Korkmaz (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 334

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2025-05-23

24 243900 S53 08 TLAB 24 244140 S45 08 TLAB 24 244143 S45 08 TLAB

Korkmaz (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 334

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: May 23, 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): S. KORKMAZ

Applicant(s): F. ROMANO

Property Address: 579 GLENCAIRN AVE

COA File No.: 24 160189 NNY 08 CO (B0025/24NY), 24 160193 NNY 08 MV (A0299/24NY), 24 160197 NNY 08 MV (A0300/24NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 24 243900 S53 08 TLAB 24 244140 S45 08 TLAB 24 244143 S45 08 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): April 23, 2025 and May 12, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: May 14, 2025

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
APPLICANT	F. ROMANO
APPELLANT	S. KORKMAZ	M. MAZIERSKI
PARTY	CITY OF TORONTO	U. GAUTAM, A. NANJI
PARTY	S. DALE
PARTY	A. ARONSON

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1On June 5, 2024, Franco Romano, applied to the Committee of Adjustment (the "Committee"), on behalf of the Appellant, S. Korkmaz, for consent to sever to split 579 Glencairn Avenue (the "Subject Site") into two lots; for 13 minor variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on the westerly lot to be created (Part 1); and for 14 minor variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on the easterly lot to be created (Part 2).

2By Decision dated November 14, 2024, the Committee refused the consent and variance applications.

3On November 25, 2024, Mr. Romano submitted an appeal of the Committee's decision with respect to the consent and minor variances to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "TLAB").

4On February 5, 2025, Mr. Romano filed revised plans with the TLAB concerning the proposed dwellings: He added a second unit to the basements of the proposed dwellings on Parts 1 and 2 (thus converting each proposed building to a duplex); and made some design changes. The conversion and changes reduced the number of variances for Part 1 to five and Part 2 to five. The Appellant did not change the plans with respect to the proposed severance. I will refer to the application for consent as the "Consent Application", and the applications for revised variances as the "Amended Variance Applications". Collectively, the Consent Application and Amended Variance Applications constitute the "Appeal".

5On March 17, 2025, Mr. Romano submitted an Expert Witness Statement supporting the Appeal. On the same date, Mr. Adam Nanji submitted an Expert Witness Statement opposing the Appeal.

6On April 1, 2025, Mr. Romano submitted a Responding Expert Witness Statement, and Mr. Nanji submitted a Reply Witness Statement. On April 11, 2025, Mr. Romano submitted a Reply Expert Witness Statement.

7On April 21, 2025, I visited the Subject Site and familiarized myself with the area context, including Glencairn Ave. and adjacent streets.

8On April 23, 2025, I presided over the first day of the appeal before the TLAB. I noted that the Amended Variance Applications requested fewer and/or lesser variances, than those refused by the Committee. As a result, I found that the Amended Variance Applications do not require further notice, pursuant to Section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

9I asked the Applicant/Appellant and the City to address three issues I considered particularly relevant to my decision:

(a) Conformity with Official Plan (the "OP"), including size and dimensions of lots;

(b) Comparison of impact: two lots each with a duplex, with one lot with one house built as-of-right; and

(c) Applicable planning policy concerning the replacement of one detached house with two duplexes.

10On May 1, 2025, Mr. Romano filed a Supplemental Reply Expert Witness Statement (the "Supplemental Reply"). On May 6, 2025, Ms. Uttra Gautam, Counsel for the City, wrote a letter objecting to the acceptance of the Supplemental Reply by the TLAB.

11On May 12, 2025 I presided over the second day of the Hearing. I commenced by considering the status of the Supplemental Reply. I agreed with Ms. Gautam that: an objection to oral evidence led by Mr. Nanji on April 23 should have been raised on that date, not subsequently; the Supplementary Reply was not filed in accordance with the time limits set out in Rule 16 of the TLAB's Rules of Practice and Procedure; and that the Applicant did not file a motion to admit a Document not identified in the Rules. In addition, I noted that the Supplemental Reply dealt with proposed landscaping and driveway width, which were not the subjects of the Amended Variance Applications. Consequently, I issued an oral ruling not allowing the Supplemental Reply to be entered as an Exhibit.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

12Provincial Interest - S. 2

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.

13Provincial Policy – S. 3

A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.

14Consent – S. 53

TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

(l) the extent to which the plan's design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006."

15Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
• are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Shana Dale and Akiva Aronson – Neighbours at 581 Glencairn Avenue

16I first heard evidence from Ms. Shana Dale. Ms. Dale and her partner, Akiva Aronson, live at 581 Glencairn, immediately west of the Subject Site. Both Ms. Dale and Mr. Aronson elected Party status, and both submitted identical Witness Statements setting out their intended evidence.¹

17Their Witness Statements referred to a lack of consultation by the Applicant/Appellant. It also expressed a concern about privacy, both from bedroom windows and the rear deck of the dwelling proposed to be constructed on the westerly proposed lot.

18In her oral evidence, Ms. Dale stated that she did not object to the development in principle but repeated her concern about the lack of privacy resulting from windows on the west side of the proposed house, and from the rear deck.

