Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2025-05-15
24 229469 S45 11 TLAB
2025 ONTLAB 333
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
May 15, 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):
CITY OF TORONTO
Applicant(s):
GEOMETRA DESIGN LTD
Property Address:
171 PENDRITH ST
COA File No.:
23 147494 STE 11 MV (A0475/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
24 229469 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
4/10/2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
22/01/2025
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
GEOMETRA DESIGN LTD
Appellant (CITY)
CITY OF TORONTO
S. MESSINA
Party
C. ABATE
M. MAZIERSKI
Party
S. PIN
Participant
A. STOIKO
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The subject property, 171 Pendrith St, is located in the Dovercourt Village neighbourhood of the former City of Toronto. It is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan and zoned R(d0.6) under Zoning By-law 569-2013.
2On October 2, 2024, the Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) approved, with conditions, four variances for the property following two deferrals and significant revisions.
3The purpose of the application before the COA was to construct a three storey detached dwelling with an integral garage. The COA approved variances related to the maximum permitted height of side exterior main walls, front yard landscaped open space, maximum permitted height of the main pedestrian entrance and maximum floor space index.
4On October 22, 2025, the City of Toronto (City) appealed the decision of the COA. The primary concern cited with the application was the inadequate front yard landscaping and potential harm to a City owned tree.
5One of the first submissions required in the TLAB appeal process is the Applicant Disclosure (Form 3) in which the Applicant is required to disclose any revisions to the application as heard by the COA.
6The revised proposal eliminated the need for the entrance height variance and the wall height variance. A second unit was proposed for the basement, "converting the building to a duplex, thereby eliminating the floor space index variance". Thus, the only variance requested through this appeal process is the variance for the percentage of the front yard that is in the form of soft landscaping.
7REQUESTED VARIANCE
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 75% (9.97 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space must
be in the form of soft landscaping.
In this case, 59% (7.84 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space is in the form of soft landscaping.
8At the commencement of the Hearing of this matter, I was advised by the City lawyer, Ms. Messina, that the City's concerns had been alleviated and that the revised plans were satisfactory to the City with the imposition of an additional condition relating to permeable paving.
9Although the City no longer objected to the application, the Appeal was not withdrawn and there was no settlement agreement between the Parties. The TLAB was requested to approve the variance sought and impose a set of conditions agreed to by both Parties.
10Prior to the Hearing, Ms. Stoiko had withdrawn from her election as a Participant. She was, however, in attendance, and with the agreement of the Parties, was permitted to speak after the supporting evidence had been heard.
11I advised those present at the Hearing that I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their evidence.
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.
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
15Addison Milne-Price was qualified to provide land use planning evidence in support of the variance.
16Mr. Milne-Price explained the distinction in the Zoning By-law between what constitutes total landscaping and what is defined as soft landscaping. He emphasized that the proposal is compliant with the total amount of landscaping required, but that a variance is required for the proportion of landscaping that is to be "soft landscaping".
17For a property of this frontage, the Zoning By-law requires that half of the front yard area be landscaped. 75% of the required landscaped open space must be in the form of soft landscaping. The proposal is to provide 7.84m² of soft landscaping (59% of the required amount), which represents a deficit of 2.07m².
18There are complexities to the calculation of what is considered to be "landscape" (driveway is excluded) and what parts of the landscaping are acceptable as "soft" landscaping.
19A diagram and calculation to illustrate the landscape components for the front yard were included in the Document Disclosure.
Figure 1 Landscaping Drawing pg 891, Ex 1 Document Disclosure
20Mr. Milne-Price established a neighbourhood study area in accordance with the direction of the Official Plan. He provided a table of minor variance applications relating to soft landscaping reductions within his study area as well as an extensive photo study showing examples of front yard landscaping that exist within the neighbourhood.
21Mr. Milne-Price advised that the proposal would have a "net surplus" of soft landscaping compared to the minimum required soft landscaping when "considering both the front yard and the rear yard soft landscaping requirements". He also advised that the amount of soft landscaping proposed is greater than the amount that currently exists on the subject property.
22The calculation for landscaping and soft landscaping only includes the area within the boundaries of the property, and does not include the soft landscaping that is provided within the municipal boulevard.
23Ms. Stoiko had not provided a Witness Statement and was advised that failure to do so breached the procedural requirements for a Witness at the TLAB. With the agreement of the Parties, Ms. Stoiko was offered a few minutes to share her concerns on the understanding that the Parties would not be expected to respond to, or address, any of the matters she raised.
24Ms. Stoiko expressed her concern that the reconfiguration of the driveway would eliminate a parking spot on the street.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
25Although the Appellant, the City, no longer has objections to the proposal, this does not come to me as a settlement of the issues between the Parties. The standard of proof therefore remains at the level of a contested hearing, and deference will not be given to the outcome as would have been the case if the Parties had reached a formal settlement.
26I will provide a brief explanation of the path this application has taken in order to get to this final stage. All that remains for the TLAB to adjudicate is a single variance for soft landscaping in the front yard, even though the size and massing of the proposed building is similar to the application that was approved by the COA.
