1936 Lawrence Ave. W. Inc (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 344

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2025-07-31

File: 25 134856 S45 05 TLAB

Citation: 1936 Lawrence Ave. W. Inc (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 344

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: July 31, 2025

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsections 45(1) and(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1936 LAWRENCE AVE. W. INC.

Applicant: CRAIG RACE ARCHITECTURE INC.

Property Address: 1936 LAWRENCE AVENUE WEST

COA File No.: 24 220624 WET 05 MV (A0400/24EYK)

TLAB Case File No.: 25 134856 S45 05 TLAB

Hearing Date: 07/07/2025

Decision Delivered By: Panel Member Y. Herscher

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner

1936 LAWRENCE AVE. W. INC.

Applicant Appellant Participant

CRAIG RICE ARCHITECTURE INC. 1936 LAWRENCE AVE. W. INC. A. STEWART D. HIPWELL

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Applicant and owner of 1936 Lawrence Avenue West, 1936 Lawrence Ave. W. Inc, applied to the City of Toronto’s Committee of Adjustment for a number of minor variances in order to convert an approved four-unit multiplex dwelling into a three storey, eight-unit apartment building.

2The application was refused by the Committee of Adjustment on March 6, 2025. The Applicant filed an appeal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) on March 25, 2025.

3The TLAB issued a Notice of Hearing in respect of the appeal and scheduled a hearing of this matter for July 7, 2025. The TLAB heard testimony from two witnesses, one an expert in land use planning retained by the Applicant and the other a participant, a neighbour living behind and directly north of the property.

4I advised those present at the TLAB hearing that I had attended at the site of the subject property and the surrounding area, and had reviewed the pre-filed materials. Nazila Atarodi West, the recently appointed Chair of the TLAB, observed the proceedings but did not participate.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

5Provincial Interest – Section 2 of the Planning Act

A decision of the TLAB shall have regard to matters of provincial interest, as enumerated in clauses 2(a) through (s) of the Planning Act.

6Policy Statements – Section 3 of the Planning Act

A decision of the TLAB must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

7Variance – Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act

In considering an application for variance from the zoning by-law, the TLAB must be satisfied that an application meets the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variance,

• is minor,

• is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land,

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan, and

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

8There were a number of preliminary matters that were addressed at the outset of the hearting, prior to the introduction of any evidence.

9The first matter was a motion brought by counsel for the Applicant for: 1} an order permitting the late filing of the Applicant’s disclosure materials, and 2) an order permitting the revision to the application in accordance with any updated zoning notice issued by the City of Toronto.

10The Applicant’s counsel argued that the motion was brought in order to allow the owner to file the Applicant’s disclosure late, with variances identified by the Applicant’s project architect. These changes reflect variances that were not previously identified by the City’s zoning examiner (but were reflected on the plans circulated to the public) and were ostensibly improvements to the variances to better implement the intent of the zoning standards.

11There were no objections to the motion, or any parties to object to the motion. I allowed the motion and permitted the Applicant’s updated disclosure materials to be entered into the record at the hearing.

12Pursuant to section 45(18.1) of the Planning Act, on an appeal, the tribunal may make a decision on an application which has been amended from the original application if, before issuing its order, written notice is given to persons and public bodies entitled to receive notice of the original application.

13However, under section 45(18.1.1) of the Act, the tribunal is not required to give notice if, in its opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor. In the matter at hand, it is the TLAB’s decision that the changes to the application, as put forward in the motion, are minor and no notice is required.

14The second preliminary matter was the status of a neighbour, Dianne Hipwell, who filed both her Form 4 (Notice of Intention to be a Party or a Participant) and her Form 13 (Participant Witness Statement) late. The Applicant did not object to the participation of Ms. Hipwell. I granted Ms. Hipwell participant status in the hearing.

15Another neighbour at 74 Boyd Avenue, Karen Meredith, also sought to participate in the hearing. Given that Ms. Meredith had not filed either a Form 4 or Form 13 and the Applicant had therefore no prior information as to the position of Ms. Meredith, I declined to add Ms. Meredith as a participant to the hearing. However, Ms. Meredith did observe the proceedings and, prior to the conclusion of the hearing, she indicated that she was sufficiently satisfied with the process and chose to withdraw herself from the hearing at that point.

DESCIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

16The subject property is located on the north side of Lawrence Avenue West, west of Jane Street, in the Weston Village neighbourhood. The subject property has an existing frontage of 10.89 m, a depth of 29.26 m, and a lot area of 318.6 m2. On the property is an original single detached dwelling, which is currently unoccupied, and a rear detached garage.

17On July 12, 2024, a building permit was issued to convert the existing dwelling into a fourplex (File No. 24 142054 BLD 00). The building permit was issued as a renovation and addition to the existing dwelling on the subject site.

18Subsequent to the issuance of the building permit, the owner decided to revise the design to provide for eight rental apartment units instead of four.

LIST OF MINOR VARIANCES SOUGHT

19As there have been amendments to the application from the time it was submitted to the Committee of Adjustment, the updated list of proposed variances as sought by the Applicant at the TLAB hearing is as follows:

1. Section 900.6.10.(475)(B)(iv), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage for an apartment building is 20 m. The lot frontage for the proposed apartment building is to be 10.89 m.

2. Section 900.6.10.(475)(F)(v), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for an apartment building is 2.5 m. The proposed apartment building is to be located 1.12 m from the west side lot line and 1.22 m from the east side lot line.

3. Section 10.80.40.70.(4)(D)(i), By-law 569-2013 & 79.(4)(D)(i), By-law 2024-608

The minimum required side yard setback for an apartment building on a major street is 2.4 m. The proposed apartment building on a major street is to be located 1.12 m from the west side lot line and 1.22 m from the east side lot line.

