Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 233268 S53 08 TLAB 24 233272 S45 08 TLAB 24 233276 S45 08 TLAB
Domingues (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 311
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 10, 2025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): MANUEL DOMINGUES
Applicant(s): EKP DESIGNS INC
Property Address: 336 GLEN PARK AVE
COA File No.: 24 183117 NNY 08 CO (B0030/24NY) 24 183120 NNY 08 MV (A0368/24NY) 24 183121 NNY 08 MV (A0369/24NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 233268 S53 08 TLAB 24 233272 S45 08 TLAB 24 233276 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): February 13, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member A. Brown
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
EKP DESIGNS INC
Appellant
M. DOMINGUES
A. STEWART
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The Appellant, Manuel Domingues, is the owner of 336 Glen Park Avenue (the subject property). He sought the consent of the Committee of Adjustment to sever the subject property into two lots, and he proposed to build a duplex on each lot. His building proposal required variances from City of Toronto Zoning By-Law 569-2013. The Committee of Adjustment denied the Appellant’s application for consent to sever the lot, and for the variances, on October 10, 2024 and this Appeal was subsequently filed along with the Appellant’s Disclosure in Form 3.
2The TLAB heard three appeals together: the request to sever the subject property (with conditions), the proposed variances for the duplex on Lot 1 and the proposed variances for the duplex on Lot 2.
3This Appeal was heard on February 13, 2025, by way of a virtual hearing on the “Web Ex" Platform. The TLAB’s Notice of Hearing was issued on November 13, 2024.
4The Owner appeared at the hearing along with his legal counsel, Amber Stewart.
5There were no other Parties at the hearing. There were no Participants. Observers who identified themselves were Joseph Ragusa and Rizgar Welat. Mr. Welat had filed a late Form 4 Election in which he was unclear as to whether he was electing party status or participant status. He asserted at the hearing that he did not receive a Notice of Hearing. However, the TLAB staff had circulated the Notice to the recipients who were entitled to it. I explained to Mr. Welat that I would not allow him to participate in the hearing because he had not filed a witness statement in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and had therefore not provided the Appellant with any notice as to what position he would be taking or what evidence he might be relying upon. This would apply whether he was a party or a participant.
6I advised those present that, in accordance with direction to the TLAB by City Council, I had visited the site and surrounding neighbourhood and reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the Hearing, but that it was the evidence to be heard that was of importance.
7The proposal is to sever the Subject Site into two lots and construct a new two- storey detached dwelling upon each lot, each containing two dwelling units.
8The proposed lot frontage, lot area and dwelling unit sizes are as follows:
a. Part 1 – 7.62m, 307.8m2 , with dwelling unit sizes of 69.63m2 (one bedroom) and 231.81m2 (three bedrooms).
b. Part 2 – 7.62m, 308.8m2 , with dwelling unit sizes of 69.63m2 (one bedroom) and 231.81m2 (three bedrooms).
9The variances to the Zoning By-law proposed for 336 Glen Park Avenue, PART 1 are as follows:
i. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.
The proposed east side yard setback is 1.20 metres and the proposed west side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
ii. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum front porch side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed porch west side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
iii. Chapter 5.10.40.70(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for the front canopy is 1.80 metres.
The proposed west side yard setback for the front canopy is 0.55 metres.
iv Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed west side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
v. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east side yard setback is 1.20 metres.
vi. Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 metres of a rear main wall, which are greater than 1.2 metres above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting 2.5 metres from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains.
The proposed rear deck projects 2.74 metres from the rear wall.
vii Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550.0 square metres.
The proposed lot area is 307.8 square metres.
viii Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 metres.
The proposed lot frontage is 7.62 metres.
ix. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.50 metres.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.06 metres.
10The variances to the Zoning By-law proposed for 336 Glen Park Avenue, PART 2 are as follows:
i. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.
The proposed east side yard setback is 0.55 metres and the proposed west side yard setback is 1.20 metres.
ii. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum front porch side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east porch side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
iii Chapter 5.10.40.70(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for the front canopy is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east side yard setback for the front canopy is 0.55 metres.
iv Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
v. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed west side yard setback is 1.20 metres.
vi. Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 metres of a rear main wall, which are greater than 1.2 metres above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting 2.5 metres from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains.
