Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 24 248354 S45 02 TLAB
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: April 25, 2025
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): E. YALDIZ
Applicant(s): J. BENCZKOWSKI
Property Address: 2 RIVERSTONE DR
COA File No.: 24 134129 WET 02 MV (A0184/24EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 248354 S45 02 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): March 24, 2025
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
E. YALDIZ
M. MAZIERSKI
Applicant
J. BENCZKOWSKI
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This matter arises from an Appeal by Martin Mazierski, on behalf of Ergun Yaldiz (Appellant), of a decision of the Etobicoke York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) refusing variances for the property municipally known as 2 Riverstone Drive (subject property).
2The purpose of the application is to permit the construction of a second storey addition above the existing detached garage on the subject property and to convert that building into a garden suite.
3The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Riverstone Drive, in the former City of Etobicoke. Lawrence Avenue is identified as a Major Street in both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
4The subject property is designated ‘Neighbourhoods’ in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and is subject to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 554, which permits garden suites on lands within that designation.
5It is zoned Residential Detached RD (f13.5; a510; d0.45); overlay maps permit a maximum dwelling height of 11 m and a lot coverage of 33%. It is also subject to City of Toronto Zoning By-law 101-2022 – Permitting Garden Suites.
6The principal residential dwelling on the property is currently undergoing an ‘as-of-right’ renovation to convert the existing duplex into a fourplex, as per building permit No. 23 236755 BLD 00 SR.
The Proposal and Application Chronology
7The Appellant, Mr. Yaldiz, is proposing to construct a second storey addition above the existing detached one-storey garage situated at the southwest corner of the subject property and to convert that building into a garden suite.
8The application proposes to maintain the existing ground floor exterior walls to facilitate the construction of the proposed second floor which will be built in line with the south, east and west walls. The second floor, which will be cantilevered and will face the existing paved driveway on the north side of the property.
9The first floor of the proposed garden suite will include a kitchen and living space while the second floor will include three (3) bedrooms.
10The Applicant sought approval from the COA for a total of seven (7) variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013; the Committee received two letters of objection from neighbours whose concerns regarding the Application were primarily focussed on parking and the incorrect assertion that the Applicant is proposing to eliminate a parking space situated within the existing parking pad fronting Riverstone Drive.
11Mr. Yaldiz initially applied to the COA in early 2024 and a hearing was scheduled for June 6, 2024. Prior to that scheduled meeting, the COA received comments from Community Planning and Urban Forestry from the circulation of the application.
12Community Planning staff’s memorandum, dated May 28, 2024, recommended deferral of the application to provide adequate time for staff to appropriately review the application and to discuss concerns, obtain potential changes, and secure revised submission material from the applicant.
13At its June 6, 2024, meeting, the COA deferred the application to November 21, 2024, to allow the applicant to consult with Community Planning staff and to make any revisions to the proposal subsequent to that consultation.
14Following that deferral, the Applicant did engage in discussions with Community Planning staff, which resulted in revisions to the proposed garden suite plans that ultimately satisfied their concerns.
15As a result, Community Planning provided a memorandum to the COA prior to its November 21st hearing indicating no objection to the revised proposal. Urban Forestry staff also did not object to the application, recommending a standard condition of approval requiring a permit for the injury or removal of a private tree.
16On November 21, 2024, the COA refused the subject application, and the Appellant subsequently appealed the matter to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).
17The TLAB set a hearing date for March 24, 2025, to hear the Appeal.
18On January 7, 2025, the Appellant filed an Applicant’s Disclosure (Form 3) with the TLAB, providing additional clarification regarding the ‘as-of-right’, under-construction fourplex on the subject property.
19In a cover letter with that submission, Mr. Yaldiz noted he was still waiting for confirmation from Building Division staff as to whether that separate construction project would result in requiring a revision to the rear yard soft landscaping variance being sought by the Appellant. Nevertheless, he filed a set of updated plans showing the main, under-construction residential fourplex building for context.
20In that Disclosure document, the Appellant clarified that no revisions were being proposed to the garden suite and that once an updated Zoning Examiner’s Notice was received, he would submit revised drawings, if necessary.
21On January 20, 2025, the Appellant received an updated Examiner’s Zoning Notice (Notice) confirming the rear yard soft landscaping variance as being accurate. However, the Zoning Notice did slightly revise the required side yard setback and proposed setback from the south lot line in Variance No. 1.
22The updated Notice resulted in a revised Variance No. 1 which now reads as follows (with the amended numbers highlighted in yellow):
- Section 150.7.60.20.(5)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.14 m.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 0.66 m from the side lot line.
23The Appellant asserts that this revision is a correction of the earlier Examiner’s Zoning Notice issued for this proposal and not an amendment to the Application made by the Applicant.
24Therefore, he submits there should be no need for further notice as required by s. 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.
25As a result, the Applicant is requesting that the TLAB authorize the following revised list of variances:
REVISED LIST OF REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE ZONING BY-LAW
- Section 150.7.60.20.(5)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.41 m.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 0.66 m from the side lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.20.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required rear yard setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.5 m.
The proposed ancillary structure containing a garden suite will be located 0.62 m from the rear lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.30.(2)(i), By-law 569-2013
No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the rear lot line, beginning from a height of 4 m from a distance of 7.5 m from the rear main wall of the residential building.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the angular plane projected towards the rear lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.30.(2)(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013
No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the front lot line, beginning from a height of 4 m from the required rear yard setback.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the angular plane projected towards the front lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.30.(2)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013
No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the opposite side lot line, beginning from a height of 4 m from the required side yard setback.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the angular plane projected from the required east side yard setback.
- Section 150.7.50.10.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 50% of the rear yard shall be maintained as soft landscaping (154.83 m²).
A total of 24.69% of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping (76.47 m²).
- Section 10.5.20.40.(7)(A), By-law 569-2013
A lawful parking space may be reduced for the purpose of constructing an additional dwelling unit if the driveway located in a front or side yard abutting a street is removed and landscaping is provided.
The existing driveway in the side yard is not being removed.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
26Provincial 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.
27Provincial 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.
28Variance – 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
29Only the Owner’s representatives, Martin Mazierski (solicitor) and Jonathan Benczkowski (planning witness) were in attendance at the Hearing on March 24, 2025; I heard from Mr. Benczkowski in support of the Application.
30Mr. Benczkowski identified a neighbourhood study area in accordance with the direction of the Official Plan.
31He identified boundaries for both a ‘Broader’ and “Immediate’ context; his Broader Context included the area bounded by Lawrence Avenue West, Riverstone Drive/Vista Humber Drive to the east, Scarlett Road to the west, and The Elms to the south. In accordance with Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 320, Mr. Benczkowski noted that his Immediate Context included both sides of the block of Riverstone Drive.
32He described the geographic neighbourhood as follows:
The Immediate Context of Riverstone Drive includes detached dwellings with varying building heights as well as architectural styles.
The built form of individual dwellings in the area is based on the period of construction although the predominant built form is detached residential.
The ongoing regeneration of the neighbourhood has resulted in new dwellings that are larger in scale than the original vintage dwellings, but which have contributed to the stability of this desirable neighbourhood.
The proposal for a garden suite on the subject property represents the first such dwelling in the study area neighbourhood.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
33I accept Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Policy 2024, as it will allow for the regeneration of, and increase in the housing stock in the neighbourhood, providing for a more efficient use of the land and available public transit.
OFFICIAL PLAN
34Mr. Benczkowski spoke to the relevant provisions of the Official Plan and provided an analysis of applicable policies, noting that the subject property is designated Neighbourhoods.
35He first addressed Policy 4.1.5, which sets out development criteria in Neighbourhoods, noting that this Policy would nominally apply; however, as the proposal concerns a garden suite, the proposal is subject to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 554, enacted by City Council on February 3, 2022, and which permits garden suites in the Neighbourhoods designation.
