Bahoudian (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 342

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2025-07-22

24 207111 S53 18 TLAB 24 207113 S45 18 TLAB 24 207116 S45 18 TLAB

Bahoudian (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 342

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

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): L. BAHOUDIAN

Applicant(s): RUBINOFF DESIGN GROUP

Property Address: 75 GLENDORA AVE

COA File No.: 24 151951 NNY 18 CO (B0023/24NY) 24 151966 NNY 18 MV (A0271/24NY) 24 152008 NNY 18 MV (A0272/24NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 24 207111 S53 18 TLAB 24 207113 S45 18 TLAB 24 207116 S45 18 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): January 13, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member B. Gallaugher

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Applicant	RUBINOFF DESIGN GROUP
Appellant	L. BAHOUDIAN	M. MAZIERSKI
Party (TLAB)	CITY OF TORONTO	A. LO-WONG

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This appeal arises from a decision of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA), issued August 15, 2024, refusing a consent to sever the subject property and variances that would permit two detached buildings, one on each part of the property at 75 Glendora Avenue (subject property).

2Eleven variances were applied for at the Committee of Adjustment for each building. They were virtually the same for each building, except for some directions.

3After refusal of the variances by the Committee, the Appellant redesigned the proposed buildings for this Appeal, with a view to reducing the number of variances required. In addition, the buildings were now to be duplexes, rather than single detached houses.

4A duplex building is one that contains two dwelling units stacked vertically. These two new buildings, containing four dwelling units, would replace one existing detached house currently situated on they subject property.

5A new Zoning By-law Notice, dated January 6, 2025, now identified four variances for each building. As a result, the Applicant is requesting that the Toronto Local Appeal body (TLAB) grant the following four (4) variances for each proposed dwelling, eight (8) in total.

1. Chapter 900.3.10.(5)A), Exception RD5, By-law No. 569-2013 Despite regulation 10.20.40.70.(3), the minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m. The proposed east side yard setback is 0.61 m. (Note that the variance considered by the Committee of Adjustment on this item was for a side yard setback of 0.92 m.)

2. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law No. 569-2013 In the Residential Zone category, a platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The minimum required side yard setback is 1.8m. The proposed east side yard setback to the front porch is 0.61m.

3. Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum lot area is 550 square m. The proposed lot area is 274.3 square m.

4. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum lot frontage is 15 m. The proposed lot frontage is 7.63 m.

6No variance to the Zoning By-law is required to permit the use of this property for duplexes, as the City of Toronto harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013 was amended in 2023 to permit duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings anywhere in the City’s Residential zones, including those which were previously restricted to single detached dwellings.

7The Appellant asked that the revised variances be considered by the TLAB without additional notice, given that the number of variances had been reduced and no new ones added and the size of only one had been changed, as noted above. There was no objection to this approach. The hearing proceeded on this basis.

8With regard to the application for consent to sever the existing lot into two equal lots, each lot would have a frontage of 7.62 metres and an area of 274.3 m2. As noted above, the minimum required by By-law 569-2013 is a frontage of 15 m and an area of 550 square m.

9I advised those at the Hearing that I had visited the site, walked the neighbourhood and familiarized myself with the area context. I also reviewed all the filed materials in this matter but advised that it is the evidence to be heard that is of importance.

10After hearing and considering all the evidence, the Appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is confirmed for the reasons noted below.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

11Provincial 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.

12Provincial 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.

13Consent – 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 Planning 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. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

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

For the Appellant

15The Applicant called one witness, Mr. Franco Romano, who is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP). I qualified Mr. Romano as an Expert Witness to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning and he was affirmed.

16Mr. Mazierski, the Applicant’s solicitor, offered the following documents as Exhibits, which were entered into the record at the Hearing and identified as follow:

1. Exhibit 1 - Expert Witness Statement of Mr. Romano, dated November 19, 2024
2. Exhibit 2 – Mr. Romano’s Responding Expert Witness Statement, dated December 4, 2024
3. Exhibit 3 – Applicant’s Disclosure (Form 3), dated October 10, 2024

17Mr. Romano recommended that the Appeal be allowed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment be overturned so that the proposed duplex buildings can go forward. He was of the opinion that all the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and are minor.

18Mr. Romano opined that the proposal has proper regard for the Provincial Interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Specifically, he asserted that the proposal would help to meet the Province’s and City’s housing targets and is consistent with the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) policies contained therein, which promote intensification in the MTSAs due to their proximity to higher-order transit.

19He noted that the property was within 800 metres of the Sheppard subway station, which is served by two subway lines, and is in the Sheppard-Yonge MTSA. He acknowledged that the Official Plan Amendment implementing the MTSA for this area has been approved by City Council but is not in force as it has not received approval from the Province of Ontario. Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that the policies contained in it should be considered as indicative of Council’s intentions for the MTSA.

