Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2024-07-23
25 133527 S45 05 TLAB
Lonborough Ave Inc (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 340
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
Revised Date:
July 23, 2025
July 29, 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):
LONBOROUGH AVE INC
Applicant(s):
J. CIMER
Property Address:
55 LONBOROUGH AVE.
COA File No.:
25 100227 WET 05 MV (A0004/25EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 133527 S45 05 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
07/09/2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
07/10/2025
Decision Delivered By:
R. KANTER
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
LONBOROUGH AVE INC
D. BRONSKILL
Party
CITY OF TORONTO
S. MESSINA
Party
CITY OF TORONTO
A. SANDHU
Party
W. ARANA
Party
P. BELO
Participant
K. HULL
Participant
J. FERREIRA
Participant
M. KUCI
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The Appellant is seeking minor variances to permit the construction of a new fourplex dwelling and garden suite (the “Proposal”) at 55 Lonborough Avenue in the Beechborough-Greenbrook Neighbourhood (the “Subject Site”).
2In December 2024, the Applicant applied for seven requested variances (the “Initial Variances”) to Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the “ZBL”). The Initial Variances related to side yard setback; front yard setback; front yard landscaping; rear yard soft landscaping (for the lot as a whole and for the garden suite); side yard setback for the garden suite and projection of the garden suite into the 45-degree angular plane.
3On March 8, 2025, the Committee of Adjustment (the “C of A”) refused the Initial Variances.
4On March 21, 2025, the Appellant filed an appeal (the “Appeal”) to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”). The Appeal was accompanied by revised plans dated February 18, 2025 (the “Revised Plans”).
5The Revised Plans eliminated four of the Initial Variances, and requested the following three variances at the TLAB:
Reduction of west side-yard setback from 1.2 metres to .3 m
Reduction of rear yard soft landscaping from 50% to 37.9%
Reduction of rear yard soft landscaping with an ancillary building from 50% to 37.9%
6At its meeting on March 26 and 27, 2025, City Council directed the City Solicitor to attend at TLAB, with appropriate City staff, to oppose the Appeal, and to retain outside consultants as necessary. The City Solicitor was also authorized to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the appeal and to settle the matter, after consultation with the Ward Councillor and Director of Community Planning, Etobicoke York District.
7On April 4, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was served by TLAB.
8The City Solicitor retained an external land use planning consultant, Mr. Allan Ramsay, who provided an expert witness statement to the TLAB on June 3, 2025.
9The Appellant retained a land use planning consultant, Mr. Joseph Cimer, who also provided an expert witness statement to the TLAB on June 3, 2025.
10Ms. Paula Belo and Mr. Walter Arana, who live at 53 Lonborough, immediately east of the Subject Site, obtained Party Status at the TLAB. However, they did not file Witness Statements.
11Ms. Melisa Kuchi and Mr. Joshua Ferreira, who live immediately west of the Subject Site, obtained Participant status and filed Participant Statements. Mr. Karl Hull, obtained Participant status and filed a Participant Statement.
12On July 8, 2025, the Appellant filed further revised plans (the “July Plans”). The July Plans re-oriented the entrance to the garden suite to the driveway along the eastern edge of the Subject Site, reconfigured the soft landscaping in the rear yard and increased compliance with the ZBL, as follows:
West side-yard setback increased from .3 m to .6-.9 m (1.2 m required)
Rear yard soft landscaping for site increased from 37.9% to 42% (50% required)
Rear yard soft landscaping for garden suite increased from 37.9% to 42% (50% required)
13The July Plans also added a fourth variance as follows:
- Reduction of minimum required rear yard setback from 1.5 m to .5m
14The four variances resulting from the July Plans will be referred to as the “Revised Variances”
15On July 9, 2025 I heard the appeal by Electronic Hearing.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
16Provincial 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.
17Provincial 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.
18Variance – 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
The Appellant
19Mr. Bronskill called Mr. Joseph Cimer, and asked that I qualify him as an expert witness. After reviewing Mr. Cimer’s education and professional experience, I qualified him as an expert witness, able to give opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.
20Mr. Cimer described the Subject Site as a single detached dwelling within a neighbourhood of predominantly single detached bungalow style homes.
