Stewart (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 353

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

Date: 2025-09-29

File: 24 129367 S45 20 TLAB

Citation: Stewart (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 353

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: September 29, 2025

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

Appellant(s): S. M. STEWART

Applicant(s): RICHARD WENGLE ARCHITECT INC

Property Address: 30 LAKESIDE AVE

COA File No.: 23 237129 ESC 20 MV (A0278/23SC)

TLAB Case File No.: 24 129367 S45 20 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): November 25, 2024 December 18, 2024

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member J. Tassiopoulos

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Owner	N. L. Macdonald
Applicant	R. Wengle Architect Inc.
Appellant	S. M. Stewart	D. Bronskill (Goodmans LLP)
Party (TLAB)	City of Toronto	U. Gautam (City of Toronto)
Party (TLAB)	G. Lennox
Party (TLAB)	P. W. Passalent
Party (TLAB)	S. Manganaro
Party (TLAB)	Birch Cliff Village Community
Party (TLAB)	D. Shep
Participant	P. A. Harbin
Participant	E. McGee
Participant	P. Garn-Moore
Participant	D. C. Turner
Participant	A. O’Rourke

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) March 6, 2024, refusal of the eleven variances sought to construct a new three-storey detached dwelling and a cabana structure.

2The property is located at 30 Lakeside Avenue (subject property) in the former City of Scarborough.

3The property is designated Neighbourhoods and Zoned Residential Detached (RD) and Single -Family under the City of Toronto Zoning Bylaw 569-2013.

4The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) issued a Notice of Hearing for this matter, setting the Hearing date for July 16, 2024, and setting out the required submission dates for Applicant Disclosure, Expert Witness Statements, Witness Statements, etc.

5The initial TLAB Hearing date for this matter, July 16, 2024, was adjourned due to a schedule conflict for the Applicants counsel, Mr. Bronskill, in order to allow him to represent his Client and to accommodate the requested 2 hearing dates to ensure all participants and Parties to the matter were given adequate time to present their statements and evidence concerning the application.

6The adjournment was granted by this Panel Member and two dates, November 25, 2024, and December 18, 2024, were identified by TLAB staff as the new hearing dates.

7This Decision considers the evidence presented by the expert witnesses, statements from Participants, and the opening and closing arguments by Counsel over those two days.

8The application is to demolish the existing two-storey detached dwelling and construct a new three-storey detached dwelling with the following variances:

Exception RD 1462.(A)(iii), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.4 times the lot area (280.08 m2).

The proposed floor space index is 0.734 times the lot area (514.22 m2).

Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted lot coverage is 33% (231.07 m2).

The proposed lot coverage is 39.8% (278.96 m2).

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted building height is 9 m.

The proposed building height is 10.96 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted number of storeys is 2.

The proposed number of storeys is 3.

Chapter 10.20.40.10.(4), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted main wall height is 7.2 m.

The proposed main wall height is 9.94 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted building length is 17 m.

The proposed building length is 21.12 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted building depth is 19 m.

The proposed building depth is 19.56 m.

Chapter 10.20.40.70.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback is 9.15 m.

The proposed front yard setback is 8.15 m.

Chapter 10.5.40.60.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

Exterior stairs may encroach into a required minimum building setback if the stairs are no wider than 2 m.

The proposed front porch stairs encroach into the required front yard setback and are 3.9 m wide.

Chapter 10.5.100.(1)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted driveway width is 3.2 m.

The proposed driveway width is 3.5 m.

Chapter10.5.60.20.(2)(B), By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required rear yard setback for an ancillary building is 2 m.

The proposed rear yard setback for an ancillary building is 0.61 m.

9I advised, as per Council direction, that I had visited the site and surrounding neighbourhood and reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the Hearing, but it was the evidence to be heard that was of importance.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

10Provincial 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.

11Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) for the subject area.

12Variance – 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

A summary of evidence is presented here for the purpose of providing some context for the following sections of this Decision. All of the evidence and testimony in this matter has been carefully reviewed and the omission of any point of evidence in this summary should not be interpreted to mean that it was not fully considered, but rather that the recitation of it is not material to the threads of reasoning that will be outlined in the Issues and Analysis section below.

