Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-03-25

24 232747 S53 18 TLAB

24 232751 S45 18 TLAB

24 232749 S53 18 TLAB

24 232752 S45 18 TLAB

24 232753 S45 18 TLAB

Tian (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 314

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

March 25, 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):

Y. TIAN

Applicant(s):

E. STRANGIS

Property Address:

387 & 389 HOUNSLOW AVE

COA File No.:

24 115856 NNY 18 CO (B0006/24NY)

24 115614 NNY 18 MV (A0107/24NY)

24 115862 NNY 18 CO (B0007/24NY)

24 115627 NNY 18 MV (A0108/24NY)

24 115633 NNY 18 MV (A0109/24NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

24 232747 S53 18 TLAB

24 232751 S45 18 TLAB

24 232749 S53 18 TLAB

24 232752 S45 18 TLAB

24 232753 S45 18 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

3/3/2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

5/3/2025

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

E. Strangis

Appellant

Y. Tian

A. Stewart

Appellant’s Expert Witness

F. Romano

A. Stewart

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Appellant is seeking a consent to sever two existing lots at 387 and 389 Hounslow Avenue (the “Subject Site”) into three lots, to be assigned municipal addresses of 387, 389A and 389B Hounslow Avenue (the “Consent Applications”). The Appellant is also seeking minor variances to permit the construction of new detached dwellings on each of the three lots (the “Minor Variance Applications”)

2The Applicant submitted a draft reference plan prepared by Mandarin Surveyors Limited dated January 24, 2024 showing the three proposed lots (the “draft Reference Plan”). The Applicant also submitted a site plan and elevation drawings for each of the three proposed dwellings (the “Dwelling Plans”).

3Based on the Dwelling Plans, the Applicant originally requested eighteen (18) variances from the applicable zoning by-law 569-2013 (the “ZBL”) for the proposed dwelling at 387 Hounslow; seventeen (16) variances for the proposed dwelling at 389A Hounslow; and sixteen (16) variances for the proposed dwelling at 389B Hounslow (the “Original Variances”).

4Following submission of the Lot and Dwelling Plans, City staff submitted several reports: on August 29, 2024, City Engineering & Construction Services submitted the “ECS Report”; on October 2, 2024, Urban Forestry submitted the “Urban Forestry Report”) and on October 4, 2024, City Planning staff submitted the “Planning Report”.

5By Decisions dated October 10, 2024, the Committee of Adjustment (C of A) refused the Consent Applications and the Minor Variance Applications (the C of A Decisions”).

6On October 30, 2024, the Applicant appealed the C of A Decisions to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”).

7The Applicant, also the Appellant, revised the Dwelling Plans (the “Revised Plans”), and on December 13, 2024, submitted the Revised Plans for zoning review by Toronto Buildings, and to the TLAB. On the same date, the Appellant provided a revised list of variances to the TLAB (the “Revised Variances”). The Appellant did not change the draft Reference Lot Plan.

8On January 24, 2025, the Appellant submitted a Witness Statement (the “WS”), which included the draft Reference Plan, Dwelling Plans, an air photo, neighbourhood context maps, a Decision Table, photos of existing homes, and statistics for existing homes (the “WS”).

9On March 3, 2025, I held an oral Hearing with respect to the appeal of the consent and minor variances. The Appellant was represented by counsel and an expert witness. No one else participated in the Hearing.

10On March 5, 2025, counsel for the Appellant submitted a list of Further Revised Variances, and Decisions by the TLAB for other properties close to the Subject Site.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

11Provincial 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.

12Provincial 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.

13Consent – 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).

14Variance – 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

15Ms. Amber Stewart, counsel for the Appellant, called Franco Romano as a witness. I reviewed Mr. Romano’s Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty (Form 6), and requested oral evidence concerning his education and experience. I then qualified Mr. Romano as an expert witness, able to give opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.

16Mr. Romano stated that the Revised Plans resulted in fewer variances and of smaller magnitude from the zoning by-law than those before the Committee of Adjustment. The number of variances decreased from 18 to 12 for the proposed house at 387 Hounslow (the maximum height of the building no longer required a variance; one of the variances for a side yard setback was eliminated; and main wall heights were reduced). The number of variances for 389A and 389B Hounslow were also reduced (one variance for side yard setbacks for each house was eliminated, and main wall heights were reduced).