The proposed rear deck projects 2.74 metres from the rear wall.
vii. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550.0 square metres.
The proposed lot area is 308.8 square metres.
viii. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 metres.
The proposed lot frontage is 7.62 metres.
ix Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.50 metres.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.11 metres.
11These proposed variances incorporate changes that were made at the Committee of Adjustment (COA) to reflect changes suggested by the City Planning Department to widen some proposed setbacks. There were also corrections and updates incorporated into the revised Zoning Examination Notice dated January 7, 2025. Pursuant to s.48.18.1 of the Planning Act, I find that the amendments are minor and that no new notice of hearing is required.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
12Provincial 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.
13Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
14Consent – S. 53
TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
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 have 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 in arriving at the Decision.
17The Appellant filed an Expert Witness Statement by Franco Romano, including his curriculum vitae. Mr. Romano testified about his qualifications and professional background in land use planning, and his many years of relevant experience, including planning experience specifically pertinent to North York. I accepted his qualification to testify as an expert in the instant matter.
18Mr. Romano stated that the proposal is to permit the severance of 336 Glen Park Avenue into two lots, and to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling on each lot. Each proposed dwelling is a duplex, comprising one three-bedroom unit and one one-bedroom unit. In each, there is an integral single-car garage incorporated into the design at grade.
19The Appellant’s documentary evidence (which is included in Exhibit 1, the Expert Witness Statement) consisted of:
Survey and draft plan of survey describing Part 1 and Part 2 of the proposed lots, updated to incorporate requirements from City Departments where necessary
Site plan for the existing property
Site plans for the proposed properties
Drawings of the proposed dwellings on each lot
Zoning Examiner’s Notice dated January 7, 2025
Photographs of the subject property
Photographs of properties in the neighbourhood
Maps of the immediate and broader context in the neighbourhood
Analysis of the lot frontages, lot areas and side yard setbacks in the neighbourhood
Table of variance decisions affecting properties in the neighbourhood, along with copies of some variance decisions
20The subject property is located between Dufferin Street and Allen Road, south of Lawrence Avenue West, on the north side of Glen Park Avenue. The lot has a frontage of 15.24m, and a depth ranging from 40.33m. to 40.58m. The lot area is 616.6 square metres. There is currently a one-storey dwelling on the site, along with a rear yard detached garage.
21Mr. Romano explained that the proposed dwellings will frame the street with a consistent front yard setback, as well as front wall, landscape, parking and rear yard features that are all within the existing zoning by-law, as are the building length and depth. The proposed dwellings are detached. They will have a front-facing entrance. The second storey has a floor to ceiling height of 2.44m and the sloped low-profile roof is under the permitted building height. In his opinion, the proposed lots and dwellings will have characteristics that reflect the surrounding physical context, and the proposal “implements the existing, evolving planning framework in an appropriate manner”.
22The surrounding area is designated by the Official Plan as “Neighbourhoods”. This designation permits residential uses that include lower scale “duplexes”. Moreover, the property is zoned by Zoning By-law 569-2013 for detached residential purposes, including residential “duplexes”.
23Mr. Romano testified that he used a neighbourhood study area bounded by the interior of Dufferin Street to the west and Marlee Avenue to the east, Glenbrook Avenue to the north and Hillmount Avenue to the south. He described the characteristics and measurements of the lots within the study area. Lot frontages range from 7.62m to 15.24m within the same block as the subject property, and 7.62m to 16.82m along Glen Park Avenue. Side yard setbacks along the same block range from 0.0m to 8.8m. Of the 33 properties in the block, 23 (69.7%) have both side yard setbacks smaller than 1.8m and 100% have one side yard setback less than 1.8m. In Mr. Romano’s opinion, the proposed dwellings will respect and reinforce the prevailing characteristics in the study area, particularly in the immediate context of the subject property.
24Mr. Romano testified about the Official Plan. Chapter One of the Official Plan recognizes the importance of housing accessibility and affordability, including a broader range of housing options. Chapter Two focuses on increasing the supply of housing in mixed use environments, and making better use of existing infrastructure and services, including transit accessibility. Moreover, Policy 2.3.1.1 states that “Neighbourhoods are low rise and low-density residential areas that are considered to be physically stable. Development in Neighbourhoods will be consistent with this objective and will respect the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas.” In Mr. Romano’s opinion the proposal is consistent with the policies in Chapter Two. The Official Plan does not require that new developments replicate or mimic existing developments.