27Most of the letters of objection to the COA contained concerns about the size and floor space index of the proposed house. The proposal that was approved by the COA in October 2024 was for a three storey detached dwelling with an integral garage, a covered front porch with stairs, a rear ground floor deck and a rear basement walkout.
28In May 2023, City Council adopted an amendment to the Official Plan that added Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (SASP 826) to permit multiplexes in all designated Neighbourhoods, subject to a set of regulations that differ from those for single-unit dwellings.
29As a detached dwelling, constituting a single unit, the total floor area of the COA approved dwelling (287.45m²) required a variance. The permitted floor space index (ratio of gross floor area to total lot area) is 0.6 whereas the proposal represented a floor space index of 0.84 times the lot area.
30The regulations that apply to multiplex proposals (which includes duplexes) do not include a limitation on floor space index (By-law 474-2023).
31Amendment of the application to propose a duplex, instead of the single detached dwelling approved by the COA, effectively eliminates the need for a floor space index variance. The gross floor area proposed for the detached dwelling was 287.45m² and the gross floor area proposed for the duplex is 283.58m².
32s.45(18.1) of the Planning Act permits the TLAB to make a decision on an application which has been amended from the original application1 if written notice is given to the persons who received notice of the original application, or if in the tribunal's opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor (s.45(18.1.1).
33The COA approved the detached dwelling proposal and the four requested variances. The built form of the application has been changed to reduce the wall height and the height of the main pedestrian entrance, thereby eliminating the requirement for these variances.
34The basis of the City's appeal was the inadequate front yard landscaping and potential harm to a City owned tree. The City appeared at the Hearing, confirming that their concerns had been alleviated with the agreed-to permeable paving condition.
35The changes to the application approved by the COA have resulted in the elimination of three variances. Significantly, the floor space index, under the provisions for multiplexes, is permitted as of right. Any revised notice would not involve a variance for floor space index, only for the single variance that is currently before the TLAB.
36Under the circumstances outlined above, I find that since the amendments to the application have eliminated three of the four variances and improved the context for the remaining variance, no further notice is mandated.
37As the coverage on the property increases, it is axiomatic that the unbuilt area available for landscaping and soft landscaping is reduced. The Applicant has provided evidence in the form of photographs of other front yards in the neighbourhood as well as a table of variances previously granted for front yard soft landscaping in the neighbourhood. I concur that the proposed landscaping appears similar and is in character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
38Mr. Milne-Price advised that the general intent and purpose of the front yard soft landscaping provision in the Zoning By-law is to provide adequate planting space for street trees, to ensure adequate space for stormwater infiltration purposes, as well as to provide an appropriate amount of amenity space.
39I find that the visual amenity of the front yard would be similar to those in the neighbourhood. The Applicant has agreed to a City condition that permeable paving will be used in the front yard. This condition, combined with the additional landscaped area in the rear yard, addresses the stormwater infiltration intent of the zoning provision.
40I find that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. I also find that the variance is minor and desirable for the use of the land.
CONDITIONS
41The COA approval of the previous design for the subject property was subject to conditions recommended by City departments. These include a condition that the owner must submit an application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree.
42The Parties have agreed to a condition that permeable eco paving be used in the front yard as described in the drawings.
43In addition to the conditions agreed to by the Parties, I will impose the TLAB standard condition that the construction be undertaken substantially in accordance with the plans as submitted to the TLAB, as the variance has been justified on the basis of the interplay between the front and rear yards, as well as the qualification of the proposal as a duplex and not a detached dwelling.
CONCLUSION
44Due to a revision of the application to propose a duplex in place of a detached dwelling, the floor space index variance is no longer required. The only variance still before the TLAB for adjudication is for the percentage of soft landscaping in the front yard.
45I find that the remaining variance for soft landscaping in the front yard meets the statutory tests.
46No further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
47The Appeal is allowed, in part. The variance listed in Appendix A is authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.
A. Bassios
Panel member, Vice Chair
APPENDIX A
APPROVED VARIANCE AND CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL:
VARIANCES:
- Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 75% (9.97 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space must be in the form of soft landscaping.
In this case, 59% (7.84 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space is in the form of soft landscaping.
CONDITIONS:
The owner/applicant must submit a complete application for permit to injure or remove a City owned tree(s) under Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II, Trees on City Streets, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, Toronto and East York District.
The applicant must revise the site plan to show a 3 m wide driveway and 3 m wide curb cut on the City boulevard, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Planning & Review (Area 1), Transportation Services, Toronto and East York District.
The owner/applicant must submit an application for Curb restoration to Permits and Enforcement, Transportation Services (Contact by Telephone: 416-392-7877 or Email: trarow@toronto.ca) to arrange for curb extension/shift (subject to additional curb cut fees) to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Planning & Review (Area 1), Transportation Services, Toronto and East York District.
The proposed duplex be built and landscaping be completed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan (Drawing A2), Landscaping Plan (Drawing A3), Floor Plans (Drawings A4, A5, A6) and Elevations (Drawings A9, A10, A11, A12, A13) prepared by Geometra Design on January 29th, 2025 and attached to this decision, including especially the use of "permeable eco paving or pavers" shown on these drawings, which shall be placed on a base of High-Performance Bedding (HPB) or washed limestone.
Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized