423 Glencairn Holdings Inc. (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 352

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2025-09-22

25 132950 S45 08 TLAB

423 Glencairn Holdings Inc. (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 352

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: 2025-09-22

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): 423 GLENCAIRN HOLDINGS INC.

Applicant(s): LBMIZRAHI ARCHITECT INC.

Property Address: 423 GLENCAIRN AVE

COA File No.: 25 107652 NNY 08 MV (A0027/25NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 25 132950 S45 08 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): 07/29/2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member C. Wong

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Applicant	LBMIZRAHI ARCHITECT INC
Appellant	423 GLENCAIRN HOLDINGS INC	D. BRONSKILL
Participant	M. FRANKLIN
Participant	R. LEVINE
Participant	E. SOUSA

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Applicant, 423 Glencairn Holdings Inc, wishes to demolish the existing house and detached rear garage to build a new three-story dwelling on 423 Glencairn Avenue (the “Subject Property”).

2Located in North York, the Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan and is subject to the City-Wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended. It is zoned Residential Detached and its City of Toronto Zoning label is RD (f18.0; a690).

3On January 22, 2025, the Applicant submitted 12 minor variance requests related to building height, main wall height, number of storeys, building length and depth, side-yard setback, driveway width, and front yard landscaping to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”).

4Before the scheduled COA hearing on March 6, 2025, Community Planning recommended modifications and Urban Forestry imposed standard conditions. Nearby residents expressed concerns as well as support for the Application.

5On February 28, 2025, in response to feedback from Community Planning and nearby residents, the Applicant submitted revised plans to reduce four variances (related to building length, depth, east side yard setback and east roof eaves encroachment).

6On March 6, 2025, the North York COA heard the Applicant’s revised application and refused all 12 variances.

7On March 21, 2025, the Applicant appealed the COA decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (“TLAB”).

8The Applicant submitted the following 9 variances to the TLAB:

Bylaw 569-2013:

1. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 10.0 m. WHEREAS the proposed height of the dwelling is 11.0 m

2. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0m or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 m. WHEREAS the proposed building length is 24.16 m.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 m. WHEREAS the proposed building depth is 24.16 m.

4. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)E), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m where the required minimum lot frontage is 18.0 m to less than 24.0 m. WHEREAS the proposed east side yard setback is 1.2 m.

5. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)E), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.8 m where the required minimum lot frontage is 18.0m to less than 24.0 m. WHEREAS the proposed west side yard setback is 0.92 m.

6. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(3)A), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum number of storeys is 2. WHEREAS the proposed number of storeys is 3.

7. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7)(B), By-law No. 569-2013 The eaves of a roof may encroach into a required minimum building setback a maximum of 0.9m, if they are no closer to a lot line than 0.3 m. WHEREAS the proposed east roof eaves encroach 1.16 m into the west side yard setback.

8. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)A), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m. WHEREAS the proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing east and west side lot lines is 7.81 m.

9. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)B)(i), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of all front main walls and all rear main walls is 7.5 m. WHEREAS the proposed height of the front and rear exterior main walls is 7.81 m.

9On June 12, 2025, in advance of the TLAB deadline, Mr. Mark Franklin, owner at 419 Glencairn Avenue and Participant, filed a Participant Statement.

10On June 12, 2025, in advance of the TLAB deadline, Mr. Elvino Sousa, owner at 425 Glencairn Avenue and Participant, filed a Participant Statement.

11Three days after the TLAB deadline (June 13, 2025), on June 16, 2025, the Applicant late-filed its Document Disclosure and late-filed its Witness Statement.

12Four days after the TLAB deadline (June 13, 2025), on June 17, 2025, Mr. Robert Levine, owner at 421 Glencairn Avenue and Participant, late-filed a Participant Witness Statement.

13Three days after the TLAB deadline (June 30, 2025), on July 2, 2025, the Applicant late-filed its Response to the Participants’ Witness Statements.

14On July 29, 2025, the Applicant’s legal representative, Mr. David Bronskill, the Applicant’s expert land use planner, Mr. Michael Goldberg, the Subject Property’s owners, and the three Participants, Mr. Mark Franklin, Mr. Robert Levine, and Mr. Elvino Sousa, attended the TLAB Hearing.

15Given the minimal prejudice caused by the three- or four-days’ delay of the late-filed materials and hearing no objections from the Applicant or Participants at the Hearing, I accepted all materials submitted into evidence.

