to one another, nor their type of tenure.

68Building type is defined in the Zoning By-law. The Zoning By-law categorizes residential building types as: detached house, semi-detached house, townhouse, duplex, triplex, fourplex and apartment building. The architectural term “rowhouse” is not a term used in the By-law, in the same way that the By-law uses “Apartment Building” to refer to the building type and not “block of flats”. The historic building on the property is a typical example of the townhouse building type.

69Mr. Brown made the assertion that townhouses (“rowhouses”) are not the prevailing dwelling type and therefore that the variances do not meet OP Policy 4.1.5 c). This assertion exhibits a misunderstanding of land use planning fundamentals and the Official Plan policy. The townhouse exists, it is permitted as of right, and the townhouse type is not at issue in these proceedings. Even if an entirely new townhouse were to be proposed on this site, it would not be precluded by OP Policy 4.1.5 c) as the Parties have shown there are a substantial number of other townhouses in the neighbourhood.

70Mr. Xia did not address other policies of the Official Plan such as the affordable housing objectives and policies in Chapter 3.2.1. He also did not address the overall vision for Neighbourhoods.

71I am nonetheless satisfied that there is sufficient basis to find that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The changes that are proposed only affect the interior and do not affect the physical character of the dwelling or the neighbourhood. The variances do not offend the expectation of low scale buildings and residential uses envisaged by the Official Plan policies for Neighbourhoods.

THE SECOND TEST: GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW.

Variance 3. Number of Parking Spaces.

72As confirmed by the Zoning Examiner, the requested variance for parking was no longer required when Mr. Mazierski obtained a Zoning Notice in January 2023. Mr. Mazierski requested that the variance be formally approved since it was identified at the time the application was filed.

73The subject property is richly served by public transit, services and shopping within walking distance.

74I find that the requested variance to provide no additional parking maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Variance 1: To allow two secondary suites in a townhouse.

75Evidence for the opposing Parties and Ms. Perin highlighted that there are greater restrictions regarding the number of secondary suites allowed in a townhouse as compared to a semi-detached or detached dwelling type. They submitted that maintaining restriction to one secondary suite in a townhouse is necessary to fulfil the intent of the Zoning By-law.

76Evidence for the Appellant relied on the City’s evolving policy development activities and pointed to expanding permissions for additional housing options in Neighbourhoods. Specifically, Mr. Xia’s evidence was that since a laneway suite would be permitted on the property in addition to the existing secondary suite and therefore the Zoning By-law does not intend that the number of subordinate suites should be limited to only one.

77It is important to remember that a Zoning By-law represents parameters of development that can be permitted as of right; it is not intended to be an “ideal” but rather a threshold beyond which appropriate development within the planning context must be considered, often through the process of application for variances.

78To accept the position of the opposing Parties and Ms. Perin, would be to accept that no variance to this provision of the Zoning By-law was possible.

79Mr. Xia’s contention was that it is not the intent of the By-law to prohibit a second secondary suite. Mr. Xia failed to explain, however, what he understood the intent and purpose of this specific provision to be if it is not to limit the number of secondary suites in a townhouse.

80This gap in the evidence of the Appellant is not inconsequential. It goes to the heart of the second test, which is what is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and can the variance be accommodated within that intent and purpose?

81The Member presiding at the Hearing allowed the Appellant a number of opportunities to submit supplemental evidence, including a formal Zoning Notice. It is, however, not the duty of the adjudicator to perfect the case of any of the Parties. It remains the burden of the Applicant (Appellant in this case) to satisfy the TLAB that the four tests have been met.

82Even though the Appellant has not directly addressed the question of the general intent and purpose of this provision, I have weighed the evidence and on balance, I find that a minimum threshold has been reached to find that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law would be maintained.

83Amendments to the By-law to allow additional suites, such as laneway suites and garden suites had been introduced at the time of the application. Therefore, more than two suites, albeit in different form, could be permitted on the property.

84In consideration of the contrast between the number of permitted secondary suites in a townhouse versus a detached or semi-detached house, it would not seem that it is the size of potential townhouse secondary suites that is the point of concern. A secondary suite on the main floor exists in this case, and is permitted. A secondary suite would be permitted without a variance in the basement if one did not already exist on the main floor. Independently, these secondary suites were each permitted without variance, but, in conjunction, they required a variance. The approval of an additional secondary suite in the basement does not compromise the area or functioning of the main unit, or the existing secondary suite on the main floor.

85The City’s Official Plan policies seek a healthier balance between high rise ownership housing and other forms, including affordable rental housing. The discussion within the Hearing of how affordability of housing is defined is not helpful, in my opinion. The proposed second suite is a more affordable option than much of the other private market housing stock in the City.

Variance 2: To permit the interior floor area of the secondary suites to exceed 45% of the interior floor area of the dwelling unit.

86Mr. Mazierski asserted in his closing submissions that the purpose of this provision is to make sure that the secondary units remain subordinate to the main unit.