Franco Romano - Applicant/Appellant

19Counsel for the Applicant called Mr. Franco Romano as a witness. I reviewed Mr. Romano's education and experience, and qualified him as an expert in the field of land use planning.

20Mr. Romano described the Subject Site as a rectangular lot with 15.24 metre frontage, lot depth of 40.7 m and lot area of 620.8m2.

21The proposed consent would result in 2 lots, each with a frontage of 7.62m and a lot area of 310.4m2.

22The proposed variances in the Amended Variance Applications are set out in Table 1, below:

Table 1 – List of Variances

Zoning By-law Standard	Requirement	Part 1 – West Lot	Part 2 – East Lot
1. Lot Frontage	15m minimum	7.62m	7.62m
2. Lot Area	550m2minimum	310.4m2	310.4m2
3. Side Yard Setback	1.8m minimum	1.2m west & 0.6m east	1.2m east & 0.6m west
4. Platform (Porch) Side Yard Setback	1.8m minimum	0.6m east	1.2m closer to west side lot line (0.6m west)
5. Canopy Side Yard Setback	1.8m minimum	0.6m east	1.2m closer to west side lot line (0.6m west)

23Mr. Romano described Glencairn as a major collector street, rather than a local road. He noted that the Subject Site had bus service every 26 minutes; was located close to Bathurst with bus service every 10 minutes, and was located approximately 770m from the Glencairn subway station.

24Mr. Romano described the surrounding area as a low-rise residential neighbourhood, designated as Neighbourhoods by the OP, and zoned in By-law 569-2013 (the "ZBL").

25Mr. Romano delineated a neighbourhood study area bounded by Allen Road to the west, Bathurst Street to the east, Viewmount Avenue to the south and Coldstream Avenue to the north, comprising 715 lots.

26According to Mr. Romano, the neighbourhood contains a variety of lots with dimensions and sizes ranging from modest to modestly large. It also contains a variety of low-rise buildings, with varying heights and massing, ranging from single storey bungalows to houses containing three living levels. According to Mr. Romano, it is common to have lots of different sizes and houses of different dimensions beside and near to one another.

27According to Mr. Romano, there is a generous supply of lots with frontages less than the ZBL requirement of 15.24 m (62% of lots in the neighbourhood, and 53% of the lots in the immediate context of the Subject Site). There are a number of lots on Glencairn Avenue with frontages of 7.62 m, similar to those being proposed.

28There are also a significant number of lots with areas less than the By-law requirement of 550m2 (46% in the neighbourhood as a whole, and 53% in the immediate context).

29According to Mr. Romano, side yard setbacks are frequently smaller than the ZBL minimum of 1.8m: 84% of the properties in the immediate context have at least one side yard setback less than 1.8m

30Mr. Romano stated that this planning application must have regard to matters of provincial interest such as the adequate provision of a full range of housing.²

31He also stated that the application must be consistent with the updated Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, adopted on October 20, 2024 (the "2024 PPS").

32Mr. Romano noted that the 2024 PPS directs planning authorities to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of housing options, permit and facilitate housing intensification and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units, particularly on lands adjacent to frequent transit corridors.³

33Frequent transit means a public transit service that runs at least every 15 minutes in both directions during the day and into the evening.⁴

34The 2024 PPS also states that planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with the 2024 PPS⁵, and that:

"Where a planning authority must decide on a planning matter before their official plan has been updated, it must still make a decision that is consistent with the PPS".⁶

35Mr. Romano described the OP as a policy document, to be read as a whole:

"Policies in the Plan should not be read in isolation or to then exclusion of other relevant policies in the Plan. Where more than one policy is relevant, all appropriate policies are to be considered in each situation. The goal of this plan is to appropriately balance and reconcile a range of diverse objectives affecting land use planning in the City."⁷

36Mr. Romano stated that Chapter 1 of the OP, Planning Priorities and Principles, was updated in its entirety on April 18, 2024. He also stated that Chapter 4 of the OP, Land Use Designations, had not been updated as of the date of the Hearing.

37He stated the OP addresses housing demand as follows:

"Toronto's growth in population and jobs coupled with larger economic changes has placed enormous pressure on housing, making it difficult for residents to find, keep and afford their homes. Recognizing the critical importance of housing accessibility and affordability, the Official Plan will facilitate a broader range of housing options".⁸

38He also noted that the OP addresses the principle of inclusion as follows:

"The Official Plan will ensure that:

• all neighbourhoods are welcoming of everyone by offering a range of housing forms, tenures and affordability …"⁹

39Mr. Romano referred to Chapter 2 describing urban structure. In his opinion, the proposed lots and buildings would maintain the low rise and low-density character of the Neighbourhood designation.

40Mr. Romano addressed Chapter 3 describing built form. In his opinion, the Amended Variance Applications would locate and organize buildings to fit in with the existing and planned context with respect to location, front yard setbacks, ground floor uses, the protection of privacy, vehicle parking, building location, massing and height.

41Mr. Romano included in his document book a Report titled Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (the "EHON Report"), dated April 13, 2023, approved by City Council at its meeting of May 10-12, 2023. The EHON Report proposed an OPA and ZBLA to permit multiplexes, including duplexes, in all lands in the City designated Neighbourhoods, subject to appropriate criteria.