16I also accept that the Applicant’s amendments to its Application after the COA are minor and reduce its impacts on neighbours. I conclude that no new notice is required, according to subsection 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

17Provincial Interest – Planning Act, 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.

18Provincial Policy – Planning Act, S. 3

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

19Variance – Planning Act, 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.

MATTERS AT ISSUE

20Do the Applicant’s requested variances meet the Planning Act requirements?

Issue A

• Are the requested variances consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024?¹

Issue B

• Do the requested variances satisfy the four tests of Planning Act s.45(1)? Specifically, do I find that the requested variances:

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

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

21Applicant’s Disclosure Document

22Exhibit 1 – Applicant Witness Statement

23Exhibit 2 – Applicant Response to Participant Witness Statements

24Mr. Franklin’s Participant Witness Statement

25Mr. Levine’s Participant Witness Statement

26Mr. Sousa’s Participant Witness Statement

27Applicant’s Response to the Participants’ Witness Statements

DETAILED EVIDENCE

Issue A.

Provincial Policy Statement

28The land use planner, Mr. Goldberg, opined that the proposal is a local matter that does not bring rise to provincial policy implications.

Issue B.

i) Official Plan

Policy 3.1.3 (a-f)

29Mr. Goldberg, opined that the proposal locates the main entrance facing the street, preserves existing mature trees, and is consistent with front yard setbacks.

Policy 2.3.1, 4.1.5 (c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density, and dwelling type of nearby residential properties, and

Policy 4.1.5 (g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.

30In his evidence on the Official Plan, Mr. Goldberg highlighted the following Policies.

31Policy - 2.3.1, Stable but Not Static: Healthy Neighbourhoods

"[N]eighbourhoods will not stay frozen in time. … Some physical change will occur over time as enhancements, additions and infill housing occurs on individual sites. A cornerstone policy is to ensure that new physical development in our neighbourhoods respects the existing physical character of the area, reinforcing the stability of the neighbourhood."²

32Policy – 3.1.3 (a-f), Built Form

“Development will be located and organized to fit with its existing and planned context. It will frame and support adjacent streets, lanes, parks and open spaces to promote civic life and the use of the public realm, and to improve the safety, pedestrian comfort, interest and experience, and casual views to these spaces from the development by:

a) generally locating buildings parallel to the street or along the edge of a park or open space with consistent front yard setbacks;

b) providing additional setbacks or open spaces at the following locations, where appropriate:

i. street intersections;

ii. prominent destinations;

iii. parks and open spaces;

iv. transit stops;

v. natural areas;

vi. sites that end a street corridor; and

vii. areas with high pedestrian volumes;

c) locating main building entrances on the prominent building facades so that they front onto a public street, park or open spaces, are clearly visible and directly accessible from a public street;

d) providing ground floor uses, clear windows and entrances that allow views from and, where possible access to, adjacent streets, parks and open spaces;

e) preserving existing mature trees wherever possible and incorporating them into the development site; and

f) providing comfortable wind conditions and air circulation at the street and adjacent open spaces to preserve the utility and intended use of the public realm, including sitting and standing.”³

33Policy - 4.1.5, Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods

"5. 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;

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

d) prevailing building type(s);

e) prevailing location, design, and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages;

f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;

h) continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and

i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures, and landscapes.”⁴

"The physical character of the geographic neighbourhood includes both the physical characteristics of the entire geographic area in proximity to the proposed development (the broader context) and the physical characteristics of the properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (the immediate context). Proposed development within a Neighbourhood will be materially consistent with the prevailing physical character of properties in both the broader and immediate contexts. In instances of significant difference between these two contexts, the immediate context will be considered to be of greater relevance. The determination of material consistency for the purposes of this policy will be limited to consideration of the physical characteristics listed in this policy.”⁵

34“In determining whether a proposed development in a Neighbourhood is materially consistent with the physical character of nearby properties, only the physical character of properties within the geographic neighbourhood in which the proposed development is to be located will be considered."⁶

Neighbourhood Context

35Mr. Goldberg defined the immediate and broader neighborhood as one area being bound by Bathurst Street on the west, Mona Drive on the east, Coldstream Avenue on the north, and Cortleigh Boulevard on the south. He defined this immediate and broader neighbourhood as covering a roughly 5-minute walk, an area that one may frequent daily, from the Subject Property.

36Mr. Goldberg also noted the Subject Property’s immediate and broader neighbourhood is divided by a By-law jurisdictional boundary, with the Former City of North York on the west and the Former City of Toronto on the east. He indicated that this boundary would be imperceptible to a member of the public on the street.