87Mr. Xia’s opinion was that the difference between the 45% of interior floor area allowed for secondary suites and the 56.36% proposed is inconsequential.

88I find that the proposed variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law since the small increase in floor area to be devoted to the secondary suites has no impact on the interior floor area of either of the existing suites in the townhouse.

89The amount of floor area in each of the units/suites is determined by the existing structure, with the two top floors of the building comprising one unit and the main floor comprising a secondary suite. Limiting the interior floor area of the basement suite to meet the stipulation of the By-law would serve no practical benefit to any of the occupants and would unnecessarily limit the living space of the basement suite.

90I find that the variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

THE THIRD TEST: DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND.

91The proposed additional secondary suite in the basement of the townhouse at the subject property would add a suite of more affordable rental housing to a segment of the housing market where there is a desperate shortage. The property is well served by transit, retail and services.

92I find that the proposal is desirable for the development of the land.

THE FOURTH TEST: MINOR.

93The test for “minor” focuses on the scale and nature of perceived impact caused by the variances. The courts have established that the test is not that there be no impact, but that the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature.

94The alterations to facilitate an additional secondary suite are wholly contained within the existing building. There is no impact of a planning nature from the addition of another secondary suite to the existing townhouse.

NOTICE

95Variance 2 was revised after the Zoning Examiner’s final Zoning Notice to include the amount of interior floor space that the secondary suites would occupy (56.36%). The substance of the proposal was not altered. I find that the revisions that have been made to the application that was previously considered by the COA to be minor. I therefore find that no further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

CONCLUSION

96I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. I find that the requested variances are minor and desirable for the development of the land.

DECISION AND ORDER

97The Appeal is allowed, in part. The variances listed in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

1. Bassios

Panel Vice-Chair

APPENDIX A

APPROVED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL:

VARIANCES:

1. Chapter 150.10.20.1.(2), By-law 569-2013

A secondary suite is a permitted use within a townhouse provided each dwelling

unit has a maximum of one secondary suite.

In this case, the townhouse will have two secondary suites.

2. Chapter 150.10.40.40., By-law 569-2013

The interior floor area of a secondary suite, or all secondary suites where more

than one is permitted, must be no more than 45% of the interior floor area of the

dwelling unit within which it is located.

In this case, the two secondary suites will occupy 56.36% of the interior

floor area of the dwelling unit within which they are located.

3. Chapter 200.5.10.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of one parking space is required to be provided for each secondary

suite in excess of one.

In this case, zero on-site parking spaces will be provided for the secondary suite

in excess of one.

CONDITIONS:

1. The Owner will allow access to officials from Toronto Building to fully inspect the building at 57 Major St for compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

2. The alterations to the dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Existing Site Plan (drawing A0.00), Proposed Basement Floor Plan (A1.01), Existing Ground Floor Plan (A1.02), Existing Second Floor Plan (A1.03), and Existing Third Floor Plan (A1.04) prepared by CHANNEL R LIMITED and dated September 14, 2022, attached hereto.

Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized.

(3)

Conversion of a Portion of a Townhouse to Multiple Dwelling Units

In the Residential Zone category, a portion of a townhouse located on one lot may be converted to contain up to four dwelling units and may continue to be considered as a townhouse despite the building type definitions in Chapter 800 provided:

(A)

if the original building was constructed prior to May 15, 2023 and the additional dwelling units are contained entirely within the lawfully existing building, subject to regulations 10.5.20.40(4) and (5);

(B)

The remaining portions of the townhouse located on adjacent lots and within the same townhouse that are not subject to the conversion are considered to be located within the original building type for the purposes of applying the standards contained within this by-law;

(C)

For the purpose of regulations 10.10.40.10(1), 10.20.40.10(1), 10.40.40.10(1), 10.60.40.10(1), 10.80.40.10(1), 10.10.40.10(3), 10.20.40.10(3), 10.40.40.10(3), 10.60.40.10(2), 10.80.40.10(3), 10.10.40.30(1), 10.10.40.40(1), 10.20.40.40(1), 10.40.40.40(1), 10.60.40.40(1) and 10.80.40.40(1), the portion of a townhouse located on one lot that is converted to contain up to four dwelling units referenced in this regulation may be considered to be a duplex, triplex or fourplex despite the building type definitions in Chapter 800; and

(D)

If more than one dwelling unit within a building originally constructed as a townhouse is converted in accordance with this regulation, the building is to be considered the lawfully existing original building type, subject to regulation 10.5.20.40(5). [ By-law: 474-2023 ]

Footnotes

1. 1Citation: 1941120 Ontario Ltd (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 206. TLAB File Number 20 209020 S45 11 TLAB.
2. 210.5.20 Permitted Uses
3. 3The City has recently instituted a licensing regime for multi-tenant houses (“rooming houses”) in all parts of the City. See Chapter 575 of the Toronto Municipal Code.