4. Section 230.5.1.10.(12), By-law 569-2013

A bicycle maintenance facility is required. No bicycle maintenance facility will be provided.

5. Section 200.5.10.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 2 visitor parking spaces is required. No visitor parking space will be provided.

6. Section 200.15.10.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 1 accessible parking space is required. No accessible parking space is to be provided.

7. Section 10.5.80.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

A surface parking space must be at least 3 m from all main walls of an apartment building. The proposed surface parking space is to be located 0.92 m from the main wall of the proposed apartment building.

8. Section 10.5.50.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% of the lot shall be maintained as landscaping. A total of 32% of the lot is to be maintained as landscaping.

9. Section 10.5.50.10.(4)(B), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% of the required landscaping must be maintained as soft landscaping. A total of 46.1% of the required landscaping is to be maintained as soft landscaping.

10. Section 10.5.50.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

A lot with an apartment building must have a minimum 1.5 m wide strip of land for soft landscaping along any part of a lot line abutting another lot in the Residential Zone category. A soft landscaping strip will not be provided along the east side lot line, a 1.12 m soft landscaping strip is to be provided along the west side lot line, and a 1.0 m soft landscaping strip is to be provided along the rear lot line, abutting another lot in a Residential Zone category.

11. Section 10.5.150.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

All waste and recyclable material must be stored in a wholly enclosed building. The proposed waste and recyclable material will not be stored in a wholly enclosed building.

12. Section 10.5.100.1.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required driveway width for an apartment building is 3.0 m. The proposed driveway width is 2.72 m.

13. Section 900.6.10.(475)(D)(ii), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted floor space index for an apartment building is 1.5 x the lot area. The proposed floor space index is 1.65 x the lot area.

14. Section 230.10.1.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

Long term bicycle parking spaces may not be located within a dwelling unit. The proposed long term bicycle parking spaces are to be located within the dwelling units.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

20The only expert evidence proffered at the hearing was by the Appellant’s planner, Greg Uens. I accepted Mr. Uens’ qualifications as an expert in land use planning. His evidence is described in paragraphs 21 – 116 below.

Land Use Planning Context

21Mr. Uens provided evidence regarding the land use planning context for the property. An evolving land use planning context applies to the subject property. The site is designated Neighbourhoods in the City’s official plan, which permits apartment buildings up to four storeys.

22The subject property is located on Lawrence Avenue West, which is a five-lane street with a centre turning lane. The surrounding area comprises primarily low-rise one and two-storey detached dwellings with driveways from Lawrence Avenue. A detached low-rise residential neighbourhood exists to the north of the site but the interior of the neighbourhood is not subject to the same extent or type of intensification as planned for the Lawrence Avenue West corridor.

23Lawrence Avenue West is identified as a Major Street in the official plan, which is subject to more flexible permissions under the policies of Chapter 4.1 of the official plan. Policy 4.1.5 provides that Major Streets in Neighbourhoods can accommodate more intense development forms than found in the interior of the surrounding neighbourhoods, given that sites located on Major Streets are typically subject to better access to transit and higher volumes of traffic.

24In 2024, City council adopted Official Plan Amendment 727 (OPA 727) and implementing Zoning By-law Amendment 608-2024 (ZBL 608), which permits apartment buildings up to six storeys to be located on all Major Streets. These instruments have been approved, in part, by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and the remaining parts are still under appeal and scheduled to be heard before the OLT in November 2025. If and when they come into force, the Major Streets OPA 727 and ZBL 608 will facilitate more intense development.

25The subject property is zoned Residential Multiple under By-law 569- 2013. The existing zoning permits a variety of building types, including single detached, semi-detached, multiplex, townhouse, and apartment buildings as well as garden suites and laneway suites, subject to various performance standards.

26According to Mr. Uens’ testimony, the in-force and emerging planning context anticipates a varied and more intense development framework than currently exists on the subject property and in this area of Lawrence Avenue West.

The Proposal

27The requested variances propose to convert an approved fourplex (since 2023, a fourplex is an approved use for the site and a building permit has been issued by the City) into an eight-unit rental apartment building. The proposed units range from 45.2 m2 to 80.7 m2 and comprise one studio unit, one 1-bedroom unit, and six 2-bedroom units.

28Bylaw 569-2013 defines an apartment building as a building with five or more dwelling units. However, the proposed building is more typical of a multiplex in form. Each unit has a direct entrance to the exterior, with no common entrances or interior hallways.

29Once it is classified as an apartment building, different performance standards are applicable, which gives rise to the need for at least some of the variances.

30No changes are proposed to the exterior building envelope of the approved fourplex. Interior modifications are required to divide the approved four units into eight units.

31The graphic below illustrates the proposal to subdivide the building into 8-units overlaid upon the approved 4-unit design.

32One parking space is to be provided in the rear yard, accessed by a driveway on the east side of the building. It is anticipated that the driveway may be used for short-term parking, such as for pick-up and drop-off or for deliveries. However, it is not considered as an additional vehicle parking space under the zoning by-law.

33On August 27, 2024, the City issued a zoning notice identifying the variances required to convert the fourplex into an 8-unit building. Mr. Uens gave evidence that he was informed by the project architect of additional variances not identified by the City that may be required.

34On September 27, 2024, the Applicant submitted a minor variance application to the City to convert the existing fourplex to an eight-unit apartment building. The application was submitted under waiver to include the additional variances that the project architect believed may be applicable.

35The application was circulated to City and agency departments. City planning staff issued a report dated January 10, 2025, which expressed no concerns with the application.

36City staff noted the site’s location on a major street and the new zoning framework. Staff also observed that the east side yard setback variance is due to the cantilevered second floor, and that the ground floor maintains a zoning compliant side yard setback which is adequate to provide access to the rear parking space. City staff recommended a condition to ensure that construction is generally in accordance with the submitted plans.