20He reviewed aerial photos of the area that show a wide variety of residential buildings, from townhouse complexes to high-rise apartment buildings, in the blocks immediately west and south of the site. These blocks are in the North York Centre Secondary Plan (NYCSP) / North York Centre, one of the areas of the City identified by the Official Plan for significant growth in population and employment. The subject site is not in the NYCSP area, the boundary of which is located one property west of the site.

21He reviewed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 649, approved by City Council in May 2023. OPA 649, and the corresponding implementing zoning by-law, permit the construction of multiplexes (including duplexes) city-wide on lands designated as Neighbourhoods. Many of these Neighbourhoods, including this one, were previously restricted to single, detached houses.

22OPA 649 states that “Despite Policy 4.1.5 [of the Official Plan] multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies:

23b) Development of multiplexes:

(i) will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular…

(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;

(vii) will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units;

24Mr. Romano contended that the proposed development conforms to these policies.

25Of particular note is that some of the criteria in Section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan that are to be used in determining the “character” of a neighbourhood are not included in the policies of OPA 649, according to Mr. Romano. Specifically, Section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan states that “Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; [my emphasis]

26Mr. Romano opined that the policies in OPA 649 “supersede” those in Section 4.1.5 when a multiplex (including a duplex) is being proposed, as opposed to a single detached house. In his view the requirement that proposed multiplex development “respect and reinforce” prevailing heights, massing, scale and density of existing buildings in the neighbourhood would not apply to these duplexes. Instead, a multiplex would only be required to “maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood”.

27He recognized that the built form would be different from that existing in the area but felt that the proposal would not destabilize the neighbourhood. He advised that the proposed buildings and new lots were compatible with the existing development in the area and would reinforce the general physical pattern of the area.

28Mr. Romano reviewed in detail lot frontages and lot areas in the geographic neighbourhood, and also previous decisions of the Committee of Adjustment granting variances and severances.

29He explained that the smallest frontages are in the NYCSP area to the west, but a few frontages similar to those proposed have been granted by way of consents and variances in close proximity to the site, including the creation of two lots with 7.62 m frontages abutting the site to the rear (on Avondale Avenue). His analysis shows that, although there are few lot frontages under 15 m in the area, there is a “diversity” of frontages.

30He stated that, in his opinion, the proposed buildings could co-exist with the existing buildings in a harmonious manner and are appropriate for the development of the property. Any impacts would be minor, modest and acceptable. In his view, OPA 649 and Zoning By-law 569-2013 envisage just this kind of development in the Neighbourhoods.

31Mr. Romano noted that 19 letters were received by the Committee of Adjustment in support of the original application. No letters of objection from residents were received.

32He reviewed many policies of the Official Plan from Chapters 1 through 4 that speak to the provision of housing, built form and integration with the general physical patterns of the area. He has concluded that the proposed variances are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

33With regard to the Zoning By-law, Mr. Romano stated that, in his opinion, the proposed variances were in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law but did not provide evidence to support this position.

34Mr. Romano said that the issue of whether the variances are minor or not is not related to numerical magnitude but rather to impact. In his view, there would be no unacceptable negative impact upon the neighbours or the area from the approval of these variances and application for severance.

35He also said the proposed development and severance would be appropriate for the development of the property, as they implement provincial and municipal policies.

36Given that, in his opinion, the variances meet the four tests specified by the Planning Act, Mr. Romano recommended that the TLAB approve the revised variances.

37He also noted that a Plan of Subdivision was not necessary and that the application for consent to sever met the other requirements of S. 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Therefore, he recommended that the requested severance be granted.

For the City of Toronto

38The City of Toronto presented a case in opposition to the granting of the variances and the consent to sever. Its solicitor, Ms. A. Lo-Wong, called one witness, Ms. Hedayat, who is employed by the City of Toronto as a City Planner. She is a candidate for the Registered Professional Planner (RPP) designation. After outlining her qualifications and experience I qualified Ms. Hedayat as an Expert Witness to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning and she was affirmed.

39Ms. A. Lo-Wong, offered the following documents as Exhibits, which were entered into the record at the Hearing and identified as follow:

1. Exhibit 4 - Expert Witness Statement of Homa Hedayat, dated November 19, 2024
2. Exhibit 5 – Appendices to Expert Witness Statement of Homa Hedayat, dated November 19, 2024
3. Exhibit 6 – City of Toronto Document Disclosure Book, dated November 19, 2024
4. Exhibit 7 - New Zoning Notice - Part 1
5. Exhibit 8 – New Zoning Notice - Part 2
6. Exhibit 9 – PowerPoint Presentation of Homa Hedyat

40Ms. Hedayat said that the proposed variances did not meet the four tests laid out by the Planning Act and recommended that the decision of the Committee of Adjustment be upheld. She was also of the opinion that the proposed severance did not meet the tests laid out in Section 51.24 of the Planning Act and should be refused.