42According to Mr. Romano's evidence, the Amended Applications are subject to Amendment 649 of the OP, implemented as Site and Area Specific Amendment ("SASP") 826, arising from EHON and adopted by City Council at its meeting on May 10 -12, 2023. I will refer to OP Amendment 649/SASP 826 as the "Multiplex OPA".

43The Multiplex OP states that "Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies:

b) The development of multiplexes:

i. will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including, in particular:

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes;

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street;

d) maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within the front and rear yard setbacks . . .;

f) special landscape or built-for features of the geographic neighbourhood

ii. is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit that contains multiple bedrooms"

44Mr. Romano stated that there is a generous supply of lots in the neighbourhood that are smaller than the 15m lot frontage and 550 m2 lot area. He also noted that there were seven lots in the neighbourhood, including six on Glencairn, that had a frontage of 7.62m or less.

45Mr. Romano conceded that the proposed lots with a frontage of 7.62m are not the most frequently occurring in the neighbourhood. However, they contribute to the neighbourhood and Glencairn Avenue perspective in a meaningful and substantive manner.

46Mr. Romano was emphatic that the Amended Applications were not subject to OP Policy 4.1.5, which contains the following definition of prevailing:

"prevailing will mean the most frequently occurring for the purposes of this policy."

47Following is Table 2, prepared by Mr. Romano, which compares the requirements for development in Neighbourhoods in OP Policy 4.1.5 and the Multiplex OPA:¹⁰

Table 2: Official Plan Neighbourhoods Policies – Parent and SASP 826 Comparison

	Parent Official Plan – Policy 4.1.5	SASP 826 (OPA 649) – Multiplexes
2		826. Multiplexes in Neighbourhoods. Low-rise residential buildings that contain more than one unit make more efficient use of land, and provide more ground-related housing choices for all residents at all stages of their lives, supporting the vitality of the city's Neighbourhoods. Multiplexes – residential buildings containing up to four units – can deliver additional dwellings while integrating with the general physical scale and development patterns of the neighbourhood. To accommodate the modest intensification needed to house more people, regulations for multiplexes may differ from single-unit buildings to ensure efficient and livable homes for Toronto's residents.
3		Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies:
4		a) For the purposes of this Site and Area Specific Policy, a "multiplex" refers to a duplex, triplex, or fourplex.
5	Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:	b) Development of multiplexes: i. will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:
6	a)patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites; b)prevailing size and configuration of lots; c)prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; d) prevailing building type(s); e) prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages; f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space; h) continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.	a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites; b) prevailing size and configuration of lots; c) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; d) maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard setbacks that is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy; e) conserving heritage properties and heritage conservation districts; and f) special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood.
7		ii. is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit that contains multiple bedrooms; iii. will provide entrances that are safely accessible from the street, which may be located at the front, side or rear of the building; iv. 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; v. is encouraged to salvage and/or reuse existing building materials and/or foundations; vi. is encouraged to provide green roof areas, solar panels, and low carbon building materials, and to ensure any parking spaces are designed to permit future electric vehicle supply equipment; vii. will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units; viii. will integrate with existing grades at the property line; and ix. is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a multiplex.

48It was Mr. Romano's opinion that approval of the Appeal would achieve an appropriate balance between protecting the local physical character and allowing incremental growth, as recommended in the EHON Report.¹¹

49Mr. Romano described the requirements for approval of the consent as requiring a higher threshold than those for approving the minor variances. However, he noted that "regard shall be had" for whether the lots to be severed conform to the official plan.¹² Consequently, strict conformity with the OP is not required.

50It was Mr. Romano's opinion that the Consent Applications had regard to the provincial interest in the efficient use of energy, water, and transportation and the appropriate location of growth and development. They are also consistent with the 2024 PPS objective of intensification, particularly along a frequent transit corridor close to a major transit station area.

51The Consent Application also has regard for the recently enacted Multiplex OPA. The proposed addition of a lot with a frontage of 7.62m and an area of 310 m2 has regard for the larger lot sizes and dimensions in the neighbourhood, since similar frontages and lot sizes co-exist and contribute to the existing physical character of development.

52It was Mr. Romano's opinion that the Amended Variance Applications have regard for the provincial interest in the adequate provision of a full range of housing and the promotion of development to support public transit. They are consistent with the 2024 PPS objectives of intensification, a range of housing options, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units, particularly on lands adjacent to frequent transit corridors.¹³

53Mr. Romano opined that the Amended Applications are consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Multiplex OPA. They address housing demand, maintain the low rise character of the neighbourhood, and provide housing that fits in and is compatible with existing development in the area.

54Mr. Roman further opined that the Amended Applications meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. The proposed lot frontage and area variances achieve appropriately sized lots within the Subject Site's general context. The proposed side yard setbacks reflect the setbacks in the surrounding area and provide adequate space for access, maintenance and spatial separation. The platform and canopy side yard setbacks achieve an appropriate subordinate attachment to the dwelling.