17In view of Mr. Romano’s uncontradicted and uncontroverted evidence, I determined that the amendments to the original application were minor. Consequently, I could consider the Revised Variances without providing notice of the revisions to neighbours, pursuant to Section 18.1.1 of the Planning Act.

18Mr. Romano stated that he had requested comments from Toronto Building on the Revised Plans, but had not received a written Zoning Notice as of the date of the hearing. Out of an abundance of caution, the Appellant was requesting small adjustments to the Revised Variances, primarily with respect to main wall height and lot coverage (the “Further Revised Variances”). Mr. Romano stated that the Further Revised Variances did not exceed any of the Original Variances. I concluded that I could also consider the Further Revised Variances without further notice, again pursuant to Section 18.1.1 of the Planning Act.

19Mr. Romano described the frontage and area of the three lots to be created by the draft Reference Plan. From east to west, the lots are to be assigned municipal numbers from 387 to 389A to 389B Hounslow.

Table 1 – Lot Plans

By-law Standard

Requirement

387 Hounslow (Part 4 on draft Reference Plan)

389A Hounslow (Parts 2&3 on draft Reference Plan)

389B Hounslow (Part 1 on draft Reference Plan)

Lot Frontage

15 metre minimum

12.19m

12.19m

10.77m

Lot Area

550 square metres

489.7m2

489.61m2

432.42m2

20Mr. Romano described lineating a neighbourhood study area from Senlac Road to the east, Wynn Road to the west, Hounslow Avenue as the northerly boundary and Ellerslie Avenue to the south. The study area included 382 lots in the geographic neighbourhood; 77 on Hounslow Avenue, and 63 in the immediate context.

21Mr. Romano stated that lot frontages range from 9.14 to 37.19m in the neighbourhood, and from 9.9m to 20.1m within the immediate context and along Hounslow Avenue. He explained that smaller lots had been created over a period of time, starting soon after various plans of subdivision had been registered until the current date. He calculated that lot frontages smaller than the 15m minimum exist on more than 37% of the lots within the broader context and along Hounslow Avenue, and approximately 35% of the lots within the immediate context.

22Mr. Romano stated that lot areas in the neighbourhood range from 391.4m2 to 1983.48m, and also calculated that lot areas smaller than 550m2 are found on 19.4% of the lots within the broader context; 31.2% along Hounslow Avenue and 27% within the immediate context.

23Mr. Romano showed photos of lots with lot frontages less than 15m and/or lot sizes smaller than 550m2: 299 Hounslow; 301A & B Hounslow; 320 Hounslow; 345A Hounslow; 362 Hounslow; 372 Hounslow; 385A & B Hounslow (immediately east of the subject lots) and 391 Hounslow (immediately to the west). He also showed photos of lots on Horsham Avenue with lot frontages and/or sizes less than those required by the ZBL.

24Mr. Romano concluded that in his opinion, the proposed lots respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

25Mr. Romano also described Further Revised Variances, set out in Table 2, below:

Table 2 – Dwelling Plans

By-law Standard

Requirement

387 Hounslow (Part 4 on Lot Plan)

389A Hounslow (Parts 2 & 3 on Lot Plan)

389B Hounslow (Part 1 on Lot Plan)