37On January 16, 2025 and again on February 27, 2025 the City urban forestry department recommended a standard condition requiring the submission of a complete application regarding injury to a City tree. Mr. Uens testified that it is intended the mature tree on the boulevard is to be retained. The front walkway and stairs will encroach into a small portion of the tree protection zone, necessitating an injury permit.

38On March 11, 2025, the City issued a new zoning notice which included two additional variances that the City had not previously identified with respect to floor space index and driveway width. According to Mr. Uens, these did not arise from any changes to the plans submitted to the City or to the Committee.

39Following the decision of the Committee of Adjustment on March 6, 2025, the Applicant made several changes to the plan to respond to comments from neighbours and the Committee, specifically:

• an increase in the percentage of landscaping and soft landscaping on the site

• landscape buffer added to the north and west sides of the lot

• bicycle parking spaces provided within the vestibule or entryway of units

• bicycle repair station provided on the exterior of the building

• increase in the distance of the parking space from the wall of the building from 0.47 metres to 0.92 metres

• relocation of the garbage storage area from its original location abutting the property to the north to a location further south and closer to the building

40In Mr. Uens’ opinion, although not eliminating certain variances, the revisions listed above improve the proposal, even if they do not strictly meet the technical requirements of the by-law.

41The Applicant submitted plan revisions to the City zoning examiner and a new zoning notice was issued by the City on June 27, 2025. The zoning notice appeared to have some discrepancies, and the Applicant sought further clarification. After discussions between the Applicant and zoning examiner, Mr. Uens testified that on July 4, 2025, the zoning examiner confirmed the list of variances, even though they are not fully reflected in the City’s final zoning notice.

42The requested variances are set out in the following chart (the new variances under the most recent City zoning notice of March 11, 2025 are #13 and #14).

43Mr. Uens testified that should ZBL 608 come into force as adopted by City council, variances nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 would no longer be required. However, it is not known when whether and when that decision by the OLT will be made.

Provincial Policy

44Mr. Uens reviewed and evaluated the variances against the Planning Act. It was his professional land use planning opinion that the proposed development has regard for matters of Provincial interest. He testified as to how the proposal met the relevant provisions of section 2 of the Planning Act, as described below in paragraphs 45 – 49.

45With respect to s.2.(f), relating to “the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management services,” the proposal will be fully serviced with existing municipal sanitary, water, and stormwater management services.

46With respect to s.2.(i), relating to “the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities,” the site is located within an existing, established community with access to a full range of existing schools, parks, health care facilities, community services and recreational facilities.

47With respect to s.2.(j) “the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing,” and s.2.(p), relating to “the appropriate location of growth and development,” the proposed development will improve an existing, underutilized site with new rental units in a low-rise apartment format in an area intended for transit supportive infill intensification by recent City council decisions to support this type of development on Neighbourhood Major Streets. The revised proposal increases the range of housing options in an area that primarily includes low-rise housing.

48With respect to s.2.(q), “the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians” and s.2.(s), “the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate,” the subject site is located just east of the Weston Major Transit Station Area with good access to a variety of transit options. The site is also near cycling routes along Pine Street and is roughly a kilometre from the Humber River cycling trail. Limited parking is proposed on site, encouraging residents to utilize nearby transit.

49With respect to s.2.(r), relating to “the promotion of built form that is well-designed,” the proposed development has been massed and designed to fit within the neighbourhood while limiting impacts on adjacent properties.

50Mr. Uens’ evidence was that many planning policy objectives in the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) are achieved through this application. The PPS encourages intensification and more compact built form on all lands within the built-up area, but particularly in areas that are well served by transit.

51The subject property is located just to the east of the Weston Major Transit Station Area, and is within walking distance (approximately 1 km) of Weston Go and UP Express station. Lawrence Avenue West is also served by the Toronto Transit Commission’s ten-minute network, which is considered frequent transit.

52Mr. Uens also pointed out that the PPS also encourages the provision of additional housing types, including rental units, and the proposal will provide eight rental apartment units (including six family sized units) that are low scale and grade-related.

Official Plan

53The site is designated Neighbourhoods in the official plan. Policy 4.1.1 states that Neighbourhoods are considered physically stable areas made up of residential uses in lower scale buildings such as detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes and townhouses, as well as interspersed walk-up apartments that are no higher than four storeys, except along Major Streets where apartments may be no higher than six storeys.

54It was Mr. Uens evidence that the Neighbourhood policies should be considered alongside the balance of relevant policies throughout the official plan when ascertaining the appropriateness of development within areas designated as Neighbourhoods. Lawrence Avenue West is identified as a Major Street, which is subject to more flexible permissions under the policies of Chapter 4.1 of the official plan. Policy 4.1.5 recognizes that Major Streets in Neighbourhoods can accommodate different and more intense development forms than found in the interior of the surrounding neighbourhoods, given that sites located on Major Streets are typically subject to better access to transit and higher volumes of traffic.

55In June 2024, City council approved Official Plan Amendment 727 (OPA 727) and Zoning By-Law Amendment 608-2024 (ZBL 608). The City staff report stated that the objective of OPA 727 and ZBL 608 is to bring more housing to the City’s low-rise neighbourhoods along streets designated as Major Streets in the official plan map #3 through a series of policy and zoning amendments to permit four-storey townhouses and six-storey apartment buildings, subject to a range of performance standards.

56Mr. Uens described how the changes made through OPA 727 and ZBL 608 aim to allow intensification across the City’s Major Street network, creating as-of-right permissions for appropriately scaled apartment development to help respond to the City’s ongoing housing challenges. Without these amendments being in place, proposals for six-storey apartment buildings on Major Streets in Neighbourhoods would require site-specific applications to amend the official plan and zoning by-law, creating considerable process and cost barriers to the construction of new housing.