55Mr. Romano addressed the concerns raised by Ms. Dale and Mr. Aronson.

56He pointed out that the west side elevation of the duplex proposed for the westerly lot contained only four windows. The largest window is proposed to be located in the dining room, which would minimize any privacy and overlook impacts.

57To address concerns raised by the abutting neighbours, Mr. Romano confirmed that the Appellant would agree to the TLAB imposing a condition of approval to provide an opaque privacy screen along the west side of the rear deck facing a similar rear deck constructed by Ms. Dale & Mr. Aronson, to reduce overlook and increase privacy.

58On cross-examination, Mr. Romano agreed that the Amended Application would not meet the definition of "prevailing" contained in Chapter 4 of the OP.

Adam Nanji – City of Toronto

59Counsel for the City called Mr. Adam Nanji as a witness. I reviewed Mr. Nanji's education and experience, and qualified him to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.

60Mr. Nanji chose a neighbourhood study area that was similar to that identified by Mr. Romano, except that he excluded properties on the north side of Glengrove and on Coldstream, due to the location of a large public school on the north side of Glengrove. There are approximately 550 detached dwellings in Mr. Nanji's study area.

61According to Mr. Nanji, the neighbourhood contains a mix of one and two storey dwellings. The one storey dwellings, including the house currently located on the Subject Site, are typically older homes, some with minor renovations or additions. There are a number of newer homes ranging from two to three stories in height, with varying architectural features and designs.

62According to Mr. Nanji, the new homes have minor modifications such as reduced setbacks and increased main wall heights. However, the existing lot fabric, lot frontage and lot patterns have not changed. Therefore, he opined that the new development has respected the existing character of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Nanji illustrated his position with graphs showing lot frontages and lot areas in the neighbourhood. Bar Graph 1, below sets out lot frontages in the neighbourhood. Bar Graph 2 sets out lot sizes for that portion of the neighbourhood zoned for 15 metres.

63Mr. Nanji also submitted that there were only seven lots out of 348 that had lot frontages of 7.62 m if the neighbourhood is restricted to those lots with the same zoning as the Subject Site, which require minimum lot frontages of 15m.

64Mr. Nanji considered the 2024 PPS. He agreed that the Appeal did not conflict with the 2024 PPS. However, he noted that the PPS states that:

"Municipal official plans are the most important vehicle for implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement and for achieving comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning".

65It was Mr. Nanji's opinion that the OP has the primary role in directing where intensification is to occur, and in what form. The OP encourages intensification along major streets, and continues to preserve the existing stable character of residential neighbourhoods.

66According to Mr. Nanji, the proposed consent application fails to satisfy the criteria contained in S. 51(24) (c) and (f) of the Planning Act.

67The consent application does not conform to the prevailing size and configuration of lots, as shown in the Bar Charts above.

68Mr. Nanji reviewed the use and definition of the word "prevailing". He noted that "prevailing" was added to Chapter 4.1.5 of the OP in December 2018, as amended by OPA 320, when it was defined as "the most frequently occurring". "In the event that a neighbourhood has a mix of characteristics, "prevailing" will not preclude development whose physical characteristics "exist in substantial numbers within the geographic neighbourhood and already have a significant presence on properties located in the immediate context or abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent blocks."

69It was Mr. Nanji's opinion that lots with frontages of 7.62m are not the most frequently occurring in the broader geographic neighbourhood, nor do such lots exist in substantial numbers within the broader neighbourhood or have a significant presence along Glencairn.

70Mr. Nanji stated that within the immediate context of the Subject Site, all of the lots remained the same size as when they were created through the original subdivision.

71According to Mr. Nanji, the applicability of a stringent definition of "prevailing" to the Consent Applications was not affected by the passage of the Multiplex OPA. The Multiplex OPA dealt with the definition and location of certain types of residential buildings, not the creation of additional lots.

72Mr. Nanji also considered whether the Amended Variance Applications met the tests set out in S.45 of the Planning Act.

73Mr. Nanji submitted that the Multiplex OPA does not exempt the Amended Variance Applications from all of the provisions of Chapter 4.1.5. He argued that the development of multiplexes continued to be subject to the same policy of maintaining the prevailing size and conformity of lots. Continued use of the word "prevailing" meant that the same definition should continue to apply.

74Mr. Nanji made an alternative submission with respect to the Amended Variance Applications. He stated that if I do not agree that the minor variances must maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP, including the definition of "prevailing" in Ch. 4.1.5, then I should consider the dictionary definition of "prevailing".

75At my request, the City provided several dictionary definitions of "prevailing" at the conclusion of the first day of the hearing, which Mr. Nanji discussed on the second day of the hearing.

76According to several dictionaries, "prevailing" is defined as:

"existing or most common at a particular time"¹⁴ and

"generally accepted; widespread . . .most frequent or conspicuous; predominant"¹⁵

77In Mr. Nanji's opinion, lot frontages of 7.62m were not the most common, most frequent or widespread in the neighbourhood.

