Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 250752 S45 12 TLAB
2025 ONTLAB 326
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: April 28, 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): J. GHARAVI
Applicant(s): HOSSEINI HOMES CORPORATION
Property Address: 221 CHAPLIN CRES
COA File No.: 24 204115 STE 12 MV (A0785/24TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 250752 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): April 24, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
J. GHARAVI
M. GHARAVI
Applicant
HOSSEINI HOMES CORPORATION
HOSSEINI HOMES CORPORATION
Party (TLAB)
J. ABBRASI
Party (TLAB)
C. RUDKA
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) concerns the property municipally known as 221 Chaplin Crescent (the “Property”), which is located within the Forest Hill South neighbourhood. The Property is located on the south side of Chaplin Crescent between Tarlton Road and Duncannon Road. It abuts the Kay Gardner Beltline Trail, which lies on its southern lot line.
The Property is presently improved with a Tudor style, two storey, single detached dwelling with an accessory garage in the rear yard.
The owners wish to demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a new three storey dwelling with integral garage.
The design proposal generated by the owners necessitated obtaining nine variances from the operative Zoning By-law 569-2013.
Those variances were identified as follows:
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 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone (0.9 m).
The rear second floor deck will be located 0.33 m from the side (east) lot line.
- Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted building length is 17 m.
The new dwelling will have a length of 18.29 m.
- Chapter 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.6 times the area of the lot
(215.46 m²).
The new dwelling will have a floor space index equal to 1.15 times the area of the lot (411.55 m²).
- Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback is 0.9 m.
The new dwelling will be located 0.33 m from the side (east) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 50% (29.64 m²) of the front yard is required to be landscaping.
In this case, 37.56% (22.17 m²) of the front yard will be maintained as landscaping.
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 75% (22.23 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space must be in the form of soft landscaping.
In this case, 60.56% (17.95 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space will be in the form of soft landscaping.
- Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted area of each platform located at or above the second storey of a dwelling is 4 m².
The rear second floor deck will have an area of 26.26 m².
- Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of the main pedestrian entrance above established grade is 1.2 m.
In this case, the height of the front main pedestrian entrance above established grade will be 1.9 m.
- Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 9.5 m for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.
In this case, the height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line will be 10.24 m for 100% of the total width.
- The owners applied to the Committee of Adjustment and their application was denied. Despite the provisions of Subsections 45(8.1) and (8.2) of the Planning Act, in keeping with custom, the Committee Notice of Decision simply declares that, in their view, the application did not meet the tests set forth in Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, without addressing any effect that written and oral submissions may have had on their decision. So, the Tribunal is not left with any clear indication of whether, in their view, the totality of the application was unacceptable or if it may have been confined to one or more particular heads of the relief requested. The owners appealed that denial decision to the Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
- Provincial Interest - Sec. 2, Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in Section 2 of the Planning Act.
- Provincial Policy – Sec. 3, Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS)
- Variance – Sec. 45(1), Planning Act
In considering the application for variances from the Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application meets 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-law;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The owners retained a Registered Professional Planner to provide evidence to the Tribunal with respect to the application before it. In that regard, Connor Rudka filed an extensive expert witness statement prior to the hearing and gave oral testimony at the hearing.
Apart from Mr. Rudka, the only other person who was present at the hearing was Maziar Gharavi, who was present on behalf of the owner parties.
This appeal had been the subject of a Pre-hearing Conference on April 4th. In addition to Mr. Gharavi and Mr. Rudka, and other persons connected with the project, the next door neighbour to the east (at 219 Chaplin Crescent), Mr. John Matthews, was present at that session. He had previously registered to be a Party to the appeal. At that session, over which this panel presided, the panel encouraged the Parties to pursue further communication with a view to finding a possible solution to any perceived issues.
At this present session, Mr. Gharavi informed the Tribunal that he did undertake a communication with Mr. Matthews and ascertained that his primary concern was with possible invasion of privacy due to the size and exent of the second storey rear platform proposed.