57Appeals of OPA 727 and ZBL 608 were filed on the basis that OPA 727 and ZBL 608 should be more permissive and provide greater flexibility in performance standards, to better facilitate as-of-right apartment building construction.

58On January 13, 2025, the OLT issued a decision approving the majority of OPA 727 and ZBL 608 coming into effect. The OLT decision brings policy into effect that permits new four-storey townhouses and six-storey apartment buildings on sites designated as Neighbourhoods in the official plan’s land use mapping and situated on a Major Street as noted on official plan map #3.

59The OLT decision also brings the entirety of ZBL 608 into force on certain properties that had requested an exemption from the appeal. The construction of apartment buildings as contemplated by OPA 727 is not currently permitted without a site-specific application to amend Zoning By-law 569- 2013 or an application for a minor variance, as applicable.

60In the OLT decision of January 13th, Policy 4.1.12 of the official plan was approved. That policy states that development on Major Street Neighbourhood lots that propose greater intensification than the prevailing building type and/or lot patterns of the geographic neighbourhood will be encouraged to include a diverse mix of housing types and sizes to increase housing options in Neighbourhoods, including larger family-sized units.

61Mr. Uens outlined how OPA 727 applies a new set of criteria for development along Major Streets, which are intended to add more homes in a greater variety of scales and forms, which supports increased transit ridership. The proposal to increase the number of units contained within the approved building envelope achieves the intent of increasing housing and particularly rental units at a modest scale and in a grade-related form.

62With respect to the City’s official plan’s rental housing replacement policies (3.2.1.6), new development is precluded that would result in the loss of six or more rental dwelling units except in certain limited circumstances. These policies do not currently apply to the site (even under the approved building permit) because the site does not contain six rental dwelling units. If the proposal is approved, the resulting rental units on the site would be subject to these policies, according to Mr. Uens, thereby ensuring their protection for the long term.

63The subject site is also situated on an Avenue in the City’s official plan. Avenues are important corridors along Major Streets where development is anticipated and encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities, while also improving the pedestrian environment, the look of the street, shopping opportunities, and transit service for community residents. Mr. Uens’ evidence was that while the official plan encourages intensification along Avenues the official plan also notes that intensification must respond to the characteristics of each Avenue and is generally not intended to be uniform.

64On February 5, 2025, City council adopted recommended changes to the official plan’s Avenues policies via Official Plan Amendment 778 (OPA 778) as one of the many actions arising from City council’s adoption of the Housing Action Plan. OPA 778 is currently under appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal and is not yet in effect.

65The updated Avenues policies under OPA 778 largely reflect the intent of the former Avenues policies in many regards, but with an added emphasis on Avenues as intensification corridors, especially around major transit stations. According to Mr. Uens, new Avenues Policy 1 intends that growth and intensification be directed to Avenues to concentrate housing in areas well served by public transit, contribute to complete communities and provide a full range of housing.

66Based on his assessment of the proposal and the relevant official plan policies, those both in-force and under appeal, it was Mr. Uens’ testimony that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the City’s official plan.

Zoning By-law and Variances to the By-Law

67The subject property is zoned Residential Multiple (RM) (x475) under By-law 569-2013. The RM zone category permits a maximum density of 1.5 times the area of the site and a maximum building height of 12 metres for apartment buildings. There is no restriction on the number of units.

68Mr. Uens reviewed each variance requested, as outlined below in paragraphs 69 – 113, and his evidence based on his review was that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

Variance 1 – Minimum Lot Frontage

69A minimum lot frontage of 20 metres is required for an apartment building. The existing lot has a frontage of 10.89 metres. Lot frontage requirements are generally used to ensure consistency in the lot fabric of a Neighbourhood further to the objectives of official plan policies 2.3.1 and 4.1, particularly regarding the “prevailing size and configuration of lots.”

70However, OPA 727 does not include the “prevailing size and configuration of lots,” as a consideration in the case of Major Street apartment development. City council’s most recent decision on the appropriateness of apartments in a Neighbourhood Major Street context does not prescribe a minimum frontage for apartment buildings.

71Instead, the report from City staff acknowledges that historic lot pattern, development pattern and zoning regulations in different areas across the city result in different lot size and recommends allowing major street apartment permissions on all lots regardless of frontage. Moreover, the scale of the proposed development, at three-storeys, is smaller than the planned six-storey height of an apartment in this context and consistent with the permitted height or a multiplex. Accordingly, the existing lot is sufficiently sized to accommodate a three-storey structure and continue to fit appropriately in context.

72In this case, the requested variance reflects the frontage of the existing lot. Whether considered against the existing context of lot frontages across the Neighbourhood or the land use planning context detailed in OPA 727 and ZBL 608, which assign no restriction on lot frontage, the requested lot frontage variance is consistent with the general intent of the zoning by-law.

Variances 2 and 3 – Minimum Side Yard Setbacks

73Minimum required side yard for an apartment is 2.5 metres for an apartment in Zoning Bylaw 569-2013 and 2.4 metres for an apartment in ZBL 608. Side yard setbacks of 1.12 metres and 1.22 metres are proposed on the west side and east side, respectively, for this proposal.

74The intent of this provision is to ensure that buildings are sited to provide appropriate setbacks to allow side yard access, potential for landscaping, and space for maintenance as well as limit impacts. At the ground level on the east side, the first storey is set back 2.7 metres, farther from the property line than the upper two storeys that are set back 1.22 metres.

75While both sides of the site are large enough for access and maintenance, the 2.7 metre setback at the ground level is large enough to provide clear access to the rear yard, functionally consistent with the intent of the side yard setback provision.