Side Yard Setback

1.8m minimum

1.23 - west

1.23m - east

1.23m - east

Front Porch Side Yard Setback

1.8m minimum

NA

1.23m - east

1.23m - east

Front Canopy Side Yard Setback

1.8m minimum

NA

1.23m – east

1.23 m - east

Cold Room Below Front Porch Setback

1.8m minimum

NA

1.23 - east

1.23 - east

Rear Deck Setback

1.5m minimum

NA

1.23 - east

1.23m - east

Main Wall Height

7.5m for 70%

west – 8.57 east – 8.57

west – 8.47 east – 8.47

west – 8.31 east – 8.31

Storeys

2

3

3

3

Pedestrian Entrance Height

1.2m above grade

1.54m

1.45m

NA

Platform Area at or above 2nd Storey

4m2 max

front porch 4.75m2 rear deck 5.89m2

front porch 4.75m2 rear deck 5.89m2

front porch 4.65m2 rear deck 5.40m2

Lot Coverage

30% max

33.69%

35.46%

33.87%

Building Length

17m

18.97m

18.97m

18.97m

Building Depth

19m

19.3

19.31

19.31

26Mr. Romano stated that the front and rear portions of the building generally aligned with neighbouring houses on Hounslow. Variances for building length and depth resulted from “bump-outs” or projections to a portion of the front and rear walls. The proposed buildings’ lengths and depths maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL to ensure that the buildings are positioned towards the front central portion of the lot and not constructed too deeply into it.

27Mr. Romano explained that reductions in one or both side yard setbacks were common in the neighbourhood, especially when newer dwellings were constructed without driveways to the side of the house. He stated that 87% of the homes in the neighbourhood had at least 1 sideyard setback less than 1.8 metres, and 45% had both side yard setbacks less than 1.8m. In his opinion, the proposed side yard setbacks of 1.23 metres maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL since they provide suitable space for access, maintenance and spatial separation.

28The front porch, rear deck and canopy setback variances arise from the side yard setbacks, and maintain the general intent of the ZBL to maintain sufficient space between buildings.

29Mr. Romano opined that the main walls exceeded the permitted heights of 7.5 m by approximately 1 metre for a portion of the wall. However, they maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL by ensuring that the proposed height of the walls below the sloped roof will maintain a low rise dwelling.

30Mr. Romano stated that the houses appear to be 2 stories, since they contain two levels above the garage. He characterized the number of stories as a “technical” variance, since Toronto Buildings counts the garages as the first floor, although a portion of each garage is below grade.

31The proposed front and rear platform area variances result from Toronto Building’s characterization of the garage as the first floor. The platform areas maintain reasonable and subordinate relationships to the houses to which they are attached.

32The variances for the proposed pedestrian entrance height for 387 and 389A Hounslow reflect the higher topography to the east, and maintain a grade related entry to the dwellings.

33According to Mr. Romano’s review of lot coverage on Hounslow, based on Geographic Information System (“GIS”) and City mapping tools, 22% of the lots on Hounslow exceed the permitted lot coverage of 30%, to a maximum of 33.1%. Mr. Romano stated that the proposed coverage was “at the top end of the range”

34Mr. Romano emphasized, in oral evidence, his WS and photos, that the existing neighbourhood contains a mix of physical characteristics. Building heights range from 1 - 3 stories. Building coverage ranges widely, from .13% to 33.1%.

35Mr. Romano also stated that recent amendments to Toronto’s Official Plan (the “OP”) and ZBL allow a range of building types, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and garden suites.

36Mr. Romano referred to the new 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (“2024 PPS”). The 2024 PPS states that land use policies within settlement areas should be based on densities which:

a) “efficiently use land and resources”

Planning authorities are to support general intensification and redevelopment

37Mr. Romano also referred to amendments to Chapter 1 of the OP to address housing demand:

“This means looking beyond the height and look of buildings and toward making the best use of space to enable more housing where it is needed the most.”

38Mr. Romano referred in detail to Policy 4.1.5 of the OP. In his view, the proposed consent and variances in this established Neighbourhood:

“will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including, in particular:

(b) prevailing size and configuration of lots.”

39I asked Mr. Romano what test I should apply when considering if the dimensions of the proposed lots conform to the OP, and whether they maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL: are the proposed lots similar to the dimensions of lots most frequently occurring in the neighbourhood, or are the proposed lots similar to the dimensions of lots existing in substantial numbers within the neighbourhood?

40Mr. Romano replied that since there was more than one prevailing building type, type or physical character, the proper test was whether the proposed lots existed in substantial numbers.

41I also asked Mr. Romano if the OP Policy concerning the prevailing size of lots and the ZBL requirements for minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and minimum lot size of 550 m2 were consistent with the 2024 PPS.