Going into the Pre-hearing Conference, the owners understood this issue and had directed revision of the building plans to pull the eastern edge of the platform away from the east lot boundary, which translated to having the eastern edge of the platform located 1.295 metres from the boundary. In addition, they directed reduction in the extent, or area, of the platform from 26.26 square metres to 19.5 square metres. And to further address the issue, they agreed to implement a privacy screen on the east and west sides of the platform in the form of frosted glass panels that are a minimum of 1.2 metres in height.
Apparently, on the undertaking of these commitments, Mr. Matthews was no longer concerned and he formally withdrew his request for status in the appeal. He did not appear at the final hearing.
Mr. Rudka’s educational and work experience were set out in the resumè filed with his witness statement. On the strength of what was set out in that resumè, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Rudka to give opinion evidence on land use planning matters in this proceeding.
Mr. Rudka’s expert witness statement and all of its schedules and attachments are taken in as Exhibit 1 in the proceeding.
Mr. Rudka identified policies within the PPS which he believed to be of general application to this proposal and identified the proposal as being compatible with them. The Tribunal accepts that opinion and the Tribunal sees no issue arising out of this application regarding the declared Provincial interests as set forth in Section 2 of the Planning Act.
Mr. Rudka established a Study Area in keeping with the guidance set forth in Section 4.1.5 of the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”).
Mr. Rudka then went through the various clauses in that Section to ascertain if and how the proposal would conform with those policy directives. This analysis was achieved by considering the text on its face and by the organization of data secured from the City Planning Division as to the characteristics of properties in the Study Area and variance relief which has been granted to properties within the Study Area over the last number of years. In every instance, there were comparable levels of relief granted to properties proximate to the Property or within the general neighbourhood.
The Tribunal is persuaded, on the evidence of Mr. Rudka, that the proposal here will conform with the general intent and purpose of the policies of the OP.
Mr. Rudka also undertook a careful review of the various heads of relief being sought and whether the requests were in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
It should here be noted that with the adjustments to the second storey platform, there were two modifications being made to the relief requested in the application which was before the Committee. Firstly, the relief requested under Head No, 1, being the distance of the platform from the east property line, was no longer required as with the pulling in of the platform, the requirements of the Zoning By-law, being a 0.9 metres setback, would be met. Secondly, with the reduction in the area of the platform, the relief requested under Head No. 7 was to be modified from 26.26 square metres to 19.5 square metres.
The Tribunal, under the authority of Section 45 (18.1) of the Planning Act, can entertain modifications to the relief requested in the original application and under Section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act, if it determines those modifications to be minor, can waive any further notice of them.
In this instance, the Tribunal is of the view that in both cases, the modifications effectively reduced the relief requested, and as such it was appropriate to entertain such modifications and that they were minor and no further notice was required.
For each head of relief, Mr. Rudka provided a view as to the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and how the proposal here was in keeping with that general intent and purpose.
In that regard, a number of the variances were a function of the nature of the sloping grade of the Property. There is a significant slope down of the Property from east to west and from north to south. This has an impact on what is defined under the Zoning By-law as established grade, which forms a baseline for measuring a variety of heights and what constitutes a building storey. This had a significant impact on a number of measurements and when put in perspective, altered what the sheer numeric outcome was on paper.
This even had an impact on the calculated value of the Floor Space Index (“FSI”). What is shown as the basement floor, where the vehicles enter the garage, as it proceeds southward rises above the established grade and is treated as the first storey and therefore included in the gross floor area for the dwelling. In cases of more level lots, the basement level would be below grade and that floor area would not be calculated within the FSI. In this instance, if the basement area were excluded, the FSI would be calculated as 0.83 rather than the 1.15 requested by this application. Mr. Rudka produced a number of examples of FSI within the Study Area which were around this value. The data shows dwellings with FSI of 1.0, 1.1, 1.11, 0.95, 0.99 and 1.39. As such, this FSI is not as extreme as it might superficially appear. Again, in his opinion, the massing of the proposed dwelling is entirely in keeping with the new builds in the neighborhood.