78Mr. Nanji then considered the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. He stated that minimum lot frontages and areas are intended to ensure a consistent pattern of development and open space to preserve the look and feel of established neighbourhoods. In his opinion, creating two lots with frontages of 7.62m would disrupt the look, feel and rhythm on Glencairn, and so would not be consistent with the pattern of development envisioned by the ZBL.

79Mr. Nanji noted that the proposed lot frontage would represent a reduction of 49% from the minimum required by the ZBL, and consequently, was not minor.

80He described the existing streetscape with larger lots typically containing wider buildings, more front landscaping and greater distance between driveways. Allowing narrower lots with slimmer buildings, less front landscaping and less distance between driveways would not be desirable for the Subject Site or the adjacent properties.

81On cross-examination, Mr. Nanji agreed that he excluded some narrower lots, such as those at 517 and 523 Glencairn, due to a lack of data. He also agreed that the Amended Applications would provide more front yard landscaping than photos of houses on narrower lots, such as 605 and 689 Glencairn, which he provided in his Witness Statement.

82I asked Mr. Nanji to clarify his opinion with respect to providing additional housing and preserving neighbourhood character. He agreed there needs to be a balance, but in his opinion, multiple housing units could be provided on the single existing lot on the Subject Site, rather than by the creation of two lots.

SUBMISSIONS

83Mr. Maziersky submitted that neither the test for the consent ("regard shall be had") nor the minor variances (the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL to be maintained) require strict compliance with the OP.

84He further submitted that the Multiplex OPA substitutes the objective of maintaining the low-rise form for multiplexes for the objective of respecting and reinforcing the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

85The Multiplex OPA also overrides the restrictive definition of "prevailing" for both the Consent and Amended Variance Applications. A lot severance is a form of development, so the Multiplex definition applies to the Consent Application.

86Mr. Mazierski submitted that the Appeal met the statutory tests for a consent and the corresponding variances. He submitted that there was no evidence from Mr. Nanji or the neighbours that the Amended Applications would result in any significant undue, adverse impacts of a planning nature.

87Mr. Mazierski cited case law in the form of four (4) TLAB decisions in support of the Amended Applications. All of the decisions he highlighted were issued after the Multiplex OPA was adopted in May, 2023.

88Mr. Mazierski relied on Ghafoori (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 185. In that case, the applicant sought to split a lot with a frontage of 11.28m into two lots, each with a frontage of 5.64m where 9m was required by the ZBL, and an area of 156.6m2 The applicant also sought variances to permit the construction of semi-detached houses on each lot.

89TLAB Chair D. Lombardi decided that the policies and development criteria contained in the Multiplex OPA, rather than the development criteria contained in Chapter Four of the OP, were applicable:

"I agree with Mr. Romano that in this instance, SASP 826 policies and development criteria are applicable. These OP policies relate to multiplexes and recognize that multiplexes are a form of housing that the City is looking to facilitate within its neighbourhoods . . . while lot frontages of the length proposed in these applications are not "prevailing", they are represented, nevertheless, in sufficient numbers that the development should not be precluded from consideration,"¹⁶

90Mr. Mazierski submitted that Re Javadzadeh,¹⁷ Re Cortellucci¹⁸ and Re Merlak¹⁹ also supported the Appellant's position that the Multiplex OPA supersedes Chapter 4.1.5 of the OP with respect to development criteria for duplex and other multiplex buildings.

91Ms. Gautam submitted that the Appeal fails to meet the more stringent statutory requirement for a consent, or any of the four tests for the variances.

92She stated that the consent continues to be subject to the requirement that the proposed lots conform to the OP requirements. The proposed lots would not meet the definition of prevailing set out in Chapter 4.1.5 of the OPA. The Multiplex OPA does not supersede the existing OPA.

93Even if the Multiplex OPA supersedes the OPA, the proposed lot sizes and dimensions would still not meet the dictionary definition of "prevailing".

94The proposed variances for lot frontage and size are not minor. Since they don't meet all of the tests, they should not be approved.

95Ms. Gautam cited nine cases, including five Ontario Municipal Board and Committee of Adjustment decisions released prior to the adoption of the Multiplex OPA.

96Ms. Gautam also cited a TLAB decision²⁰ and Review request²¹ concerning 1090 Kipling Ave. decided after May 23, 2023. TLAB Member Gallagher was not persuaded that the Multiplex OPA completely supersedes Policy 4.1.5 of the OP, particularly with respect to height limits, and he refused an application for height variances.