76Above the first storey, there are no windows proposed facing east or west, as a result the side yard setback proposed does not result in any privacy or overlook issues on the adjacent neighbours to either side.

77Side yard setbacks vary across the neighbourhood, with most lots having two different sized side yard setbacks, a larger one that often supports a side driveway and a smaller one on the opposite side. This is the case with the proposed development as well, notably at the ground level. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the prevailing character of lot frontages across the neighbourhood.

78ZBL 608 permits six storey buildings on lots like the subject site, with setbacks and other criteria intended for buildings that generally achieve the permitted height. In this case, however, the proposed development has lesser side yard setbacks but is also roughly half the overall height permitted by ZBL 608.

79The RM zone, to which the site is subject, permits three-storey multi-unit buildings with side yard setbacks less than what is proposed, specifically 1.2 metres on one side and 0.5 metres on the other side. The proposed development, which is effectively a three-storey, multi-unit building, conforms to the by-law requirements for side yard setbacks for three-storey multi-unit buildings.

80According to Mr. Uens, whether considered against the existing lots in the neighbourhood or the land use planning context detailed in OPA 727 and ZBL 608, the requested side yard variances are appropriate, maintain the function of side yards, do not create any overlook or privacy issues, meet the side yard setbacks required for other types of three-storey buildings.

Variances 4 and 5 – Visitors and Accessible Parking

81A total of three parking spaces is required on the site – two for visitors and one accessible space. While one parking space is provided on site in the driveway at the east part of the site, the space does not constitute a parking space as far as the zoning by-law is concerned. As a result, variances are being requested to require zero parking spaces on site.

82The official plan intends that new development in transit supported areas be designed to limit personal automobile use. On February 3, 2022, new parking provisions came into force in Zoning By-law 569-2013 that significantly reduced the required parking for new development. Because of these changes, there are no resident parking spaces required for the proposed development.

83Practically speaking, Mr. Uens testified, it is challenging for small infill residential development to provide parking while addressing the other by-law requirements and objectives, particularly regarding landscaping and tree preservation. Incorporating even one bylaw compliant accessible parking space onto the subject site would likely result in added variances, reduce landscaped space, a smaller building, and result in a parking area that does not reflect the general characteristics for parking in the surrounding area.

84In this application, due to the proximity of transit, cycling routes and other parking options, the project has been designed to reflect the prevailing characteristics of driveways and parking along the street, resulting in the need for relief from certain parking requirements.

85City transportation services and planning staff reviewed the application when it was before the Committee of Adjustment and raised no objection to the requested parking variances.

Variance 6 – Location of Surface Parking Areas

86Parking must be at least three metres from all apartment walls. Surface parking is proposed 0.92 metres from the apartment wall. This by-law standard is intended for larger apartment buildings that frequently had surface parking areas on site. The proposed development is more akin to a multiplex in terms of form and scale, served by a single parking space at the end of a driveway.

87This parking situation reflects the driveway characteristics of houses on both sides of Lawrence Avenue West. As with variances 4 and 5, City transportation services and planning staff reviewed the application when it was before the Committee of Adjustment and raised no objection to the proposed parking setback.

88Mr. Uens testified that the City is not considering the space to which this variance is subject to be a parking space under the by-law, and so the argument could be made that this variance is not required. It continues to be requested, however, out of an abundance of caution.

Variances 7, 8, 9 – Apartment Building Landscaping

89Variances 8 and 9 concern the landscape requirements for an apartment building, specifically that 50% of an apartment building site have landscaping and that 50% of that landscaping be soft landscaping. The proposal is for a total of 31% (88.9 sqm) of the lot is landscaping and 46% (64.4 sqm) of the required landscaping is soft landscaping.

90Despite the use being permitted, it is challenging to find any site zoned ‘RM’ Residential that is sufficiently sized to permit an as of right apartment building due to the setbacks and landscaping requirements specific to this use. According to Mr. Uens, these provisions were carried forward from the former zoning by-laws and are designed to address more traditional apartment buildings on much larger lots with common entrances leading to common interior corridors as opposed to the type of development proposed on the subject site.

91As these provisions predate the current City policy objectives to intend new infill housing, particularly multi-unit rental housing on Major Streets, considering the proposed development against these provisions is not consistent with the intent of the official plan. More recent council-approved standards for landscaping on an apartment site are contained in ZBL 608. These standards are intended for new apartments in a Major Street Neighbourhood. The proposed development complies with these standards.

92Despite not meeting the apartment building landscape provisions, the proposed on-site landscaping is consistent within the prevailing patterns of rear yard landscaping found in the surrounding area. The proposed on-site landscaping provides a rear yard amenity space, and exceeds the soft landscaping provided on other sites, including multi-unit building and apartment building sites within the neighbourhood.

93Regarding the 1.5 metre landscape strip along the west property line, the by-law requirement is intended to provide a landscape buffer between larger apartment buildings and adjacent low-rise housing types. It is not required to address the transition between multiplex form buildings and adjacent low-rise dwellings, because they are both compatible in size and scale. Mr. Uens’ testimony was that achieving compliance is challenging given the width of the site, however, a 1.12 metre landscape strip to the west and a 1.0 metre strip to the north are provided.

94The proposal improves upon the existing condition, particularly to the rear where the site currently has a detached garage taking up part of the rear property abutting the rear and side lot lines.

95All areas of the site that are not occupied by the building footprint or access stairs required by the building code are landscaped.

Variance 10 - Solid Waste Enclosure

96The by-law requires all waste and recyclable material to be stored in a wholly enclosed building or structure. In this case, waste and recyclable material will be stored in an enclosed structure, but not technically a building.