36Further, he submitted that garden suites are the subject of detailed policy introduced through Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 670), asserting this is to be the predominant policy to assess the proposal.
37He noted that SASP 670 contains specific garden suite policies found under section b) in the OPA and enumerated as criteria i – ix, Development of Garden Suites. Therse criteria are intended to give greater specificity regarding expectations for the development of garden suites in areas designated Neighbourhoods.
38Of those criteria, I consider the following to warrant further discussion in relation to the development of a garden suite on the subject property and the variances requested:
ii. will limit privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties;
Mr. Benczkowski opined that limiting privacy and overlook does not mean ‘no privacy or overlook issues” on adjacent properties. In this regard, the proposed design provides no windows on the second floor of the garden suite facing the adjacent property to the rear and only one window on the second floor of the east elevation facing the rear yard of the adjacent property.
iii. will maintain the majority of the rear yard as open space, and maximize contiguous soft landscaping that is supportive of tree planting;
The proposed garden suite will utilize the ground floor exterior walls of the garage, and the proposal will maintain the existing open space on the subject property.
iv. the location, massing, and design of a Garden Suite should not result in the injury or removal of a healthy tree protected under Municipal Code Chapters 608, 658, and 813 on the subject property and adjacent properties;
Mr. Benczkowski confirmed that the proposed garden suite will not result in impact or injury to any protected trees on the subject property.
vii. will ensure that the interior floor area of the Graden Suite is less than the gross floor area of the residential building on the lot;
The area of the proposed garden suite is 113.92 m², and the existing Gross Floor Area of the main residential dwelling is 452.56 m².
viii. will ensure that stormwater management is maintained on the site; and,
The proposal maintains the existing garage footprint and water runoff will be directed onto the site with new downspouts on the garden suite structure.
ix. is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a Garden Suite.
The proposal maintains the large, mature trees in the rear yard.
39Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed garden suite on the subject property appropriately addresses the criteria cited above, and I agree with him that the variances requested maintain the general intent and purpose of SASP 670 and appropriately support the criteria for development in Neighbourhoods.
40He, then, highlighted the policies found in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the Official Plan as they relate to the variances requested. He submitted that the Official Plan acknowledges that neighbourhoods are “static but not stable” and recognizes that neighbourhoods will experience physical change over time.
41In this regard, Mr. Benczkowski opined that the intent of the Official Plan is to ensure that new development does not propose changes that are out of keeping with the existing physical character of other developments within the area.
42He referred to the Healthy Neighbourhoods Policy in 2.3.1 (1) of the Official Plan which directs that “…Development in Neighbourhoods…will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas.”
43He opined that changes to the Official Plan permit a garden suite on the subject property and that even though the proposed garden suite is the first in the area, as incremental development occurs over time, garden suites will contribute to the character of this neighbourhood.
44The Built Form Policies found in 3.1.2 (1) and (5) of the Official Plan direct that development will be located and organized to fit within its existing and planned context.
45Mr. Benczskowski noted that the proposed development will be the “first to the party, so to speak,” a reference to the proposed garden suite being the first such structure in the area. He asserted, therefore, that it is not possible to conform to all the policies to “respect and reinforce” the neighbourhood and that this should not prohibit the Appellant from developing such a built form that is expressly permitted under the Zoning By-law.
46Furthermore, he opined that Official Plan Policy 4.1.9 (8) recognizes that the Zoning By-law standards are intended to ensure the compatibility of new development with the existing physical character of the established neighbourhood. In this regard, he submitted that the proposal’s substantial compliance with the Zoning By-law is an indication of ‘compatibility’ with the existing neighbourhood character.
47Focussing on the criteria in SASP 670 for the development of garden suites, he noted how the following relevant aspects of the proposal address those criteria:
The proposal is for a self-contained residential unit that is subordinate to the primary dwelling which h designed to limit privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties;
The proposed garden suite is within an existing garage which maintains the existing garage footprint. Water runoff will continue to be directed onto the site with new downspouts within the garden suite.