97In her Review of the decision, Vice-Chair Bassios was very clear that her task was not to assess the correctness of Member Gallagher's views, but rather to determine if the Member made errors which would likely have resulted in a different order:

"It is not within my remit as the Reviewer of the Decision to comment on the "correctness" of the Member's finding with respect as to whether or not OPA 649 completely supersedes Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan. Clarification of this policy question will no doubt evolve via tribunal jurisprudence."²²

98Ms. Gautam also relied on the recent case of Kaucis (Re) 2025 ONTLAB 330.²³ In that case, the Applicant sought a consent to sever a lot at 86 Harlandale Ave. into 2 lots, each with a proposed frontage of 7.62 m and an area of 273.5 m2, and variances to construct 2 new duplexed dwellings on each lot. Vice-Chair Bassios concurred with the view that the OP test was amended by the Multiplex OPA:

"the intent of SASP 826 is to amend, for these building types, the development criteria embedded in OP Policy 4.1.5. On this issue, I concur with the evidence of Mr. Romano."²⁴

99However, Vice-Chair Bassios went on to say that some of the criteria which are established in OP Policy 4.1.5 remain intact and in force in the amended requirements of SASP 826. Particularly important for her is criterion b) in both of the policy frameworks: prevailing size and configuration of lots:

"I note the "prevailing" language of this requirement, as defined in OP Policy 4.1.5, has been carried forward in OP Policy 4.1.5"²⁵

100Vice-Chair Bassios also recognized the rapidly evolving change in the balance between housing supply and neighbourhood character:

"I recognize that in an environment of rapidly evolving policy change, it is challenging for staff, experts, panel members and TLAB members to find a balance between emerging policy goals and the pre-existing objectives of the Official Plan.²⁶

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Changing Balance: Housing Supply and Neighbourhood Character

101In deciding whether to approve the Amended Applications, I must have regard to matters of provincial interest, set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act. According to Section 2, referenced by the Applicant, matters of provincial interest now include the following:

(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

(d) the efficient use of transportation, sewage and water systems;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing; and

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to support public transit.

102I conclude that this provision supports the principle of increasing the number and range of housing units, at least in principle and at a high level of generality.

103I must also ensure that my decision is consistent with the 2024 PPS. As noted by the Applicant, it requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options by permitting and facilitating all types of residential intensification, which result in a net increase in housing units.²⁷ It also requires planning authorities to plan for residential intensification on lands that are adjacent to existing frequent transit corridors, where appropriate.²⁸

104I have considered the position of the City, citing the Introduction to the PPS, that municipal official plans are the most important vehicle for implementation of the 2024 PPS. I have also considered the position of the Applicant, pointing out that the City has not yet updated Chapter 4 of its OP dealing with development in Neighbourhoods to be consistent with the 2024 PPS. I also note that where a planning authority must decide on a matter before the OP has been updated, it must make a decision that is consistent with the 2024 PPS.²⁹

105I am satisfied that the Applications before the TLAB support an increase in the number and range of housing units on the Subject Site, which is less than 800 metres from the Glencairn subway station, close to 10 minute bus service on Bathurst St. and on a street with 26 minute bus service.

106I must also render a decision which has regard for the OP, with respect to the Consent Application and the Amended Variance Applications.

107The Applicant put great weight on the changes to the OP resulting from the adoption of the Multiplex OPA. The City acknowledged its adoption, but put more weight on the continuity with the parent OPA resulting from the use of word "Development" and the retention of the words "prevailing size and configuration of lots".

108I reviewed the EHON Report which preceded and provided a rationale for the Multiplex OPA. The EHON Report notes the need for more housing in Toronto, particularly more low-rise housing at a scale similar to the existing context. It states that "There is room within the low-scale built form of Neighbourhoods to achieve a better balance between local physical character and incremental growth."³⁰

109The EHON Report notes that the City of Toronto OP adopted in 2006 was amended in 2018 by OPA 320 to strengthen neighbourhood protection by requiring development proposals to respect and reinforce the existing physical characteristic of each neighbourhood, including prevailing lot sizes and configurations.

110It states that the development criteria resulting from OPA 320 contained in Chapter 4.1.5 present challenging policy barriers to developing multiplexes in Neighbourhoods. The EHON Report recommended the adoption of an interim OPA to facilitate multiplexes in the near term, which was adopted as the Multiplex OPA in May 2023.

111The Multiplex OPA contains a preface stating that low-rise residential buildings that contain more than one unit make more efficient use of land. "To accommodate the modest intensification needed to house more people, regulation for multiplexes may differ from single-unit buildings to ensure efficient and liveable homes for Toronto residents."

112I find that the balance between planning goals changed to provide more protection for existing neighbourhoods with the introduction of OPA 320 in 2018. However, the balance evolved again, with the introduction of the Multiplex OPA in 2023, to provide more emphasis on adding housing supply.

113My decision must reflect the increasing emphasis on increasing housing supply through multiplex units, particularly on streets adjacent to transit corridors, if the Appeal meets the statutory tests.

Prevailing Size and Configuration of Lots

114The Multiplex OPA states that "Despite Policy 4.1.5 (emphasis added), multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the policy that multiplexes will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood. The Multiplex OPA does not carry forward the statement that such development must respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood.

115As both Parties noted at the Hearing, the Multiplex OPA contains criterion b)i.b) which carries forward the term "prevailing size and configuration of lots", but does not define the word "prevailing".

116The Applicant submits that the Multiplex OPA supersedes Policy 4.1.5 with respect to lot size and configuration, and "prevailing" no longer means "the most frequently occurring." The City takes the position that Policy 4.1.5 continues in effect, due to the maintenance of the wording "prevailing size and configuration of lots" in the Multiplex OPA.