97The intent of this provision is to ensure that waste storage for multi-unit buildings is contained, screened from view, conveniently accessible on non-collection days, and easily accessed on collection days.

98In this proposal, the apartment building is not large enough to warrant a loading space or large internal garbage storage room and so an enclosure is appropriate for solid waste storage. The partly enclosed structure proposed for solid waste storage is to be located towards the rear of the site.

Variance 11 – Driveway Width

99The by-law requires a 3.0 metre driveway, whereas 2.72 metres is proposed. The intent of this provision is to ensure that driveways are sufficiently wide for their intended function. The proposed driveway reflects the width of the current driveway.

100City transportation services staff reviewed the application when it was before the Committee of Adjustment and did not raise any objections to the proposed driveway width. As indicated earlier, the City is not considering the space to which this variance is subject to be a parking space under the by-law and so the argument could be made that this variance is not required. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Applicant continues to request it.

Variance 12 – Floor Space Index

101The maximum permitted Floor Space Index (FSI) is 1.5 times the area of the site. The proposed FSI is 1.65 times the area of the site. This variance was not previously identified by the City, but was identified in the most recent zoning notice.

102The above-grade floor area of the proposed building complies with the FSI requirements. However, because it has been classified as an apartment building, the FSI includes the floor area in the basement.

103The general intent of zoning by-law regarding FSI is to ensure that buildings and structures on a lot are appropriately massed and scaled in relation to the size of the lot, with a floor space that fits appropriately on a lot given its size.

104The site is in a Major Street context where the official plan’s policies intend additional density beyond that which may be contemplated in the interior neighbourhoods, specifically forms of up to 6 storeys, with no limit on FSI prescribed in the implementing ZBL 608.

105Within the existing context, the proposal reflects the FSI of other multi-unit buildings in the neighbourhood. The currently in-force zoning permits apartment buildings and multiplexes. The zoning by-law no longer applies a maximum FSI limitation to multiplex development.

106Once ZBL 608 is brought into force, FSI will not apply to apartment buildings in this context either. A multiplex with the same height, setbacks, and scale as the proposed apartment is permitted as-of-right since FSI is a provision based on the relationship of floorspace to lot area; both an as-of-right multiplex and the proposed apartment building have the same floorspace. It was Mr. Uens opinion that the requested FSI of 1.65 is appropriate for the site when considered through the lens of the land use planning context.

107In this case, the proposal meets the required front and rear setbacks and permitted height. The proposal fits generally on the subject site in accordance with the majority of built form regulations for an apartment building, and all of the built form provisions that regulate a multiplex of the same size.

108Recent by-law amendments to multiplex and low-rise apartment forms remove maximum FSI as a criterion for multi-unit buildings. FSI continues to be in place to prevent excessively large single unit houses and to facilitate the construction of multi-unit developments by permitting larger, denser built forms.

109The requested FSI variance is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, as it currently applies and as it is proposed to be amended by ZBL 608, which does not apply FSI to Major Street apartment buildings.

Variance 13 – Short- and Long-Term Bike Parking

110A total of six long term spaces inside the building and one short term space outside are required. One space is provided in the rear yard and six spaces are provided inside the building, but not in a common area. As such, they do not count towards the by-law requirement.

111In this case, the required number of long-term bike parking spaces are provided within the building as shown on the plans, but since the design of the building contains no interior common space or common hallways that would support common interior access to bike parking, it is not possible to comply with this provision.

Variance 14 – Bike Repair Station

112A bike repair station is required within the building. A bike repair station is provided but is located on the outside of the building. The intent of this provision is to ensure building occupants are able to maintain their bikes.

113Similar to the bike parking variance, a bike repair station is provided on the exterior of the building. Since the design of the building contains no interior common space or common hallways that would support access from each unit to a bike repair space within the building, as is the case with Variance 13, it is not possible to comply with this provision.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Property

114Mr. Uens testified that the proposed development constitutes appropriate and desirable development for several reasons. It introduces a range of new rental housing on a vacant, underutilized, single detached house lot in accordance with the existing and recently adopted policy amendments to the official plan and the intent of Provincial policy. The proposal provides new rental housing.

115Since the Committee of Adjustment hearing on March 6, 2025, the proposal has been revised to respond to directly to comments from the community. The project also includes several sustainable design measures in response to the City’s climate resilience objectives.

Are the Variances Minor?

116It was Mr. Uens’ testimony that the proposal is minor in nature. He stated that the proposal will not cause any adverse impact of a land use planning nature, and will not increase impacts with respect to privacy, shadow, or massing over the as-of-right multiplex that can be constructed. The increase in number of units does not increase land use planning impacts in any measurable manner. His expert opinion was that the variances are technical in nature and within an order of magnitude that is reasonable and appropriate.

Participant’s Testimony

117Dianne Hipwell appeared as the sole participant in this matter. Ms. Hipwell lives at 65 Boyd Avenue, which is located behind the subject property and directly to the north of it.

118Ms. Hipwell testified that she had concerns with the increase in the number of units from four to eight. She testified that, given the overlay and partial approvals of the official plan and zoning by-law amendments, the City’s land use planning policies are convoluted and difficult to understand. She stated that the lack of parking in the area is an issue but acknowledged that the City had removed the parking requirements for this type of proposal.

119Ms. Hipwell testified that she had two primary concerns with the proposal. The first was that the waste disposal area should be fully enclosed, given the significant rodent infestation in the neighbourhood. Her other concern was the lack of privacy screening surrounding the site and she had thought that fencing around the property on its north, east and west boundaries would have been required.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The Legislative and Policy Framework

120While variances are required to meet the four tests prescribed under section 45 of the Planning Act, all land use planning decisions must be considered through the lens of Provincial policy, including any Provincial policy statements.