Storeys

37Mr. Goldberg explained that the By-laws of the Former City of North York allow only two stories, while those of the Former City of Toronto have no restrictions on the number of stories. Referring to this distinction in his testimony, Goldberg suggested that the requested three stories would meet the By-law requirements that are found in his defined immediate and broader neighbourhood context. In his broader context, Mr. Goldberg’s found 28 three-storey buildings that have been approved (shown on “Approvals: Minor Variance Decisions Analysis Map”, Witness Statement, Page 55).

38Mr. Goldberg also opined that the third storey would be within what would be allowed as faux dormers.

Building Height

39In the broader context, Mr. Golberg identified properties with heights over 11 m, including 382 Glengrove Avenue West (11.14 m) and 372 Glengrove Avenue West (11.39 m).

40Mr. Goldberg explained that in the western half of his broader neighbourhood context, i.e. the Former City of North York, where the Subject Property is located, the maximum building height is 10 m. The Former City of Toronto, however, has a maximum height of 11 m.

41In the Former City of North York area, where the Subject Property is located, Mr. Goldberg showed over 40 building height variance approvals (Minor Variance Decisions Analysis Map). Of those 40 approvals, however, only 4 met or exceeded 11 m (i.e. two properties on Alexandra Wood and two on Cortleigh Boulevard).⁷

42Similarly, in the Former City of Toronto portion of the broader context, of the 16 building height approvals given, only two met or exceeded 11 m.

43In addition, looking at the properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite, the building height for 417 Glencairn Avenue is 9.39 m and for 419 Glencairn Avenue it is 8.0 m (Minor Variance Decisions Analysis Map). These are both less than the Applicant’s proposed 11 m.

44To support his evidence, Mr. Goldberg asserted that “the prevailing height cannot be determined solely by the numeric standard but instead by the prevailing character of the neighborhood, which in this case is a combination of performance standards that are deployed on the lots through similar approved minor variance applications or permitted as of right to be compatible with the prevailing character” (Witness Statement, Paragraph 11.1.8 (ii)).

Building Length and Building Depth

45Mr. Goldberg explained that the proposed building length and depth variances (both 24.16 m) are caused by the breakfast nook, only present on the ground floor, which extends 3.06 m farther than the rest of the building (Witness Statement, Paragraph 9.6).

46Then, Mr. Goldberg opined that, numerically, the Applicant’s requested building length and depth variances (both 24.16 m) are “within the range” of variances in the broader and immediate neighborhoods.

47For example, in the broader context, Mr. Golberg opined that 38 and 42 Alexandra Wood, which have respective lengths (22.68 m and 21.35 m) and depths (22.87 m and 19.22 m), are “within the range” of what the Applicant proposes.

48Similarly, in the immediate context, Mr. Goldberg opined that the requested building length variance is “within the range” of 438 Glencairn Avenue (at the Northwest corner of Glencairn Avenue), which has an approved building length of 23.09 m. In his evidence, Mr. Goldberg also referred to 388 Glencairn Avenue, which has a building length and building depth of 24.14 m. Finally, he referred to 422 Glencairn Avenue, situated almost directly across the street from the Subject Property, which has a building length of 19.38 m and building depth of 22.15 m.

49In the broader context, the Applicant’s proposed building length and depth variances are greater than that of every cited property.

50On Glencairn Avenue, the Applicant’s proposed building length and depth variances are greater than that of each of the cited properties.

East and West Side Yard Setbacks

51Mr. Goldberg identified that in the broader neighborhood, on Coldstream Avenue, Side Yard Setbacks of 1.2 m (as proposed on the East Side Yard) or less do exist.

52In addition, on Glengrove Avenue, Lytton Boulevard, Forest Wood, and Cortleigh Blvd, Side Yard Setbacks of 0.92 m (as proposed on the West Side Yard) or less exist.

Height of Exterior and Front Main Walls, and Eaves Encroachment

53Mr. Goldberg did not include the variances for Height of Exterior and Front Main Walls or Eaves Encroachment in his “Approvals: Minor Variance Decisions Analysis Map”. He also did not mention these variance requests directly in the Official Plan analysis of his Witness Statement. They were, however, included in the Minor Variance Decision Analysis table.

54In his oral testimony, Mr. Goldberg explained that the eaves encroachment for the front of the building allows for the indoor garage, front hall, and living room (of 12 feet). He explained that to the naked eye, this encroachment would be almost imperceptible.

