Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 25 113326 S45 12 TLAB
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: July 16, 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): R. M. STAGLIANO
Applicant(s): ARCH DWG INC
Property Address: 2169 DUFFERIN ST
COA File No.: 24 245920 STE 12 MV (A1030/24TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 25 113326 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): July 11, 2025
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. BASSIOS
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | R. M. STAGLIANO | A. STEWART |
| Applicant | ARCH DWG INC. | |
| Party | M. OLIVEIRA |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This Appeal comes to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) following the Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of a variance for the property located at 2169 Dufferin St.
2The purpose of the application for variance is to legalize a front porch that has been constructed.
3M. Oliveira elected Party status to this hearing. He did not, however, submit a Witness Statement in accordance with the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure and did not appear at the Hearing.
4One variance is requested.
Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013
A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m 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 of 2.5 m if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback (1.5 m).
The front porch platform encroaches 1.428 m into the required front yard setback and is located 1.428 m from the side (north) lot line.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5Provincial 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.
6Provincial 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.
7Variance – 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
8Mr. Franco Romano was qualified as an expert in land use planning and provided testimony in support of the variance.
9The proposal is to permit the front porch to have a north side yard setback of 1.428m, whereas the minimum side yard setback is 1.5m, (a difference of 7.2cm).
10A correction to the measurement of the variance as stated in the COA decision is requested. The COA decision rounded the requested variance to indicate 1.43m whereas 1.428m reflects the actual incursion of the constructed porch.
11The adjustment requested for the south side yard setback has been eliminated. A setback is not required between the two dwellings of a semi-detached building.
12The newly constructed porch, for which this variance is required, replaces an older porch that also had a north side yard setback of 1.428m. The new porch is wider than the previous porch, extending further towards the other side of the semi-detached building (to the south).
13The porch projects 1.43m from the front wall of the dwelling, which is less than the 2.5m that is permitted for a porch that complies with side yard setbacks.
14Front porches are a common characteristic of the dwellings along Dufferin St.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
TEST 1: GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN
15OP Policy 4.1.5 provides direction for assessing the “fit” of development within a Neighbourhood. The policy contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.
16Of the criteria listed in OP Policy 4.1.5, criterion g) gives direction to consideration of side yard setbacks.
4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular: …
g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.
17Dufferin St is designated Avenues in the Official Plan and is a major street. On the east side of Dufferin St, in the block where the subject property is located, all of the detached and semi-detached residential properties have dwellings with porches.
18The newly constructed porch replicates the side yard setback which existed previously on the north side.
19The variance respects the pattern of side yard setbacks in the context and reflects the previous existing side yard setback that is the subject of the variance request.
20The porch is wider than the previously existing porch and extends closer to the other half of the semi-detached building. The wider porch is permitted by the Zoning By-law and does not require a variance.
21On the basis of the photographs and data submitted by Mr. Romano, I note that front porches, of similar dimensions to the porch in this case, are typical for this immediate context. I concur that the variance respects and reinforces the prevailing side yard setbacks in the context.
22I find that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
TEST 2: GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW
23Mr. Romano advised that the general intent and purpose of the side yard setback provision in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that there is an appropriate spatial separation capable of providing suitable access to the rear yard.
24The porch as constructed allows for sufficient access to the rear yard and does not impede access to the mutual driveway between the subject property and the property to the north.
25I find that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
TEST 3 AND 4: MINOR AND DESIRABLE
26I was provided no evidence to suggest that there would be adverse impacts from the granting of the proposed variance.
27For the same reasons set out in this Decision above, I find that the proposed variance is desirable and minor.
NOTICE OF CHANGE
28S.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act allows the Tribunal to waive notice for a decision on an application that has been amended from the original application, on the condition that the amendment to the original application is minor, in the Tribunal's opinion.
29The revisions to the proposal since the COA refusal have resulted in the elimination of one part of the variance (for a reduction to the south side yard setback) and for very small reduction (2mm) to the amount of the variance requested. Both changes are beneficial to the application.
30I find the changes to the requested variance to be minor and that further notice under s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act can be waived.
CONCLUSION
31I find that the variance for a reduced side yard setback on the north side of the subject property maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is minor and desirable for the development of the land.
32No conditions on the approval of this variance are required.
DECISION AND ORDER
33The Appeal is allowed.
34The following variance to the Zoning By-law is authorized for the subject property:
Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013
A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m 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 of 2.5 m if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required side yard setback (1.5 m).
The front porch platform will encroach 1.428 m into the required front yard setback and be located 1.428 m from the side (north) lot line.
A. Bassios
TLAB Vice Chair