117I prefer the position of the Applicant with respect to the appropriate test. In my view, the use of the word "Despite", together with the rationale for the Multiplex OPA contained in the EHON Report, supports my opinion that the Multiplex OPA provides the appropriate test.

118However, the Applicant must still show that it meets the Multiplex OPA test.

119It was Mr. Romano's evidence that the surrounding neighbourhood, and the proposed development, are both characterized as low-rise residential.

120The existing physical character in the neighbourhood is characterized by an assortment of lot frontages and sizes. A majority of lots in the neighbourhood have a lot frontage less than 15m minimum required by the ZBL for the Subject Site. A majority of the lots in the immediate context of the Subject Site have a lot area less than the minimum required lot size of 550m2.

121Mr. Romano also provided evidence that there approximately seven other lots, mostly located on Glencairn, that have the same lot frontage as those proposed – 7.62m. They exist and are generally accepted, although they are not the most frequently occurring in the immediate or broader neighbourhood.

122In addition to quantitative evidence, Mr. Romano provided qualitative evidence that smaller lot frontages were adjacent to larger lots, co-existed and were compatible with them.

123I have reviewed the photo evidence provided by both planners, which show that newer houses are generally taller and often wider than the original structures they have replaced. They often feature wide flat roofs rather than sloped roofs. Newer houses typically have integral garages which feature prominently in the front walls, rather than side yard driveways. I find, based on the photo evidence and confirmed by my site visit, that height, width, roof design and driveway placement of newer houses differs significantly from that of older houses. In my view those features play a more prominent role in determining the look and feel of the neighbourhood than lot frontage.

124I concur with Mr. Romano's evidence that the proposed lots exist in some numbers, are generally accepted, and will be compatible with the existing lots, although they will not be identical to them.

125I also note that the Multiplex OPA contains a number of other development standards that will be met by the Appeals. The Appeals will maintain patterns of streets, setbacks, contiguous soft landscaping, entrances from the street, and integration with existing grades. It will also include two units, each containing four bedrooms, constituting "large units" encouraged by the OPA.³¹

126Consequently, I find that the Consent Application meets the statutory test for development which will maintain the low-rise built form, including prevailing size and configuration of lots.

Test for Consents

127I concur with the City that the test for the consent is more rigorous and logically precedes the test for minor variance.

128I also concur with Mr. Romano that the numerous criteria for consents set out in S. 51(24) require me to have regard for (emphasis added) conformity with the official plan, and the prevailing size and configuration of lots. It does not require strict conformity with the OP or lots.

129As set out above, the OP standard for multiplexes is more permissive, putting more emphasis on the creation of more houses, while maintaining provisions to protect the low-rise character of neighbourhoods.

130I also note that the criteria speak to the size and configuration of lots, rather than lot frontage.

131The rectangular configuration of the proposed lots conforms to the vast majority of lots in the neighbourhood.

132The lot size is smaller, but the overall size is less noticeable than the lot frontage.

133I further note that the City does not challenge the Applicant with respect to its regard for the other twelve criteria for a consent set out in S. 51(24) (a)-(b), (d)-(e), or (g)-(m).

134Therefore, I find that the Applicant meets the criteria for a consent, and a plan of subdivision is not necessary.

Test for Minor Variances

135I am satisfied that the lot frontage and size meet the test of regard for conformity with the OP contained in S. 51 (24) of the Planning Act. The Parties agree that the test that lot frontage and size maintain the general intent and purpose of OP under S. 45 of the Planning Act is less stringent than the test for a consent. Consequently, I find that the variances for proposed lot frontage and size meet general intent and purpose of the OP and the ZBL.

136The Applicant is proposing a decrease of 0.6m in the side yard setback. The City has agreed that this variance is commonly found in the neighbourhood and does not oppose it. Related decreases are sought to reduce the side yard platform and canopy setbacks. I find that these variances meet the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL, in that they will provide sufficient space to maintain walls and other features.

137The Applicant asserted that the variances were minor, and created no unacceptable adverse impacts. Ms. Dale and Mr. Aronson, the only neighbours who appeared, were primarily concerned the impact of the proposed development on their privacy. I agree with Mr. Romano that any impact on their privacy will be mitigated by the construction of an opaque barrier along the rear platform adjacent to the rear deck of 581 owned by the neighbours. Therefore, the TLAB will include this as a condition of approval in this decision.

138I note that no other neighbours participated at the TLAB Hearing. Furthermore, I note that the City was unable to identify a specific significant adverse impact resulting from the proposal.

139I find that the proposed variances are minor.

140The City argued that four or more units could be constructed on one lot, without a severance. I agree. However, my task is not to determine alternate ways of increasing the housing supply, but rather to determine if the Applicant's proposal increases the housing supply while respecting the other goals of the OP, including maintenance of the low rise character of this neighbourhood.

141The Applicant contended that the proposed variances are desirable, since they will replace one older home with four dwelling units on two lots, and include two 'rental' units.

142I find that the creation of additional housing units on each lot is desirable, and consistent with the provincial interest, 2024 PPS and Multiple OPA. However, the additional units should be maintained and not be removed after their creation.