42Mr. Romano replied that the City was required by the Planning Act to update its OP. The City had updated Chapter 1 of the OP to be consistent with the 2024 PPS, but had not yet updated Chapter 4 Policy 4.1.5. The Appellant’s witness replied further that the ZBL had not been updated, and he was not confident that the City would do so in the near future. Mr. Romano asked me to apply the recent planning framework set out in the 2024 PPS to the Consent and Minor Variance Applications.

43Mr. Romano concluded that the Consent Applications met the criteria set out in S. 51 (24) and S. 53 of the Planning Act. The geographic neighbourhood contained a variety of lot sizes, and there were a substantial number of lots which had a similar lot frontage and size.

44Mr. Romano also concluded that the Further Revised Variances met the qualitative as well as quantitative requirements set out in S. 2, 3 (5) and 45 (1) of the Planning Act. In his opinion, the proposal would fit in and be compatible with varied building types and the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood.

45The City submitted several communications prior to the C of A Decisions on the Consent and Minor Variance Applications.

46The ECS Report advised that the City had no objections (emphasis in the ECS Report) to the Consent and Minor Variance Applications, providing standard conditions were met.

47Urban Forestry listed conditions of approval for each of the three lots to be created.

48However, the Planning Report recommended refusal of the Consent Applications. The Planning Report states that:

“Although there are some lots similar in size to the proposed ones, the majority of lots have frontages greater than 15 metres, and areas of 500 square metres or more. The few similar-sized lots were created through consent applications in 2003 and 2004, but the neighbourhood itself is not considered to be in transition.”

49The Planning Report also recommended refusal of the Minor Variance Applications:

“The small setbacks, high lot coverage, and limited open space reduce privacy and impact stormwater management, further intensifying overdevelopment concerns.”

50Neither City staff nor the City Solicitor appeared at the TLAB appeal of the C of A Decisions.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

1Should I Have Regard to the City Planning Report?

51Ms. Stewart submitted that since I only received evidence from one expert witness, Mr. Romano, I should accept his evidence without considering any further information.

52I agree that Mr. Romano provided the only written and visual evidence prepared specifically for the TLAB, the only oral evidence under affirmation, and was the only witness subject to questions of clarification from me.

53However, the “Supporting Documentation” for this TLAB file includes three City Reports: ECS, Urban Forestry and Planning.

54In his WS, Mr. Romano refers specifically to each Report. He concurs with the conditions proposed by ECS and Urban Forestry, but disagrees with the Planning Report:

“The neighbourhood, including Hounslow Avenue, contains lot size and configuration, side yard setbacks and overall massing characteristics which are striking (sic) similar and compatible with the proposal”.

55Section 2.1 of the Planning Act requires me to have regard to:

“(a) any decision that is made under this Act by a municipal council or by an approval authority and relates to the same planning matter; and

(b) any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority considered in making the decision described in clause (a)”

56Since the Planning Report was before the Committee of Adjustment, was included in the Supporting Documentation for this TLAB hearing, and was referenced by Mr. Romano in his WS, I find that I should have regard to it in making my decision with respect to the Consent and Minor Variance Applications.

B. The Consent Applications

57Mr. Romano referenced a geographic neighbourhood of 382 lots, compared to 78 proposed by the Planning Report. I find that Mr. Romano’s larger study area is more consistent with the TLAB’s frequent consideration of a neighbourhood as an area that local residents walk around in comfort.

58Mr. Romano provided extensive evidence that this is a geographic neighbourhood with a mix of physical characteristics. He showed that there are a substantial number of lots, created over a considerable period of time, with similar frontages and areas to those proposed. I agree, based on my visit to the area as well as Mr. Romano’s evidence, that this is a neighbourhood with a mix of physical characteristics that is in transition from smaller to larger homes.

59According to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, if there is such a mix, the direction to respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character within a geographic neighbourhood will permit development whose physical characteristics exist in substantial numbers within neighbourhood.

60Mr. Romano also provided evidence that the existing pattern of larger lots adjacent to smaller lots worked well, in the larger neighbourhood, along Hounslow, in the immediate context, and immediately adjacent to the proposed development.