41Ms. Hedayat referred to a letter dated July 20, 2024, provided by the City Planning Division to the Committee of Adjustment, advising it to refuse the severance and variance applications. She had authored the letter in her capacity as planning staff reviewing Committee of Adjustment applications. In the letter she said:

“Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan goes on to state that the "prevailing building type and physical character of a geographic neighbourhood will be determined by the most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood”. The prevailing size of lots in the area is greater than that proposed. The proposed development represents overdevelopment with inappropriate massing and

height, resulting form [sic] a lot that is small [sic] to accommodate such a building. This leads to a building that is inconsistent with the character and scale of the surrounding area.”

42She discussed the “immediate neighbourhood”, which is comprised of the one block that the site is located in, containing only single detached houses with 15.3 m frontages; the “geographic neighbourhood” which is a larger area but still is comprised almost totally of single detached houses; and the “surrounding area” which is larger still and does contain a mix of housing styles and lot sizes.

43She noted that the property is not in the NYCSP and in fact is in an area designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan. As such, she said the proposal must follow Policy 4.1.5, which states that new development must reinforce the “prevailing” character of the immediate neighbourhood. This policy was clarified and reinforced by OPA 320, approved by Council in 2018. She was of the opinion that the proposal did not reinforce the prevailing character of the immediate neighbourhood.

44She acknowledged that the site was within the Yonge-Sheppard MTSA but that approval by the Province of Ontario of the OPA implementing this MTSA was pending. Therefore, the policies contained therein were not to be applied to the applications.

45Ms. Hedayat also reviewed in detail the area and frontage of lots in the immediate and geographic neighbourhoods and the variances and severances that had been approved (and refused) in these areas in the past. She came to the conclusion that lots with frontages of 7.65 m would be the smallest in the immediate and geographic neighbourhood and in no way could be considered the “prevailing” lot frontage. In fact, all the lots in the immediate neighbourhood have a frontage of 15.3 m and only 3.9% of the lots in the geographic neighbourhood have a frontage of less than 9 m.

46In her letter to the Committee of Adjustment she stated that

“Staff conducted a review of lot frontages and lot patterns for residential lots in the neighbourhood generally bounded by Anndale Drive to the north, Tradewind Avenue to the west, Avondale Avenue to the south, and Burnwell Street to the east which includes a total of 86 lots. The lot study concluded that, although there are some lots that are similar to the proposed lots within the neighbourhood, the overwhelming majority of lots have a frontage greater than 12 meters and lot areas 500 square meters and more. Out of the 86 lots, 5 lots have comparable lot frontages and lot areas. However, all 5 of these lots are located on Avondale Avenue, not on Glendora Avenue.”

47She was also concerned that the lot size (frontage and area) would contravene Sections 51 (24) ( c ) and (f) of the Planning Act. These sections are among the tests to be applied by approving authorities when considering severances. Subsection ( c ) requires an approving body to determine whether the proposed severance “conforms to the official plan”, including “(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots”.

48She noted that Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan requires development in Neighbourhoods to “respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular…b) prevailing size and configuration of lots”. This requirement is not superseded by and in fact is confirmed in OPA649, which allows the development of multiplexes in Neighbourhoods.

49In her opinion, the size of the lots that would be created if the severance was granted would in no way “respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood” and therefore the severance should not be granted.

50If the severance was to be granted, this would create a precedent and could led to overdevelopment of the site and potentially other properties in the geographic neighbourhood, thereby destabilizing it.

51With regard to the variances Ms. Hedayat felt that none of the four tests were met.

52The variances are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, in that the frontage and size of the lots on which the duplexes are to be constructed do not conform to the prevailing size and area of lots in the area.

53Similarly, the variances are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, for the same reason.

54The impacts of the buildings that would be permitted by the variances are not minor or desirable for the development of the property as they would result in overdevelopment.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

55The key issue in this case is the proposal that two lots, each with frontages of 7.62 m and areas of 274.3 square m, are proposed to be created through the severance process. This condition also generates the two significant variances that have been requested.

56There is no doubt that the site is subject to a number of conflicting policy directions. It sits literally one property east of the boundary of the NYCSP, an area that is intended for growth and which area has experienced tremendous increases in height and density since its implementation. It is also in an MTSA, which mandates significant growth in density, including minimum density numbers and unit counts. The MTSA would require new development on the lot to provide a minimum of 0.3 FSI or 3 units on this site. But the MTSA is not yet in force.