Mr. Rudka asserted that the proposal was desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. It was his view that dwellings with similar built form exist within the surrounding neighborhood. Similar dwellings have also been approved by the Committee of Adjustment within the immediate context. These dwellings form part of the character of the neighborhood, and respect and reinforce that character within the surrounding neighborhood.
Finally, Mr. Rudka asserted that the relief requested could legitimately be characterized as minor in nature. He expressed his opinion that the test as to whether a variance is minor in nature is based on the context of the existing built form and character of the surrounding neighborhood and whether the requested variances would result in negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Based on his review, he concluded that there was no apparent negative impact and that the proposal was in keeping with the new development which was occurring in this neighbourhood.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Tribunal had been concerned with a set of plans which had originally been filed for the purpose of the Committee application. The site plan in that set indicated an intent to have the double car garage served by a double wide driveway all the way to the street. Such a design would have required removal of a 46cm dbh honey locust tree in the City boulevard in front of the Property. Of course, as a City tree, the owners would have no right to removal of that tree and based upon the comments from the Urban Forestry Division to the Committee, it appeared that that Division had no intention of entertaining such a removal.
As a result, the owners withdrew that approach and redesigned the site plan to simply retain the existing single wide driveway entrance to the Property and to allow it to flare to a double wide apron only beyond the impact zone of the honey locust tree.
For the purposes of the Tribunal, this was an important concession and is critical to any approval being given here. To that end, simply to ensure that all due respect is given to the preservation of that tree, a condition will be imposed requiring express scrutiny by the Urban Forestry Division through the mechanism of the filing of an application for tree injury solely to ensure establishment of appropriate tree preservation measures.
Mr. Gharavi did state that he recognized that that tree contributed greatly to the urban streetscape and to the Property and that they had every intention to ensure its preservation.
Having carefully read the witness statement of Mr. Rudka and its attachments, and having considered the oral testimony of Mr. Rudka, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal and its associated variance requests, as modified before this Tribunal, are appropriate and meet the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
CONCLUSION
As the requested variances, as modified before this Tribunal, have been determined by the Tribunal to meet the four tests set forth in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal will be allowing the appeal.
To ensure the preservation of the City honey locust tree and to ensure implementation of the privacy screen on the second storey rear platform, conditions will be imposed to achieve those ends.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the following variances are approved, subject to the conditions imposed below:
Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted building length is 17 m.
The new dwelling will have a length of 18.29 m.
- Chapter 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.6 times the area of the lot
(215.46 m²).
The new dwelling will have a floor space index equal to 1.15 times the area of the lot (411.55 m²).
- Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback is 0.9 m.
The new dwelling will be located 0.33 m from the side (east) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 50% (29.64 m²) of the front yard is required to be landscaping.
In this case, 37.56% (22.17 m²) of the front yard will be maintained as landscaping.
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 75% (22.23 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space must be in the form of soft landscaping.
In this case, 60.56% (17.95 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space will be in the form of soft landscaping.
- Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted area of each platform located at or above the second storey of a dwelling is 4 m².
The rear second floor deck will have an area of 19.5 m².
- Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of the main pedestrian entrance above established grade is 1.2 m.
In this case, the height of the front main pedestrian entrance above established grade will be 1.9 m.
- Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 9.5 m for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.
In this case, the height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line will be 10.24 m for 100% of the total width.
The CONDITIONS are:
The applicant shall apply to the City of Toronto Urban Forestry Division for a tree injury permit with respect to the honey locust tree in the City boulevard in front of the Property strictly for the purpose of ensuring City oversight of the preservation of that tree and the specification of the necessary tree protection measures which are appropriate.
The second storey rear platform shall be constructed so as to be setback from the east property line at least 1.29 metres and that platform shall be constructed with frosted glass panels at least 1.2 metres in height on its east and west sides.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member