The proposal maintains the open space that exists on the subject property, and there will be no impact or injury to any protected trees as the Appellant proposes to maintain the existing trees in the rear yard.
The existing driveway facing Lawrence Avenue West is maintained.
48On the basis of the record submitted by Mr. Benczkowski and the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the massing and size of the proposed garden suite and side and rear yard setbacks, as well as the proposed rear yard soft landscaping and existing driveway, respect the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood and the Immediate Context.
49I therefore find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
ZONING BY-LAW
50Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence was that the general intent and purpose of zoning by-laws are to ensure compatible built form within a neighbourhood and to ensure that new development does not cause unacceptable, undue adverse impacts of a planning nature.
51He opined that the subject proposal maintains the intent; it does not introduce an inappropriate or unacceptable built form, and the placement of the proposed garden suite relative to the adjacent structures within the subject block, is in keeping with the existing context.
52Regarding Variance No.6, he opined that the general intent and purpose of the rear yard landscaping requirement is to ensure there is sufficient soft landscaping area for amenity space as well as permeability for surface stormwater runoff.
53In addition to providing amenity space that may serve the residents of a lot, the rear yard soft landscaping provision for garden suites also presents an important opportunity on-site to support mature tree canopy and ecological function.
54Mr. Benczkowski noted that the proposed rear landscaping is an existing site condition and, in his opinion, technical in nature; I agree.
55His evidence was that the proposal would result in a slight increase in the total amount of rear yard soft landscaping on the subject property. Combined with the existing large, landscaped boulevard fronting Lawrence Avenue West, as well as along the Riverstone Drive frontage, Mr. Benczkowski asserted that the entire property will continue to be well landscaped.
56In the case of garden suites, the general intent and purpose of the rear yard and side yard setback provisions are to ensure appropriate spatial separation to allow for access and servicing, landscaping, privacy to adjacent neighbours, and drainage and grading.
57Mr. Benczkowski submitted that in this case, the proposed rear yard and side yard setbacks (Variance Nos. 1 & 2) exist and are not intended to be changed. The garage structure has historically existed in its location with adequate spatial separation already provided.
58Furthermore, he asserted that the existing garage location in the rear yard is reflective of existing conditions for garages throughout the neighbourhood. He opined, therefore, that the general intent and purpose of the rear yard and side yard setback provisions are maintained.
59In addressing the variances requested for angular plane provisions between the primary dwelling and the proposed ancillary garden suite building (Variance No. 4) and between the ancillary garden suite and lot lines (Variance Nos. 3 & 5), Mr. Benczkowski opined that the general intent and purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the height and massing impact of the garden suite is limited based on the proximity to a property line and/or the main front wall of the primary residential dwelling.
60In the City’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) – Garden Suites – Final Report, dated December 21, 2021, the topic of ‘angular planes’ is discussed under the subheading – Garden Suites Criteria – Design, Scale, Height, Massing.
61In this subheading, the Final Report addresses the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (subsequently adopted by City Council as By-law 101-2022), noting that it outlines a range of requirements and criteria developed by City Planning Staff to guide the location, form, and scale of garden suites.
62Angular planes are described as “…design tools that can help mitigate the impact of building mass on adjacent properties as height increases by stepping it away from property lines. A 45-degree angular plane is a generally accepted standard for gradual building height transition and generates a 1:1 relationship between height and stepback of the building mass that helps maintain good sunlight access on surrounding properties, particularly during the spring through fall equinoxes…”1
63The portion of a garden suite above a height of 4.0 metres must fit within a 45-degree angular plane to all property lines (except for those facing a street), and on the side facing the main house.
64In the proposal before the TLAB, the Appellant requires three (3) variances to permit the second storey of the garden suite to penetrate the 45-degree angular plane projected towards the rear and front lot lines (Variances Nos. 3 & 4, respectively), and the required east side yard setback (Variance No. 5).
65Mr. Benczkowski asserted that Variance No. 4 is technical in nature. He explained that when measured from the rear main wall of the first floor of the primary dwelling, there is no angular plane penetration since the measurement utilized is taken from the excavation of the basement’s rear wall.