21The Subject Site has a frontage of 9.18 m and depth of approximately 32 m, and is similar in size to other lots on the south side of Lonborough. The lot slopes downward from Lonborough to the rear of the lot.
22The proposed fourplex and garden suite would constitute approximately 478 m2 of floor space, resulting in coverage of 58% of the lot. Mr. Cimer noted that floor space for multiplexes? was not regulated by the ZBL.
23Mr. Cimer stated that the neighbourhood contains semi-detached dwellings at 60/62 Lonborough and 27/29 Lonborough, and a three-unit building at 63 Lonborough.
24The Subject Site backs on to a large apartment and townhouse complex at 33 Gabian way, and a big-box shopping mall to the south.
25The planner noted that the Caledonia Light Rail Transit station is located approximately 500 metres from the Subject Site.
26Mr. Cimer noted that the provincial interest requires a full range of housing, and the promotion of development that supports public transit and is oriented to pedestrians. The 2024 Provincial Policy Statement (the “2024 PPS”) encourages intensification to provide a range and mix of options, particularly near major transit station areas. In his opinion, the proposed variances have regard to the provincial interest and are consistent with the 2024 PPS.
27Mr. Cimer stated that the Subject Site is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan (the “OP”). He emphasized that the Official Plan was recently amended by OPA 649 to permit multiplexes in all areas designated Neighbourhoods, subject to performance standards. Fourplexes must maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard setbacks.
28Mr. Cimer further emphasized that garden suites are also allowed in Neighbourhoods by a recent amendment to S. 3.2.1.10 of the OP, where it can be demonstrated that the suites will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.
29Mr. Cimer opined that the July Plans meet the general intent and purpose of the OP. They expand the range of housing in terms of form and tenure.
30Mr. Cimer stated that the July Plans do not require any variances to the height, length or front yard setback of the proposed fourplex. The footprint of the fourplex would be consistent with existing houses tot the east and west. Each of the units would contain 4 bedrooms.
31In his opinion, the increase? to the west side-yard setback, from .6 m at the front of fourplex to .9 m at the rear, represents an improvement in the current condition, in which the existing house is located .3 m from the lot line. He further noted that the west elevation of the fourplex and garden suite contained no windows, thus preventing any overlook.
32The garden suite would be in line with an existing garage at 57 Lonborough, and with other garages located to the rear of a number of houses to the east.
33Mr. Cimer explained that soft landscaping was now reduced by only 8%. It would be configured to maximize outdoor amenity space, and would allow water to seep into the ground.
34Mr. Cimer explained the reduction in the rear-yard setback resulted from the Appellant’s decision to orient the entrance to the garden suite to the existing driveway on the eastern edge of the Subject Site. It would permit a larger garden suite, and more usable soft landscaping to the east and west, rather than the south end of the Site.
35Mr. Cimer opined that the four variances, individually and collectively, would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the ZBL, be desirable and appropriate.
36In cross-examination, Ms. Messina asked whether he had delineated a specific geographic neighbourhood. Mr. Cimer said he had not, but had been responsive to the concerns raised by the City’s planner, Mr. Ramsay.
37Ms. Messina questioned whether the rear soft landscaping met the contiguous criteria set out in the OP. Mr. Cimer replied that it would be sufficient for five units, together with public open space such as parks and other outdoor spaces.
38Ms. Messina asked Mr. Cimer if reducing the west side-yard setback for a three- story building would not have a greater impact than for a bungalow. Mr. Cimer did not agree.
39Ms. Belo questioned Mr. Cimer with respect to windows on the east elevation and balconies on the south elevation. Mr. Cimer indicated that the Appellant would consider privacy screens on the balconies.
The City
40The City did not present any planning evidence at the hearing, although it had retained Mr. Alan Ramsay as an external planning consultant.
41Mr. Bronskill asked me to take judicial notice of the absence of a planner employed by the City, and the lack of evidence provided by an external planning consultant. In his submission, it indicates that City planners do not object to the Proposal; and Mr. Ramsay no longer objects to the July Plans.