121The requested variances permit the creation of eight new rental units, consistent with the City’s objective to add new rental housing stock in a low-rise form across the city’s Neighbourhoods, especially on Major Streets, Avenues, and in transit supported contexts, all of which characterize the subject site.

122The proposal will add an additional form of rental housing within the community, increasing the form and variety of housing in the local area and implementing various City policy objectives that support appropriate development in areas well served by transit, services, and amenities.

123The proposed development is located within walking distance of commercial uses, services, transit connections and cycling routes. The proximity to services and transportation options will help ensure residents are not reliant on personal automobile travel.

124It is the TLAB’s conclusion that, based on the evidence submitted, the proposed development complies with the matters of Provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act and aligns with the policy objectives of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024.

Maintains the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

125The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Neighbourhood designation, having been designed to fit appropriately with the character of the neighbourhood in which it is located, particularly with regard to frontage, side yard setbacks, the pattern of rear yard landscaping, and density, as well as other criteria for which variances are not being sought, such as building height, front and rear yard setbacks, and the configuration of the driveway

126The objective of OPA 727 and ZBL 608 is to bring more housing to the City’s low-rise neighbourhoods along streets designated as Major Streets and to permit four-storey townhouses and six-storey apartment buildings, subject to a range of performance standards.

127The changes made through OPA 727 and ZBL 608 aim to allow intensification across the City’s Major Street network, creating as-of-right permissions for appropriately scaled apartment development to help respond to the City’s ongoing housing challenges.

128The proposed development is consistent with the official plan’s policy provincial objectives for development of multi-unit housing in a Major Street Neighbourhood context, in an area proximate to transit and active transportation options. The proposal contributes new family-sized rental housing to improve the area housing mix, taking the form of an as-of-right multiplex building at a height of three storeys – as opposed to an otherwise permitted six-storey apartment building.

129The subject property is on a Major Street, in close proximity to transit, higher volumes of traffic, and different development forms including townhouses, high rise and mid-rise apartment buildings and commercial properties.

130The proposal has been designed to fit within the neighbourhood and to limit impacts on adjacent properties in accordance with both the current official plan policies as they apply to multi-unit neighbourhood buildings in major street contexts, and OPA 727. The subject site is in a location where the official plan’s policies intend additional, albeit appropriate, density, which the proposal reflects.

131With respect to OPA 778, City council adopted this amendment as part of its endorsement of the Housing Action Plan. Although OPA 778 is currently under appeal to the OLT and is not yet in effect, it reflects the intention of City council. The updated Avenues policies under OPA 778 include emphasis on Avenues as intensification corridors, especially around major transit stations. These new policies direct growth and intensification to Avenues to concentrate housing in areas well served by public transit.

132The proposal will create eight new rental housing units in a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom unit layouts, with six of the eight units having two bedrooms. The proposed development is consistent within the intent of official plan Policy 3.2.1, that a full range of housing be provided across the city and within Neighbourhoods.

133I accept the evidence of Mr. Uens that the proposed development is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the applicable policies of the official plan, including the in-force and under-appeal policies of OPA 778 and OPA 727.

Maintains the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

134Although the building is considered an apartment building, it is more similar to a multiplex in form. Given the size of the subject property and the small scale of the proposed development, it is impractical to comply with the performance standards that would apply to a large apartment building on a larger site.

135The modest increase in FSI is attributed to the inclusion of the basement in the gross floor area calculations, which applies to an apartment building. By-law 608-24 does not apply a maximum FSI to this proposal.

136The provision of additional parking is unnecessary given the site’s proximity to transit. The proposal will provide for one short-term parking space. The driveway is also the same as the existing driveway on the site, and is functional to access the parking space. Bicycles can be stored within the apartment units or in the rear yard.

137With respect to waste storage, bins will be stored in a designated area in the rear yard, which is appropriate for a development of this size. The application provides for landscaping and amenity area, including in the front, west side yard, and rear yard.

138I concur with the Applicant’s expert planner that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Property

139The proposal is desirable for the use and development of the land and the approved building on the subject property. The proposal will facilitate the doubling of rental units within building shell that can be constructed as of right. The rental units include family-sized two-bedroom units.

140As the number of units on site is greater than six, the proposed rental units will be protected under the City’s rental housing replacement policies, providing long-term security to future tenants.

141Improvements to rear yard landscaping and the rear yard landscape strip and the relocation of the garbage storage area were made after the March 6th Committee of Adjustment hearing in response to comments from neighbours. The Applicant demonstrated a willingness to address concerns raised by Ms. Hipwell at the TLAB hearing and agreed to fully enclose the garbage storage area and to build a privacy wall along the north lot line of the property.

142Although Ms. Hipwell testified that both the neighbours to the west and east of the subject property would also likely desire a privacy fence, I do not make any findings in that regard since those neighbours did not appear at the hearing to speak to the issue or put forward their respective positions.

143The TLAB has determined that the application, including the changes to the proposal made since the application was initially submitted to the Committee of Adjustment, particularly those made in response to neighbours’ comments, is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.

Are the Variances Minor?

144The basis for determining whether or not a proposed variance to the zoning by-law is minor in nature includes an assessment of impact. This determination is not solely a mathematical exercise and, even though a variance may constitute a considerable numerical change, the effect of the requested variances may still be considered minor in context.

145The requested minimum lot frontage variance (Variance 1) reflects the existing condition. A three-storey building is proposed on the lot. Notwithstanding the number of units within the building, an identically sized three-storey building has been permitted on the site.

146The requested side yard setbacks (Variances 2 and 3) reflect the general side yard characteristics of lots within the surrounding area and provide space for access and maintenance. The lack of east and west facing windows mitigates any overlook or privacy issues with respect to the adjacent yards.