25Policy 3.1.3.1 in Chapter Three of the Official Plan requires that new development shall fit within its existing and planned context, including such considerations as front yard setbacks, front facing entrances, front facing windows and doors, and preserving mature trees. In Mr. Romano’s opinion, the proposed dwellings meet these requirements and also provide appropriate side yard setbacks from the neighbours. He observed that the rear deck will be screened and that some overlook from side windows is to be expected. In his view, there will be “no adverse impact on public realm sunlight and daylight given the compliant front yard setbacks and overall building height”.
26Policy 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the Official Plan encourage a full range of housing and state that new housing will be encouraged through intensification and infill that is consistent with the Plan. In Mr. Romano’s opinion, the proposal conforms to the applicable housing policies in Chapter Three and also conforms to the natural environment policies in the Plan.
27Chapter Four of the Official Plan deals with “Neighbourhoods”. Policy 4.4.1 states that neighbourhoods are made up of lower scale residential buildings that include, among other types, duplexes. Chapter Four specifies Development Criteria in Policy 4.1.5 intended to ensure the “stability” of Neighbourhoods’ physical character, stating that physical changes must be “sensitive”, “gradual” and “fit” the existing physical character.
28However, Mr. Romano asserted that Official Plan Site and Area Specific (SAS) Policies apply to the subject site, meaning that no weight is to be given to the development criteria in Policy 4.1.5. Instead, the proposal is subject to the multiplex SAS policy criteria framework for an assessment of fit, compatibility and character.
29With regard to the criteria in Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Mr. Romano’s expert opinion is that (i) the proposal would not change the existing street patterns; (ii) 56.5% of lot frontages in the broader context are less than 15m.; (iii) 55.1% of lot sizes are less than 550m2; (iv) in the immediate context, 39.4% of lots have less than 15m frontage and 39.4% of lots have less than 550m2 lot area; (v) along Glen Park Avenue, lots range from 7.62m to 16.82m frontage, with 64.8% having less than 15m frontage and 64.8% having less than 550m2 lot area; (vi) the proposed development fits well within the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and type of nearby residential properties; (vii) the prevailing building type is detached residential and the proposal fits this criterion; (viii) the garage is at grade and accessible from the street; (ix) the front yard setback aligns well with neighbouring properties and is permitted by the Zoning By-law; (x) the rear yard setback is within the zoning requirement; (xi) the side yard setbacks in the area are often below 1.8m; and (xii) there are no pertinent special landscape or built-form features and no evident heritage buildings, structures or landscapes.
30Mr. Romano stated that the area contains development that is “at variance” with the Zoning By-law. To illustrate this, he produced photographs of dwellings, a property map, aerial photographs, his own numeric measurements, along with a Decision Summary Table listing Committee of Adjustment decisions for variances in the area. In his opinion, the proposal “reflects complying standards and variances of the zoning by-law that reflect the existing Neighbourhoods area.”
31Mr. Romano also addressed the Official Plan Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (Multiplexes) in some detail.
32Having regard to the requirements of Policy 826, Mr. Romano stated that the proposal: (i) will not change the patterns of streets, blocks, lanes, parks and public building sites; (ii) has lot frontages and lot sizes that conform to prevailing lot size and configuration given the variety of existing dimensions, with many lots having measurements less than those required by the Zoning By-law; (iii) has front yard setbacks for the dwellings that conform to the Zoning By-law; (iv) will provide soft landscaping that exceeds the Zoning-Bylaw requirement; and (v) has no effect on heritage properties or special landscaping. Moreover, the proposal satisfies the large unit and multiple bedroom aspects that the policy encourages. Each unit would have a separate entrance, accessible from the street. Other requirements of the policy are also met, including that there are no primary windows near to neighbouring dwelling side lot lines, minimizing the privacy impact between the dwellings.
33In Mr. Romano’s overall opinion, the proposal conforms substantially to the Official Plan.