61Mr. Romano also referred to evolving provincial planning policies, which put more emphasis on allowing additional housing within existing neighbourhoods, rather than relying as strongly on existing neighbourhood character. The City Planning Report did not address these policies.

62For the reasons set out above, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Romano to the City Report with respect to allowing the Consent Applications.

63I find that the Consent Applications meet the criteria for severances set out in the Planning Act.

C. The Minor Variance Applications

64Mr. Romano provided extensive statistical evidence that variances for lot frontage, lot size, side yard setbacks, main wall heights, number of stories, building length and depth similar to those proposed exist in substantial numbers throughout the neighbourhood.

65The City Report provided no details on any negative effects resulting from the Further Revised Variances.

66The Applicant is seeking lot coverage ranging from 33.69% to 35.46%. Mr. Romano’s evidence showed other variances for lot coverage up to 33.1%. Mr. Romano provided evidence that the proposed buildings are located towards the front central portion of each lot, and that the increased coverage will generate similar impacts to development as-of-right.

67The Applicant did not seek any variances for open space.

68The Planning Report did not provide any evidence of significant adverse impacts arising from the Minor Variance Applications. It refers to an undefined negative impact on stormwater management. However, no such concerns are identified in the ECS Report.

69Mr. Romano also opined that the Minor Variance Applications fit with and are compatible with the existing physical character of the surrounding area.

70I agree with Mr. Romano that I should consider the overall quantitative fit of the proposal, as well as mathematical calculations.

71I find that the Minor Variance Applications, individually and cumulatively, meet the tests set out in the Planning Act.

CONCLUSION

72The Appeal is allowed in its entirety. I authorize the Consent Applications and Minor Variance Applications, subject to the conditions set out below.

DECISION AND ORDER

73The appeal from the Committee of Adjustment Decision is allowed in part, and

1. The applications for consents to sever the Subject Site are allowed, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule A;

2. The applications for variances set out in Schedule B are allowed, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule C.

R. Kanter

Panel Member

Schedule A: CONSENT CONDITIONS

The Consent Application is approved on Condition:

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.

Schedule B: APPROVED VARIANCES

387 Hounslow Avenue (Part 4 on Reference Plan)

To construct a new detached dwelling

1. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550m².

The proposed lot area is 489.7m².

2. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15m.

The proposed lot frontage is 12.19m.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length is 17m.

The proposed building length is 18.97m.

4. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth is 19m.

The proposed building depth is 19.3m.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed height of the west main is 8.57m.

6. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed height of the east main wall is 8.57m.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum number of storeys is 2.

The proposed number of storeys is 3.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4m².

The proposed area of the front porch at the second storey is 4.75m².

9. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4m².

The proposed area of the rear deck at the second storey is 5.89m².

10. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30% of the lot area.

The proposed lot coverage is 33.69% of the lot area.

11. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law 569-2013

The elevation of the lowest point of a main pedestrian entrance through the front wall or a side main wall may be no higher than 1.2m above established grade.

The proposed height of the lowest point of the main pedestrian entrance through the front wall is 1.54m.

12. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8m.

The proposed west side yard setback is 1.23m.

389A Hounslow Avenue (Parts 2 and 3 on Reference Plan)

To construct a new detached dwelling

1. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550m².

The proposed lot area is 489.61m².

2. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15m.

The proposed lot frontage is 12.19m.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(ii), By-law 569-2013

There may be enclosed space below a platform complying with 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i).

The cold room is below a platform (front porch) not complying with 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i) for having east side yard setback of 1.23m.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

A roof, canopy, awning or similar structure above a platform meeting the requirements of regulation 10.5.40.60(1) may encroach into a required minimum building setback to the same extent as the platform it is covering. The required side yard setback is 1.8m.

The proposed canopy is above a platform (front porch) not complying with 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i) for having east side yard setback of 1.23m.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length is 17m.

The proposed building length is 18.97m.

6. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed height of the west main wall is 8.47m.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed height of the east main wall is 8.47m.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum number of storeys is 2.

The proposed number of storeys is 3.

9. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The permitted max area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4m².

The proposed area of the front porch at the second storey is 4.75m².

10. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The permitted max area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4m².

The proposed area of the rear deck at the second storey is 5.89m².

11. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks of 1.5m.

The proposed east side yard setback for the rear deck is 1.23m.

12. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30% of the lot area.

The proposed lot coverage is 35.46% of the lot area.

13. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth is 19m.

The proposed building depth is 19.31m.

14. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law 569-2013

The elevation of the lowest point of a main pedestrian entrance through the front wall or a side main wall may be no higher than 1.2m above established grade.

The proposed height of the lowest point of the main pedestrian entrance through the front wall is 1.45m.

15. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3m from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required front yard setback if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback: 1.8m.

The proposed east side yard setback of the front porch is 1.23m.

16. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8m.

The proposed east side yard setback is 1.23m.

389B Hounslow Avenue (Part 1 on Reference Plan)

To construct a new detached dwelling

1. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550m².

The proposed lot area is 432.42m².

2. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15m.

The proposed lot frontage is 10.77m.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3m from a building, with a floor no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required front yard setback if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback:1.8m.

The proposed front porch is 1.23m to the east side lot line.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

A roof, canopy, awning or similar structure above a platform meeting the requirements of regulation 10.5.40.60(1) may encroach into a required minimum building setback to the same extent as the platform it is covering. Required side yard setback:1.8m.

The proposed canopy is above a platform (front porch) not complying with 10.5.40.60(1) for having a setback of 1.23m from the east side lot line.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length is 17m.

The proposed building length is 18.97m.

6. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth is 19m.

The proposed building depth is 19.31m.

7. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed height of the west main wall is 8.31m.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed height of the east main wall is 8.31m.

9. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum number of storeys is 2.

The proposed number of storeys is 3.

10. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The permitted max area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4m².

The proposed area of the front porch at the second storey is 4.65m².

11. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The permitted max area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4m².

The proposed area of the rear deck at the second storey is 5.40m².

12. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013

A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone of 1.5m.

The proposed east side yard setback of the rear deck is 1.23m.

13. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30% of the lot area.

The proposed lot coverage is 33.87% of the lot area.

14. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(ii), By-law 569-2013

There may be enclosed space below a platform complying with 10.5.40.60.(1) A(i).

The proposed cold room is below a platform (front porch) not complying with 10.5.40.60.(1) A(i), required side yard setback:1.8m.

The proposed setback is 1.23m from the east side lot line.

15. Chapter 900.3.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8m.

The proposed east side yard setback is 1.23m.

Schedule C: CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVALS

387 Hounslow – Part 4

1. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree, as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.

2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Paul Marques Architect Inc. dated July 2023, revision date 12.13.2024, contained in Appendix A. Any other variance or variances that may appear as required on these plans that are not listed in the written decision and order are NOT authorized:

• Site Plan/Notes (A1, 387 Hounslow)

• North Elevation (A5, 387 Hounslow)

• South Elevation (A6, 387 Hounslow)

• West Elevation (A7, 387 Hounslow)

• East Elevation (A8, 387 Hounslow)

389A Hounslow – Parts 2 & 3

1. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree, as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.

2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Paul Marques Architect Inc. dated July 2023, revision date 12.13.2024, contained in Appendix B. Any other variance or variances that may appear as required on these plans that are not listed in the written decision and order are NOT authorized:

• Site Plan/Notes (A1, 389A Hounslow)

• North Elevation (A5, 389A Hounslow)

• South Elevation (A6, 389A Hounslow)

• West Elevation (A7, 389A Hounslow)

• East Elevation (A8, 389A Hounslow)

389B Hounslow – Part 1

1. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree, as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.

2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Paul Marques Architect Inc. dated July 2023, revision date 12.13.2024, contained in Appendix C. Any other variance or variances that may appear as required on these plans that are not listed in the written decision and order are NOT authorized:

• Site Plan/Notes (A1, 389B Hounslow)

• North Elevation (A5, 389B Hounslow)

• South Elevation (A6, 389B Hounslow)

• West Elevation (A7, 389B Hounslow)

• East Elevation (A8, 389B Hounslow)