66He also contended that the proposed penetration of the angular plane into the rear and east side yards is mitigated by the location of that penetration relative to the location of neighbouring amenity areas. Mr. Benczkowski noted that the neighbours’ properties both to the south and west of the subject property have existing sheds in the rear yards immediately adjacent to the location of the proposed garden suite structure.
67He argued that there is no loss of privacy due to the penetration of angular planes for adjacent neighbours since there are no proposed windows on the elevations facing either the rear or west lot lines.
68On the subject of angular planes, Mr. Benczkowski noted that Ontario Regulation 299/19 (O. Reg. 299/19), which relates to Zoning By-law performance standards for additional residential units, had recently been enacted by the Province of Ontario. These regulations apply to all properties in Ontario that have residential units to a maximum of three (3) per lot.
69With respect to angular plane penetration, O. Reg. 299/19 eliminates the requirement for Angular Planes in Ancillary Buildings, as follows:
- Subject to any maximum height and minimum setback requirements in a by-law passed under section 34 of the Act applicable to the building or structure, the building or structure may penetrate any angular plane that is described in the by-law in respect of the building or structure.”
70Mr. Benczkowski opined that although he acknowledges that the proposed garden suite is not subject to the new O. Reg. 299/19 because the existing residential dwelling has four (4) units, he nevertheless wanted to relay to the TLAB conversations he had with City of Toronto Community Planning and Zoning staff in this regard.
71Mr. Benczkowski suggested that, in light of this new Ontario Regulation, the City of Toronto will be expanding its own regulations to include properties that have up to five residential units.
72The Appellant did not summon City staff to speak to or corroborate this conversation or information, and, therefore, the TLAB considers this evidence to be ‘hearsay.’
73Nevertheless, I am reminded that the City of Toronto, through its Housing Action Plan (2023) and Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) initiative, continues to review opportunities to accommodate the building of more housing in the City, including the type of built form being proposed by the Appellant.
74In this regard, I cite an excerpt from a recent TLAB decision issued by my colleague, Member G. Swinkin, who wrote the following:
“It is clear to the Tribunal that, as expressed most particularly in Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods, City Council is attempting to open up the Zoning By-law to allow additional dwelling units on Residentially designated lands. This is a recent endeavour and, as such, the regulations relating to the enterprise are in their first iteration and will be in need of refinement, informed by the particularities of each circumstance found in the field. In the result, it falls to the Committee of Adjustment and to the Tribunal to reconcile the intent of Council with the strict mechanics of the Zoning By-law. This requires a posture of facilitation guided by the overall policy goals, not strict adherence to the provisionally prescribed regime.”2
75Finally, regarding the parking space requirement for conversion of a lawfully existing building (Variance No. 7), Mr. Benczkowski opined that the general intent and purpose of this provision is to limit the number of curb cuts required to facilitate the conversion of an existing building.
76Mr. Benczkowski, again, confirmed that the two curb cuts on the subject property represent an existing condition, and the requested variance is technical in nature. He confirmed that the curb cuts do not front on the same street and asserted that they will continue to provide access to on-site parking for future residents from two different points.
77I agree with Mr. Benczkowski that the general intent and purpose is maintained.
78Therefore, given the above, I am satisfied that the proposed variances for rear yard soft landscaping, side and rear yard setbacks, angular planes, and parking space, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
79I find that the requested variances will result in a compatible built form with what already exists in the area.
MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND
80I find that there are no undue, adverse impacts of a planning nature arising from the proposal. The requested variances are minor in nature considering both the numerical and qualitative aspects of the proposal, and the two-storey garden suite aligns with the objectives of both the provincial policy documents and the Official Plan.
81I agree with Mr. Benczkowski that the proposed development will not create privacy or overlook impacts, given that fenestration will be restricted to the front elevation facing Lawrence Avenue West, and no windows are proposed on either the south or west elevations of the garden suite adjacent to neighbouring properties.