34Mr. Romano proceeded to testify about the application of Zoning By-law 569-2013. The subject property is zoned RD-detached. This permits detached house, duplex, triplex, and fourplex residential building types. Other building types are permitted with conditions. Mr. Romano stated that the overall intent of the Zoning By-law is to achieve orderly, compatible development. The proposal would create a detached residential site that, in his opinion, only requires limited variances. The proposed lot sizes fit well within the surrounding lot sizes.
35Mr. Romano explained that the side yard setbacks provide suitable space for access, maintenance and spatial separation, and reflect the setbacks in the surrounding area. The wall height ensures that the roof slope and walls conform to a low-rise dwelling. The rear deck maintains a “substantial rear yard for open space”.
36In sum, Mr. Romano’s expert opinion is that the proposal maintains the general intent of the zoning by-law.
37Mr. Romano also testified that the proposed variances are minor. He stated that the building variances and lot sizes reflect patterns that exist in proximity to the subject property and do not create unacceptable adverse impacts.
38Mr. Romano stated that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure. It contributes to the housing supply, and the design maintains the detached residential physical form in the Neighbourhood.
39Mr. Romano stated that the proposal is also consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. In particular, it is consistent with the object of intensification and development including a mix of housing types, transit-supportive development, and the efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. Mr. Romano further stated that in his opinion, the proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest listed in section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly by increasing the housing supply.
40Turning to the request for a consent to sever the lot, Mr. Romano stated that in his opinion, a plan of subdivision is not necessary to facilitate the proposal. Other lots in the area had been created by severance, and no road or other widening is required. Mr. Romano stated that the criteria contained in section 51(24) of the Planning Act (listed in paragraph 14 above) are also met.
41The Appellant did not call any other witnesses.
ISSES AND ANALYSIS
42The onus is on the Appellant to provide evidence to support the request for a consent to sever the existing lot. The Appellant also has the onus to prove that the proposed variances meet all four statutory tests in section 45(1) of the Planning Act, That is, do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law? Are they desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land? Are they minor in nature?
43A hearing before the TLAB is a hearing ‘de novo’ under s.45(18) of the Planning Act (Act), meaning the entire application that was before the Committee of Adjustment must be considered anew.
44A variance is a privilege and not a right, and a variance will not be approved if it fails to meet all four tests.
45The only evidence before the Tribunal is the expert evidence of Mr. Romano, along with the plans, drawings, photographs, maps, surveys and other documents listed in this decision and included in Exhibit 1.
The Planning Act, s.2 and s.3
The Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
46The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, and its decision must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS). I accept Mr. Romano’s evidence that the Proposal is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement. The general direction of the Provincial Policy is to encourage intensification at appropriate locations that can take advantage of existing services and infrastructure. The Proposal meets this objective. Moreover, I agree with Mr. Romano that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Interest specified in s.2(j) of the Planning Act, namely, the provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing.
The Proposed Severance
47Should the Tribunal consent to the severance of the existing lot into Part 1 and Part 2 as proposed? If granted, the consent would be subject to several standard conditions.
48The statistical analysis (found at pages 54-56 of the Expert Witness Statement) demonstrates that there is range of lot frontages and of lot sizes among properties in the immediate and broader context.
49In the broader context, 55.1% of the lots have less than 550m2 lot area and 64.8% of the lots on Glen Park Avenue have less than 550m2 lot area; 56.5% of the lots have less than 15m frontage. On Glen Park Avenue itself, 66.7% of lots have less than 15m frontage. Thirteen lots on Glen Park Avenue have lot frontage of 7.62m or less. One lot is between 7.63m and 9.13m in frontage. Another 13 lots on the street are between 9.14m and 10.64m in frontage. On neighbouring Glencairn Avenue, there are several existing lots having a frontage of 7.62m or less. By comparison, thirty-six lots on the street have frontage of 15.18m or greater (out of a total of 108 lots in the three blocks of Glen Park Avenue identified in the study).
50The statistics found on page 54 of Exhibit One also demonstrate a considerable range of side yard setback measurements, with many lots on the same block as the subject property having one or both side yard setbacks smaller than the zoning requirement.