Number of Dwelling Units

143The Applicant is proposing to replace one older bungalow house with four dwelling units – providing the smaller basement units are maintained and utilized separately from the upper units each containing three bedrooms. It was also Mr. Romano's evidence that the two basement units would be rental units.

144The City argued that four or more units could be constructed on one lot, without a severance. I agree. However, my task is not to determine alternate ways of increasing the housing supply, but rather to determine if the Applicant's proposal satisfies the criteria for a severance and whether the corresponding variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the four statutory tests in s. 45 of the Planning Act. I find that they do.

145I also find that the proposal will result in an increase in the housing supply while respecting the other goals of the OP.

146The creation and maintenance of three additional housing units on the Subject Site is desirable and consistent with the policy objectives of the Multiplex OPA. Consequently, I will include an additional condition to those proposed by Appellant, to the effect that each house be not only constructed but also maintained as a duplex with two dwelling units.

CONCLUSION

147The Consent Application and Amended Variance Applications are allowed. I authorize the Consent Application and Variance Application, subject to the conditions set out below.

DECISION AND ORDER

The appeal is allowed; the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment dated November 14, 2024, are set aside.

The application for Consent to sever is approved subject to the conditions set out in Schedule A;

The variances to the Zoning By-law requested in the Amended Variance Applications and set out in Schedule B are allowed. The variances are subject to the conditions set out in Schedule C, which refer to and incorporate Part 1 and Part 2 Drawings prepared by EKP Designs Inc., dated 2025-02-26.

Ronald M. Kanter Panel Member

SCHEDULE A

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

LIST OF MINOR VARIANCES

PART 1: (based on 2025-04-15 Zoning Notice)

1. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1) A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres.

The proposed lot area is 310.4 square metres.

2. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1) A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres.

The proposed lot frontage is 7.62 metres.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1) A) (i), By-law No. 569-2013

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 metres 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 0.6 metres from the east side lot line.

4. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.

The proposed west side yard setback is 1.2 metres.

5. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.

The proposed east side yard setback is 0.6 metres

PART 2: (based on 2025-04-15 Zoning Notice)

I. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1) A), By-law No. 569-2013,

The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres.

The proposed lot frontage is 7.62 metres.

II. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1) A), By-law No. 569-2013,

The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres.

The proposed lot area is 310.4 square metres.

III. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1) A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013,

A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 metres 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: 1.8 metres.

The proposed front porch is 0.6 metres from the west side lot line.

IV. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013,

The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.

The proposed west side yard setback is 0.6m.

V. Chapter 900.3.10(5), By-law No. 569-2013,

The required minimum side yard setbacks are 1.8 metres each side.

The proposed east side yard setback is 1.2 m.

SCHEDULE C

CONDITIONS

PART 1:

I. The proposed building shall be constructed and maintained as a multiplex substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by EKP Designs Inc., dated 2025-02-26:

i. Site Plan (A1).

ii. Front Elevation (A6).

iii. Side West Elevation (A7).

iv. Rear Elevation (A8).

v. Side East Elevation (A9).

II. The proposed building shall be constructed with an opaque privacy screen 1.5m in height, to be located along the west side of the main floor rear deck.

III. 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.

PART 2:

I. The proposed building shall be constructed and maintained as a multiplex substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by EKP Designs Inc., dated 2025-02-26:

i. Site Plan (A1).

ii. Front Elevation (A6).

iii. Side West Elevation (A7).

iv. Rear Elevation (A8).

v. Side East Elevation (A9).

II. The proposed building shall be constructed with a 1.5m opaque privacy screen along the east side of the main floor rear deck.

III. 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.

Footnotes

1. 1Ms. Dale and Mr. Aronson submitted their comments on a Participant Witness Statement Form on April 1, 2025
2. 2S. 2(j), Planning Act
3. 3S. 2.2, 2.3, & 2.4.3 1, 2024 PPS
4. 4S. 8, Definitions, 2024 PPS
5. 5S. 6.1.5, 2024 PPS
6. 6S. 6.1.7, 2024 PPS
7. 7Policy 5.6.1, OP
8. 8Policy 1.2, OP
9. 9Policy 1.4, OP
10. 10Romano Witness Statement, Ex. 1, Page 479
11. 11EHON Report, Page 17, last paragraph
12. 12S. 51 (24), Planning Act
13. 13S. 2.2, 2.3, & 2.4.3 1, 2024 PPS
14. 14Oxford Learner's Dictionaries
15. 15Collins English Dictionary
16. 16Re Ghafoori, Par. 50 & 68
17. 172024 ONTLAB 312
18. 18Re Cortellucci
19. 19and Re Merlak
20. 20cited a TLAB decision
21. 21and Review request
22. 22Grand Communities Par. 24
23. 23Re Kaucis, 2025 ONTLAB 330
24. 24Re Kaucis Par. 47
25. 25Re Kaucis, Par 48
26. 26Re Kaucis, Par. 52
27. 27Ch. 2.2.1, 2024 PPS
28. 28Ch. 2.4.3, 2024 PPS
29. 29Ch. 6.1, 2024 PPS
30. 30EHON Report Page 17
31. 31S. 1 b) ii, Multiplex OPA