147Despite the requested parking variances (Variances 4 and 5), the proposed driveway on site provides parking for one vehicle as well as short term parking for deliveries and pick-up/drop-off activities. Street parking is also provided in front of the site during most of the day, and the area is served by local and regional transit connections.

148The parking location and driveway width variances (Variances 6 and 11), reflect the existing condition of the driveway and that of nearly every other driveway in the surrounding area. As noted above, that the City does not consider the proposed parking space as a parking space for the purpose of the zoning by-law raises the question as to whether or not Variances 6 and 11 are even required.

149The requested landscape variances (Variances 7, 8, and 9), result from former standards for landscaping on apartment sites. The standards of ZBL 608 reflect the most current and appropriate landscape standards through which to consider the appropriateness of the development on this site. The proposed landscaping, particularly in the rear yard, reflects an improvement over the existing condition, which is characterized by a garage occupying a large space in the rear yard.

150With respect to the solid waste storage variance (Variance 10), the design and approach to solid waste storage can vary in a low-rise multi-unit context.

151Regarding the FSI variance (Variance 12) this building has been evaluated as an apartment building but the building is more typical of a multiplex form given that it has no common entry and no common stairwells or interior corridors/common rooms. If a multiplex building type were applied, the required FSI would not apply. The requested FSI results in a three-storey multi-unit building with the same dimensions as an as-of-right three-storey multiplex on the site.

152The requested bike parking variances (Variances 13 and 14) are required as, despite the requisite number of long-term spaces and the required bike repair station being provided on site, they are not able to be provided within the building as the proposed building contains no common areas where such spaces could go.

153It is the determination of the TLAB that the requested variances, when considered individually and cumulatively, are minor in nature.

CONCLUSION

154I am satisfied that the proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest. The proposed variances are consistent with the general intent and purpose of the official plan, consistent with the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Therefore, I find that the application for fourteen variances requested, individually and cumulatively, satisfies the four tests set out in subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and I authorize the variances, subject to the conditions contained herein.

DECISION AND ORDER

155The TLAB orders that the appeal is allowed and that the variances to the zoning by-law set out in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B.

Y. Herscher

Panel Member

APPENDIX A

APPROVED VARIANCES

1. Section 900.6.10.(475)(B)(iv), By-law 569-2013

Whereas the minimum required lot frontage for an apartment building is 20 m., the lot frontage for the proposed apartment building will be 10.89 m.

2. Section 900.6.10.(475)(F)(v), By-law 569-2013

Whereas the minimum required side yard setback for an apartment building is 2.5 m., the proposed apartment building will be located 1.12 m from the west side lot line and 1.22 m from the east side lot line.

3. Section 10.80.40.70.(4)(D)(i), By-law 569-2013 & 79.(4)(D)(i), By-law 2024-608

Whereas the minimum required side yard setback for an apartment building on a major street is 2.4 m, the proposed apartment building on a major street will be located 1.12 m from the west side lot line and 1.22 m from the east side lot line.

4. Section 230.5.1.10.(12), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a bicycle maintenance facility is required, no bicycle maintenance facility will be provided.

5. Section 200.5.10.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a minimum of 2 visitor parking spaces is required, no visitor parking space will be provided.

6. Section 200.15.10.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a minimum of 1 accessible parking space is required, no accessible parking space will be provided.

7. Section 10.5.80.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a surface parking space must be at least 3 m from all main walls of an apartment building, the proposed surface parking space will be located 0.92 m from the main wall of the proposed apartment building.

8. Section 10.5.50.10.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a minimum of 50% of the lot shall be maintained as landscaping, a total of 32% of the lot will be maintained as landscaping.

9. Section 10.5.50.10.(4)(B), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a minimum of 50% of the required landscaping must be maintained as soft landscaping, a total of 46.1% of the required landscaping will be maintained as soft landscaping.

10. Section 10.5.50.10.(5), By-law 569-2013

Whereas a lot with an apartment building must have a minimum 1.5 m wide strip of land for soft landscaping along any part of a lot line abutting another lot in the Residential Zone category, a soft landscaping strip will not be provided along the east side lot line, a 1.12 m soft landscaping strip will be provided along the west side lot line, and a 1.0 m soft landscaping strip will be provided along the rear lot line, abutting another lot in a Residential Zone category.

11. Section 10.5.150.1.(1), By-law 569-2013

Whereas all waste and recyclable material must be stored in a wholly enclosed building, the proposed waste and recyclable material will not be stored in a wholly enclosed building.

12. Section 10.5.100.1.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013

Whereas the minimum required driveway width for an apartment building is 3.0 m, the driveway width will be 2.72 m.

13. Section 900.6.10.(475)(D)(ii), By-law 569-2013

Whereas the maximum permitted floor space index for an apartment building is 1.5 x the lot area, the floor space index will be 1.65 x the lot area.

14. Section 230.10.1.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

Whereas long term bicycle parking spaces may not be located within a dwelling unit, the proposed long term bicycle parking spaces will be located within the dwelling units.

APPENDIX B

CONDITIONS

1. The proposed apartment building shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Proposed Site Plan (A0.3), Proposed South Elevation (A2.1), Proposed North Elevation (A2.3), Proposed East Elevation (A2.5), and Proposed West Elevation (A2.7), and dated May 22, 2025, as prepared by Craig Race Architecture Inc. and attached hereto.

Note: Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are not authorized.

2. The owner shall apply to the City of Toronto for a permit to injure a City tree pursuant to Chapter 813, Article II, Trees on City Streets, of the Municipal Code.

3. All waste and recyclable material shall be stored within a solid enclosure situated on the subject property.

4. The owner shall construct a new privacy fence on the north lot line of the subject property, which shall comply with Chapter 447, Fences, of the Municipal Code.