51In my view, these statistics show that the creation of two lots each having a frontage of 7.62m and having a rectangular lot area of 307.8m2 (Part 1) and 308.8m2 (Part 2) is compatible with other lots in the area. The proposal for these detached low-rise dwellings also conforms with Official Plan policies that are in favour of gentle intensification in Neighbourhoods and the creation of a full range of housing (including duplexes). While lot frontages of the length proposed in these Appeals are not “prevailing,” they are represented in sufficient numbers.
52I agree with Mr. Romano’s uncontroverted evidence that no plan of subdivision is required. I also concur with Mr. Romano’s evidence that the proposal conforms to the Official Plan and that proposed lot frontages and lot areas of the two severed lots will respect and reinforce the prevailing size and configuration of lots in the geographic neighbourhood and the immediate context.
53Therefore, with respect to the requirements of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, I find that the requested consent to sever has had due regard for criterion (f) - the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots. I am also satisfied that the proposal conforms to the Official Plan (as discussed below).
The Proposed Variances
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
54A detached duplex is a permitted dwelling type in the Neighbourhood.
55The evidence is that the dwellings in the broader and immediate context of the subject property are detached low-rise single-storey and two-storey types. The proposed detached dwellings are low-rise.
56The maps, measurements and photographs referred to by Mr. Romano provide a detailed picture of the broader context, the immediate context, and the block of 108 lots on Glen Park Avenue. The pertinent statistics are mentioned in my discussion of the severance proposal, above, and do not need to be repeated here.
57I agree with Mr. Romano that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The proposal would not change the existing street patterns, and the dwellings would fit well within the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and type of nearby residential properties. The garage in each dwelling is at grade and accessible from the street. The front yard setback is permitted by the Zoning By-law and the rear yard setback is also within the zoning requirement. Many of the existing side yard setbacks in the area are below 1.8m.
58The Proposal is also compliant with SAS Policy 826 (Multiplexes). The criteria of this Policy are described in paragraph 32, above, and I agree with Mr. Romano that the relevant criteria are met by the Proposal. The construction of multiplex dwellings (such as a duplex) is specifically encouraged by Policy 826. The duplexes will both include a three-bedroom unit and a one-bedroom unit. Entrances will be safely accessible from the street and the design minimizes privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units. The Appellant is not required to show that the development criteria in Policy 4.1.5. are met because the criteria in the SAS Policy apply “despite” those criteria (see Ghafoori (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 185).
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
59Mr. Romano emphasized that the proposal would see dwellings that conform to many of the requirements of Zoning By-law 569-2013, including the front yard setback, rear yard setback, and building height. Soft landscaping is maintained. The garage in each is at ground level, and the dwellings are front-facing. No variance is required for lot coverage.
60Variances are sought to permit the proposed side wall height, side yard setbacks (walls, porch, rear deck, front canopy), rear deck projection, lot frontage and lot area for each dwelling, as described in paragraphs 9 and 10, above.
61Mr. Romano testified about the range of side yard setbacks, lot frontages and lot areas in the broader and immediate context and along Glen Park Avenue. These are summarized elsewhere in this decision. The evidence shows that many of the lots and dwellings in the broader and immediate contexts do not conform with the existing zoning standards. For example, in the immediate context, 39.4% of the lots are less than 550m2 in size. Along Glen Park Avenue, 64,8% of the 108 lots are less than 550m2. Existing side yard setbacks include some dwellings with no side yard setback at all. Lot frontages are still predominately larger than those proposed by the Appellant, but there is nevertheless a significant range. By limiting the number of variances, limiting the building height, staying within the permitted lot coverage and avoiding intrusions into the front yard and rear yard setbacks, the Appellant has avoided potential concerns about over-building or excessive massing on these comparatively small lots. Instead, the evidence shows that the proposed development fits within the overall context.
62Moreover, the Zoning By-law specifically envisages the gentle intensification of Neighbourhoods by allowing multiplexes. This Proposal aligns with that objective.
63I find that the proposed variances for the duplexes maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law.
Appropriate for the Development or Use of the Land
64I agree with Mr. Romano that the proposed dwellings would fit in well with the overall planned development within the Neighbourhood and are appropriate for the development of the land.
65Based on the above findings, the proposal is desirable for the development of the land.