The Neighbours
42Mr. Ferreira, who lives beside the subject property, provided a participant statement and oral evidence in opposition to the Proposal. He stated that the proposed fourplex was not compatible with existing homes in the area due to proposed building size, height and use. He described the Proposal as an “egregious monstrosity” on a small lot.
43He was particularly concerned that the location of the proposed foundation would restrict access to his foundation if repairs were required.
44Mr. Ferreira questioned why a shadow study, discussed at the C of A, had not been provided.
45Mr. Ferreira also expressed concern about parking. Lack of available parking was a grave issue in the neighbourhood, and the Proposal would escalate the severity of the problem.
46In response to questions from Mr. Bronskill, Mr. Ferreira stated that a privacy screen on the west side of permitted balconies would be helpful. He also agreed that there was little of no soft landscaping at the rear of his own property.
47Melissa Kuchi, who lives in the same house as Mr. Ferreira, raised concerns about the lack of spaciousness resulting from the Proposal, and the impact it would have on prices for adjacent properties. She also referred a letter from Councillor Nunziata objecting to the Initial Variances at the C of A.
48Mr. Karl Hull lives west of Glenhaven Street and six houses west of the Subject Site.
49Mr. Hull opposed the Proposal from the perspective of a full-time resident, owner, taxpayer and voter. It would “squeeze in” an increased number of residents, with insufficient outdoor living space. The Appellant would not reside in the neighbourhood.
50In response to a question from Mr. Bronskill, Mr. Hull stated that he was unaware of OPA 649, and does not agree that fourplexes should be permitted at 55 Lonborough.
51Ms. Belo filed a letter immediately following the conclusion of the Hearing. TLAB does not generally consider material filed at this point. However, I reference her letter since counsel for the Appellant had an opportunity to consider and respond to similar arguments contained in witness statements presented during the hearing. Ms. Belo understood that the City allowed fourplexes and garden suites. However, she opposed a dwelling of “this type of magnitude to be squeezed into such a small space.”
ISSES AND ANALYSIS
Amendments to the Original Application are Minor
52As set out above, the Appellant amended the application which was before the C of A twice. The Revised Plans submitted in June 2025 eliminated four variances but maintained three others. The July Plans reduced the extent of the three variances in the Revised Plans, but added a fourth variance, to reduce the rear yard setback behind the garden suite from 1.5 m to .5m.
53Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the July Plans resulted from discussions between Mr. Cimer and Mr. Ramsay. The fourth variance arose from changing the entrance to the garden suite from the fourplex to the north to the driveway to the east. This orientation would result in more contiguous soft landscaping in the rear yard between the fourplex and the garden suite.
54Mr. Bronskill submitted that the July Plans represented a minor amendment to the plans refused by the C of A. Neither the City nor any neighbours objected to this submission.
55According to Rule 11.2 of the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Appellant is required to disclose any intended revisions to the application before the C of A within 20 days after a Notice of Hearing is served, or April 24 in this case.
56However, I am permitted to grant exemptions to the Rules to enable me to effectively and completely adjudicate matters before me in a just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.
57I allowed the Appellant to disclose the July Plans to the TLAB on July 8, 2025 – the day before the hearing. I did so since they resulted from discussions with professional planning witnesses for both the Appellant and the City. I also note that neither the City nor the neighbours objected to the late disclosure.
58The July Plans deleted four variances, reduced three others, and added one variance to the Initial Plans before the C of A. The process showed that the Appellant responded to some of the City’s concerns arising from the Initial Variances.
59I decided that the amendments were minor, and I could make a decision on the amended application without further notice to the City or neighbours, pursuant to Section 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.
Revised Plans Meet the Tests for Minor Variances Under the Planning Act
60The key issue in this case is whether the minor variances meet the tests under the Planning Act.
61Following the passage of the recent OP amendments referenced by Mr. Cimer, it is clear that a fourplex and garden suite are permitted uses on the Subject Site. However, both are subject to performance standards.
62I find that the fourplex maintains the low-rise built form of the neighbourhood, since it does not require a height variance. It contains four units that contain multiple bedrooms. The July plans also maintain the required soft landscaping in the front yard.