57On the other hand, the site is designated Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto Official Plan. Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan states that Neighbourhoods are intended to be physically stable areas.

58To add further complexity, OPA 649 amends Policy 4.1.5 to relax the requirements that new development “respect and reinforce” some elements of the prevailing character of the neighbourhood when variances are requested to permit the construction of multiplexes.

59Mr. Romano identified the block as being “in transition”. He felt that this should permit greater flexibility in the interpretation of the Official Plan policies relating to Neighbourhoods. He also felt the property was underdeveloped, given its location.

60I agree with Mr. Romano that the multiplicity of existing and emerging policy directions, both at the municipal and provincial level, argue for flexibility in interpreting the policies. One can debate whether the variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act with regard to the built form of the proposed buildings. This has been the subject of much of the testimony and arguments that I have heard over the course of this hearing.

61However, the Applicant has also requested TLAB to give consent to a severance to create two new lots. The regulatory situation and tests prescribed by Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act that are to be applied to the granting of severances are much clearer.

62TLAB must have regard for “the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality” and be satisfied that a Plan of Subdivision is not required for the orderly development of the property.

63In addition, there are 14 criteria which must be satisfied before a severance can be granted. Two of these, ( c ) and (f), are of particular interest in this case:

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan…, and

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

64Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan states that “development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

65The policy goes on to state that “The prevailing building type and physical character of a geographic neighbourhood will be determined by the most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood.”

66It also requires that “No changes will be made through rezoning, minor variance, consent or other public action that are out of keeping with the overall physical character of the entire Neighbourhood.”

67Of significance is the fact that OPA 649, the policy that allows greater flexibility in observing the prevailing norm for some development criteria when multiplexes are being proposed in Neighbourhoods, does not provide room for flexibility on lot frontage and area.

68It states that “Development of multiplexes will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular: … b) prevailing size and configuration of lots.”

69Ms. Hedayat provided the relevant statistics in Exhibit 4. In the “Geographic Neighbourhood” surrounding the site there are 251 lots. The frontages of these lots are:

10 lots with frontages of 7.5 m to less than 9.0 m 25 lots with frontages of 9.0 m to less than 12.0 m 151 lots with frontages of 12.0 m to less than 15.0 m 63 lots with frontages of 15.0 m to less than 18.0 m 2 lots with frontages of 18.0 m or more

70In the “Immediate Neighbourhood” surrounding the site (the same block) there are 27 lots. The frontages of these lots are:

2 lots with frontages of less than 11.0 m 2 lots with frontages of 11.0 m to less than 13.0 m 1 lot with a frontage of 13.0 m to less than 15.0 m 22 lots with frontages of 15.0 m or more

71Based on the evidence given by Ms. Hedayat in this case, there can be little doubt that the frontages of the lots to be created by the severance do not come anywhere near to the “most frequently occurring form of development in the [immediate or geographic] neighbourhood.” In fact the frontage would be the smallest in the neighbourhoods. The “prevailing” lot frontage would be 12 to 15 m in the Geographic neighbourhood and 15 m or more in the Immediate neighbourhod.

72A similar situation arises when considering lot area. Only 10 of the lots out of 251 in the Geographic neighbourhood have an area of less than 300 square m. The “prevailing” lot area would be 300 to 500 square m (171 lots). In the Immediate neighbourhood 23 of the 27 lots have an area of 500 square m or more.

73As such, I find that the severance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan therefore the severance application does not satisfy criteria ( c ) and (f) of S. 51 (24) of the Planning Act and must fail.

CONCLUSION

74It is clear that the City’s current policy direction is toward “gentle intensification” in the Neighbourhoods. OPA 649, which allows multiplex development in areas that were previously restricted to single detached houses, is a big step in that process.

75However, inclusion in the Official Plan of the criterion that development of multiplexes (including duplexes) will maintain the prevailing size and configuration of lots makes it clear that severances are not overtly a strategy that is part of the Official Plan approach to accommodate more multiplexes in Neighbourhoods. I have found that the proposed severance does not respect the “prevailing lot size and configuration” development criteria contained in OP Policy 4.1.5, nor OPA 649

76Since the severance application is refused it is unnecessary to consider whether the variances applied for meet the four tests of the Planning Act. The variances exist because of the creation of the two lots on which the buildings were to be located. Without the creation of these lots the variances are not realizable.

DECISION AND ORDER

77The Appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 18, 2024, for the subject Application is confirmed.

B. Gallaugher Panel Member