Are the Variances Minor?
66The test for “minor” focuses on the scale and nature of the perceived impact caused by the variance. The test is not merely a matter of mathematical calculation. 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.
67There is no evidence of undue adverse impacts of a planning nature from the proposal. I agree with Mr. Romano that the proposed development fits with the surrounding area and the general physical patterns. Open space and landscaping are maintained at the front and rear. The rear decks will have a privacy screen. The side yard setbacks have been widened from the original plans, in accordance with the suggestions of the City’s Planning Department. The building height is less than the height permitted by the By-law.
68I find that the proposed variances for each dwelling are minor.
CONCLUSION
69I find that the application for consent to sever the lot meets the criteria set out in s.51(24) of the Planning Act and that no plan of subdivision is required.
70I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law and that they are desirable for the development of the land and are minor.
71I find that no further notice is required.
DECISION AND ORDER
72The Appeal is allowed.
73The application for consent to sever is approved subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A.
74The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix B are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.
A. Brown
Panel Member
APPENDIX A - CONSENT
Standard Consent Conditions
The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB, therefore, consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, the applicant is to fulfill the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment:
(1) Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of the Revenue Services Division, in the form of a statement of tax account current to within 30 days of an applicant's request to the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment to issue the Certificate of Official as outlined in Condition 6.
(2) Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.
(3) One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS (3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their respective areas, shall be filed with, and to the satisfaction of, the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.
(4) One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services shall be filed with the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.
(5) Prepare and submit a digital draft of the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O. Reg. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act if applicable as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent transaction to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.
(6) Once all of the other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall request, in writing, that the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment issue the Certificate of Official.
(7) Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.
APPENDIX B - VARIANCES
Conditions of Variance Approval
Part 1, 336 Glen Park Avenue
Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.
The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by EKP Designs Inc, dated April 2024:
a. Part 1:
Site Plan Drawing A1
Front Elevation Drawing A5
Rear Elevation Drawing A6
Side Elevation Drawing A7 • Side Elevation Drawing A8
Part 2, 336 Glen Park Avenue
- The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by EKP Designs Inc, dated April 2024:
a. Part 2:
Site Plan Drawing A1
Front Elevation Drawing A5
Rear Elevation Drawing A6
Side Elevation Drawing A7
Side Elevation Drawing A8
Approved Variances for the Zoning By-law for 336 Glen Park Avenue, PART 1:
i. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.
The proposed east side yard setback is 1.20 metres and the proposed west side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
ii. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum front porch side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed porch west side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
iii. Chapter 5.10.40.70(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for the front canopy is 1.80 metres.
The proposed west side yard setback for the front canopy is 0.55 metres.
iv Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed west side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
v. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east side yard setback is 1.20 metres.
vi. Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 metres of a rear main wall, which are greater than 1.2 metres above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting 2.5 metres from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains.
The proposed rear deck projects 2.74 metres from the rear wall.
vii Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550.0 square metres.
The proposed lot area is 307.8 square metres.
viii Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 metres.
The proposed lot frontage is 7.62 metres.
ix. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.50 metres.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.06 metres.
Approved variances to the Zoning By-law for 336 Glen Park Avenue, PART 2:
i. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.
The proposed east side yard setback is 0.55 metres and the proposed west side yard setback is 1.20 metres.
ii. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum front porch side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east porch side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
iii Chapter 5.10.40.70(2), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for the front canopy is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east side yard setback for the front canopy is 0.55 metres.
iv Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed east side yard setback is 0.55 metres.
v. Chapter 10.5.40.50(2), By-law No. 569-2013
In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 metres of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The required minimum rear deck side yard setback is 1.80 metres.
The proposed west side yard setback is 1.20 metres.
vi. Chapter 10.5.40.50(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013
Platforms attached to or within 0.3 metres of a rear main wall, which are greater than 1.2 metres above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting 2.5 metres from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from which it gains.
The proposed rear deck projects 2.74 metres from the rear wall.
vii. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550.0 square metres.
The proposed lot area is 308.8 square metres.
viii. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15.0 metres.
The proposed lot frontage is 7.62 metres.
ix Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(B)(ii), By-law No. 569-2013
The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.50 metres.
The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.11 metres.