55Overall, Mr. Goldberg brought attention to the importance of qualitative, not just quantitative, nature of the requested variances. He asserted that the architectural aspects and site planning used in the deployment of the proposal’s height, massing, and scale are significant.

56In particular, he discussed the conventional architecture, setback roofline, front-facing dormers, conventional extension backward, lack of projections and platforms, and the one storey breakfast nook which will not create shadow concerns that may be associated with main wall height.

57Mr. Goldberg asserted that in the neighbourhood, there is an eclectic style of redevelopment with vintage and modern homes, including complete re-builds as the one proposed.

58He emphasized the proposal’s fit with the pattern of lotting and undulating street alignments, prevalent in the properties to the north, east, and south, and which responds to the varied ravine topography in the southwest.

Zoning By-laws

59Mr. Goldberg stated that “the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is to identify permitted uses, together with performance standards which, once applied to a building or property, will result in a development which:

• Implements the Official Plan;
• Will not bring rise to adverse planning impacts on the immediate or broader neighborhood; and
• Results in a building compatible with the subject land and neighbouring developments.” (Witness Statement, Paragraph 11.2.1)

ANALYSIS, REASONS, AND FINDINGS

Issue A

60I accept Mr. Goldberg’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area.

Issue B

i) General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

Analysis of Official Plan - Policy 3.1.3 (a-f)

61I accept that the proposal meets the requirements of Policy 3.1.3 (a-f) with respect to orientation to the street, locating a building entrance visible from the street, and incorporating mature trees into the development of the site.

Analysis of Official Plan - Policies 2.3.1, 4.1.5 (c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density, and dwelling type of nearby residential properties, and 4.1.5 (g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.

Neighborhood Context

62Policy 4.1.5 is clear that the immediate context is limited to “properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (the immediate context)”. ⁸

63Mr. Goldberg’s definition of immediate context as being several blocks in all directions, rather than being exclusive to the properties on the same street as the Subject Property, does not fit the definition contained in Policy 4.1.5.

64Further, in his evidence, Mr. Goldberg did not discuss differences or similarities between the broader and immediate context. Since differences or similarities between the immediate and broader context are necessary for assessing a proposal’s materially consistency with the physical character of nearby and surrounding properties, not having a well-defined immediate context makes it more difficult for the Applicant to meet the Official Plan test and particularly the requirements of Policy 4.1.5.

Storeys

65Official Plan Policy 4.1.5 explains that to reinforce and respect the neighbourhood’s character, a development need not exist in the most substantial or most frequently occurring numbers, but it must be materially consistent with what is prevailing and substantially occurring. A proposed variance need not be the most frequently occurring, but it must at least be consistent with what is prevailing or substantially occurring in the neighbourhood.

66Further, “While prevailing will mean most frequently occurring for purposes of this policy, this Plan recognizes that some geographic neighbourhoods contain a mix of physical characters. In such cases, the direction to respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character will not preclude development whose physical characteristics are not the most frequently occurring but do exist in substantial numbers within the geographic neighbourhood, provided that the physical characteristics of the proposed development are materially consistent with the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood and already have a significant presence on properties located in the immediate context or abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent block(s) within the geographic neighbourhood”⁹ (Emphasis added).

67Within the Official Plan’s immediate context and among properties abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent blocks, however, no three-storey houses exist.

68While I accept that the Subject Property’s immediate context could be divided by a jurisdictional boundary, Mr. Golberg has not demonstrated that in this context three-story buildings exist, let alone are prevailing or substantially occurring as is the Official Plan test.

Building Height

69In his evidence, Mr. Goldberg identified properties in the broader neighborhood that had a building height greater than what the Applicant proposes (11 m). His Minor Decisions Analysis did not, however, demonstrate that the proposed building height is prevailing or substantially occurring in the broader context.

70Further, among the “properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (immediate context),”¹⁰ Mr. Goldberg did not identify any properties with the Applicant’s proposed building height. Thus, Mr. Goldberg did not demonstrate that the proposed building height is prevailing or substantially occurring in the Official Plan’s immediate context.

71Despite Mr. Goldberg’s assertion that “prevailing height cannot be determined solely by the numeric standard but instead by the prevailing character of the neighborhood”, I find that he has not established that the proposed building height respects the prevailing massing and scale of the neighbourhood’s physical character in the immediate or broader context.

Building Length and Building Depth

72In the broader context, none of properties which Mr. Goldberg references, either along Alexandra Wood on Glencairn Avenue, have a building length or building depth that meets or exceeds what the Applicant has proposed.