82Additionally, while three (3) properties abut the subject property along the west and south property lines, the property immediately to the west (2205 Lawrence Ave. W.), a corner lot with frontage on both Lawrence Ave. W. and Scarlett Road, is currently owned by the Appellant, Mr. Yaldiz.
83The TLAB was reminded that the Hearing in this matter is uncontested, as none of the neighbours attended the COA hearing, nor did any elect status or attend the TLAB Hearing in opposition to the Application.
84Although two (2) letters of objection were submitted to the COA by residents, the concerns raised were focused primarily on the perceived issue of parking (the elimination of a parking space) as opposed to concerns related to the garden suite’s built form. Mr. Benczkowski has confirmed that the existing driveway from Riverstone Drive is being maintained.
85Finally, I find that the proposal for the development of a garden suite on the subject property will result in an additional dwelling unit that expands the rental housing stock and mix of housing options in a compatible manner in a neighbourhood that is well-served by public transit.
CONCLUSION
86The Application appropriately implements the policies set out in the City’s Zoning By-law Amendment 101-2022 (Garden Suites) as well as the policies in SASP 670.
87I therefore find the variances requested, individually and cumulatively, meet the statutory tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, are within the range of reasonable outcomes, represents good planning; I authorize the variances, subject to the conditions contained herein.
88Concerning s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, this section allows the Tribunal to waive notice for a decision on an application that has been amended from the original application, on condition that, in the Tribunal’s mind, the amendment to the original application is minor.
89In the matter at hand, I find the revision to Variance No. 1 to be minor and an improvement to the Application; the revision represents a technical amendment to only one of the variances requested by the Appellant and has not resulted in or required any changes to the Site Plan.
90Therefore, the TLAB finds no further notice is required.
DECISION AND ORDER
91The Appeal is allowed, in part; the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 21, 2024, is set aside and the variances listed in Appendix A, below, are authorized, subject to the two conditions contained in Appendix B, and in accordance with the Plans depicted in Appendix C, hereto.
D. Lombardi
Panel Member, TLAB Chair
APPENDIX A
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE ZONING BY-LAW
- Section 150.7.60.20.(5)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.41 m.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 0.66 m from the side lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.20.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required rear yard setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.5 m.
The proposed ancillary structure containing a garden suite will be located 0.62 m from the rear lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.30.(2)(i), By-law 569-2013
No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the rear lot line, beginning from a height of 4 m from a distance of 7.5 m from the rear main wall of the residential building.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the angular plane projected towards the rear lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.30.(2)(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013
No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the front lot line, beginning from a height of 4 m from the required rear yard setback.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the angular plane projected towards the front lot line.
- Section 150.7.60.30.(2)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013
No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the opposite side lot line, beginning from a height of 4 m from the required side yard setback.
The proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the angular plane projected from the required east side yard setback.
- Section 150.7.50.10.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 50% of the rear yard shall be maintained as soft landscaping (154.83 m²).
A total of 24.69% of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping (76.47 m²).
- Section 10.5.20.40.(7)(A), By-law 569-2013
A lawful parking space may be reduced for the purpose of constructing an additional dwelling unit if the driveway located in a front or side yard abutting a street is removed and landscaping is provided.
The existing driveway in the side yard is not being removed.
APPENDIX B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The proposal shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan and Elevation Drawings, dated January 20, 2025, prepared by AFD Designs, and attached as Appendix C herein: Drawing A1 – Site Plan, Notes & Statistics; Drawing A9 – Front Elevation; Drawing A10 – Right Side Elevation; Drawing A11 – Rear Elevation; and Drawing A12 – Left Side Elevation. 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.
The owner shall be required to submit a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.
APPENDIX C
SITE PLAN DRAWINGS
Footnotes
- Mr. Benczkowski’s Exhibit 3, City of Toronto’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods – Garden Suites – Final Report, dated December 21, 2021, p. 103.
- Cortellucci (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 253, TLAB Member G. Swinkin, issued August 27, 2024, TLAB File No. 24 131736 S45 12 TLAB, para. 101.