63The fourplex will require a reduction in soft landscaping, of approximately 142 square feet. However, the July Plans show much of the soft landscaping is contiguous, located between the fourplex and the garden suite, where it could be used by the residents of both structures.
64The garden suite is required to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood. Mr. Cimer provided evidence that the footprint of the garden suite would correspond to garages located to the rear of some of the houses on the south side of Lonborough. While he did not identify and study a larger geographic neighbourhood, permission for garden suites as a permitted use is relatively recent. Therefore, there would not likely be a significant number of existing garden suites in the broader neighbourhood.
65Mr. Cimer provided persuasive evidence that the proposed reduction in the west side-yard setback, from 1.5 m to .6 - .9 m is better than the exiting condition, typical or better than the prevailing condition on Lonborough, and adequate for maintenance and servicing,
66He also provided evidence that the modest reduction in soft landscaping would maintain the dual objectives of providing outdoor recreational space and allowing for rain infiltration rather than run-off.
67Mr. Bronskill argued that I should interpret the OP liberally, and consider its overall policy objectives, and qualitative as well as quantitative criteria. He provided a number of OMB1 and TLAB2 cases in support of these propositions.
68I agree that there is now a strong policy thrust, through the provincial interest, 2024 PPS and recent amendments to the OPA, to permit fourplexes and garden suites, as long as performance standards are addressed and generally observed.
69Mr. Cimer provided the only professional planning evidence before me concerning the tests for a variance set out in the Planning Act. In his opinion, the tests for variances were met.
70Based on Mr. Cimer’s evidence, I find that the proposed variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the tests set out in S. 45 of the Planning Act.
Some Residents’ Concerns not Applicable Planning Concerns
71I understand that the Proposal generated significant concerns among area residents. Some neighbours appeared unaware of the recent changes to the OP and ZBL, which permit fourplexes and garden suites on the Subject Site, subject to performance standards.
72Other neighbours acknowledged the changes, but opposed the Revised Variances on the basis that they were inappropriate for the Subject Site because of the size of the lot or an increase in the number of occupants. I do not find that the size of the lot or increase in the number of occupants to be valid planning concerns. The thrust of provincial policies and recent OPA’s is to permit modest intensification in existing Neighbourhoods, regardless of lot size. Such intensification, intended to increase housing accessibility, will likely result in increased occupancy.
73The adjacent neighbours also raised concerns about property maintenance with reduced side yard setbacks. Mr. Cima addressed this issue, by stating that the reduced setbacks were characteristic of existing conditions in the neighbourhood, and adequate to allow for property upkeep.
74Neighbours also raised concerns about parking. As Mr. Bronskill submitted, I cannot consider the impact of the Proposal on parking, nor can it be considered by the C of A, since it is not a matter which is subject to S. 45 (1) of the Planning Act.
75The adjacent neighbours raised issues of overlook and privacy which are valid planning concerns. The Appellant provided elevations showing no windows on the west side of the fourplex and garden suite, I will deal with additional concerns through a condition concerning balcony screening.
CONCLUSION
76The key to determining this case is to evaluate the Revised Variances with respect to their consistency with provincial policy as well as maintenance of the general intent and purpose of the OP.
77The OP contains a diverse range of objectives, including providing a full range of housing, and increasing the supply and availability of rental housing. It allows fourplexes providing they maintain the low-rise built form of geographic neighbourhoods, and garden suites where they respect and reinforce the existing physical character of neighbourhoods.
78The evidence before me shows that the fourplex maintains the low-rise form of this neighbourhood. It did not require any variance for height.
79The garden suite, while a new form not generally occurring in this neighbourhood, respects and reinforces the existing character of houses with detached garages found in the neighbourhood.
80The Revised Variances are allowed. I authorize the Revised Variances, subject to the conditions set out below.
DECISION AND ORDER
The appeal is allowed; the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment dated March 6, 2025, is set aside.
The variances to Zoning By-law 569-2013 set out in Schedule A are allowed.
The variances are subject to the conditions set out in Schedule B, which refer to and incorporate the Site Plan dated July 7, 2025, and the Elevations dated July 10, 2025, both prepared by Cavly Group Inc. and attached to this Decision as Schedule C.
Panel Chair
R. Kanter