73In the immediate context, as defined by the Official Plan, on Glencairn Avenue, the Applicant’s proposed building length and depth do not exist and are thus not prevailing or substantially occurring.

74The Official Plan is clear that the test for building length and depth under Policy 4.1.5 is “prevailing” physical character within the broader and immediate contexts, which Mr. Goldberg has not established.

East and West Side Yard Setbacks

75Although in the broader neighbourhood Mr. Goldberg found examples of the proposed Side Yard Setback variances (1.2 m and 0.92 m for the east and west respectively) or less, he did not find any instances of the proposed variances in the immediate neighbourhood, as defined by the Official Plan.

76Where differences exist between the broader and immediate context, the immediate context is more relevant in determining material consistency with the neighbourhood’s prevailing physical character.

77In the immediate neighbourhood, with no instances of either of the proposed East or West Side Yard Setback variances, the Applicant has not demonstrated that these are prevailing or substantially occurring. The proposed variances do not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

Height of Exterior and Front Main Walls, and Eaves Encroachment

78Mr. Goldberg did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the requested variances for the Height of Main Walls and Eaves Encroachment are found in the broader and immediate neighborhood as part of the prevailing physical character.

79While the proposal's qualitative factors such as architectural features mitigate its potential impact, they do not over-ride the lack of materially consistency in its overall height, massing and scale with the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

Overall

80Proposed variances that are non-prevailing must be represented in the immediate context. Individually, the proposed variances for building height, building length, building depth, side yard setbacks, exterior and front wall heights, eaves encroachment and number of stories are not prevailing in the Official Plan’s immediate context. Collectively, these variances create a qualitative massing effect that is not prevailing among the properties in the immediate neighbourhood.

81The criteria in Official Plan Policy 3.1.3 address the building’s relationship to the public realm and seek to create community supportive conditions. They are not sufficient to circumvent the specific development criteria listed in Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

82I find that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Official Plan.

ii) Zoning By-laws

83Although Mr. Goldberg provided general information on the intention and purpose of Zoning By-laws writ-large, he did not demonstrate how, despite the variances requested, the proposal would meet the general intent and purpose of the specific Zoning By-law provisions for which variances are being sought.

84Further, his evidence on Zoning By-laws relies on implementing the Official Plan, the requirements of which I have found the proposal does not meet.

85Mr. Goldberg suggested that there was no significant difference in lowering the requested wall height variance, because the roof would stay the same height. This does not take into the consideration the purpose and intent of the wall-height provision of the Zoning By-law as distinct from the overall building height provision. He did not provide an analysis of how the proposed building height variance would meet the intention and purpose of the height provision.

86Although he did mention that the Subject Property’s lot is extremely deep, Mr. Goldberg did not demonstrate how the length and depth variances would still meet the general intent and purpose of these By-law standards, or potentially why this lot would allow for deeper building than the surrounding lots.

87I find that the proposal does not meet the general intention and purpose of the specific Zoning By-law provisions for the variances being sought.

iii) Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of Land

88I find that the proposal is not compatible with the neighbourhood and does not respect and reinforce the neighbourhood’s character.

iv) Minor

89The test for minor has been defined such that there should be no significant adverse impacts of a planning nature.

90The owners of the two immediately adjacent properties on the same side as the street as the Subject Property (425 Glencairn Avenue and 421 Glencairn Avenue) as well as the owner of 419 Glencairn Avenue one house away, have cited many concerns over the qualitative factors of the proposal – shadow, privacy, and relative scale with respect to the neighbouring houses. Their opinions of the proposal’s fit contribute to the qualitative factors being weighed, and call into question the minor nature of the requested variances’ impact.

CONCLUSION

91The requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaws.

92The Applicant did not discharge its burden of demonstrating that its requested variances individually and cumulatively meet all four tests of the Planning Act, s. 45(1).

DECISION AND ORDER

93The application is refused. The COA decision is upheld.

C. Wong

Panel Member

Footnotes

1. 1The Provincial Policy Statement 2024 replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019.
2. 2City of Toronto, Official Plan, Consolidated June 2024, Page 2-30.
3. 3Ibid, Pages 3-10 to 3-11.
4. 4Ibid., Page 4-4.
5. 5Ibid., Pages 4-4 to 4-5.
6. 6Ibid., Page 4-5.
7. 7Witness Statement, electronic Page 55.
8. 8City of Toronto, Official Plan, Consolidated June 2024, Pages 4-4.
9. 9City of Toronto, Official Plan, Consolidated June 2024, Page 4-5.
10. 10Ibid, Pages 4-4.