Evidence of Mr. R. Gutter

13Mr. Guetter provided an overview of the proposed development indicating that:

a. Eleven variances were originally sought for the proposal and explained each of the variances, the existing two-storey dwelling would be demolished and be replaced by a new three-storey building.

b. A comparative outline of the as-of-right building footprint and elevations outline, illustrating the portions of the proposal that are beyond the permitted setbacks and height of the building envelope on the site.

c. The expression of the built form was contemporary in nature and that the massing and height were diminished through the use of various stepbacks and building articulation.

d. The proposed second and third storey have articulated walls with recesses and projections with the third floor setback on all four sides of the building. He noted that none of the building walls are just extrusions for the full height or full width of the proposed dwelling.

14Mr. Guetter explained that the proposal presented before the TLAB was a revised application in response to concerns raised about the original proposal. The changes include reductions to the original variances sought and the elimination of two variances as follows:

Reduced floor space index (FSI) to .712 times from .734 times the area of the property;
Coverage reduced to 33% from 38.97% of the lot area;
Building front yard setback was increased to 8.84m from 8.15m;
Building length was reduced to19.12m from 21.12m;
Building depth variance was eliminated due to reduction of building length;
Building height reduced to 10.09m from 10.96m;
The variances sought for wall height, number of storeys, front entry stairs and driveway width remain unchanged; and
The proposed Caban building setbacks now comply the Zoning By-law.

15He explained that the variances were all improvements over what was originally sought, are minor changes when considering section 45.1.18 of the Planning Act and did not require recirculation of the proposal.

16Mr. Guetter described the immediate and geographic neighbourhood. Explaining that the physical character of dwellings in the area include one to three storeys in height and predominantly single detached dwellings.

17In the immediate neighbourhood context, he explained that there were a variety of building setbacks and a range of building heights from one to three storey residential dwellings along Lakeside Avenue.

18He indicated there were a wide range of architectural styles found in the neighbourhood and that built form massing are important to consider with respect to the proposal. Height in conjunction with massing need to be considered with respect to the proposal because the proposal mitigates massing impact through the stepping of the built form with reduced floor plates on each level.

19Mr. Guetter provided a summary of the analysis he had completed with respect to Committee of Adjustment minor variance decisions in the past 10 years and noted that 9 applications, with FSI greater than the proposal and 10 that were similar the proposal’s, had been granted the FSI variance.

20He noted that the lot coverage variance sought was in keeping with the 32 instances identified in the geographic neighbourhood, with 15 of those approved, having coverages greater than the proposal. Besides reflecting the trend towards larger dwellings, the increased lot coverage could be achieved without incurring inappropriate massing or built form in the neighbourhood.

21Mr. Guetter noted that amongst the variances being sought, there were no variances requested for side yard or rear yard setbacks and that the only encroachment was into the front yard due to a bay window projection that reduced the setback, which only affected a portion of the proposed dwellings’ front elevation.

22He explained that the height variance sought, of 1.0m, was modest when compared to what is permitted and indicated that this was triggered more from the measurement of finished grade at the front rather than the reduced height of the rear due to the slope of the property.

23The building length variance is only caused by the ground level of the proposed dwelling. It is a result of the added length from the front wall bay window projection and the rear wall bumpout. The levels above the ground floor are within the permitted building length due to their reduced floor areas and stepping back.

24Mr. Guetter explained that the variance for the front entry was a result of the width of the proposed steps of 3.9m when 2.0m was permitted. He noted that the steps related to the building style, had no visual impact on the street, and that there is no impact to the front yard landscaping as no variance has been sought for landscaping.

25In his review of the applicable Official Plan policies with respect to the proposal he noted that although Sections 2.3.1, 3.1.2, and 3.2.1 were all considered in his analysis, Section 4.1.5 was the key relevant policy with respect to the proposal. He explained that the proposal respects and reinforces the physical character in the neighbourhood and meets the criteria as set out for height, massing, scale, density fit with respect to dwelling types found in the neighbourhood. The proposal’s scale and massing and stepping of floors meets the general intent and purpose of these Official Plan policies.

26He opined that the other relevant policy criteria with respect to building type, location of driveway and garages, prevailing setbacks, lot pattern and landscaped open space, are all met. The proposal is a single-detached residential dwelling, with an integrated garage that can be found within the neighbourhood, the proposed front yard setback is similar to the existing buildings’, and landscaped area is maintained as there are no variances for the side and rear yards.

27With respect to the floor space index variance (FSI), he explained that the variance sought, at 0.76 times the area, was similar or within the range of other variances granted in the geographic neighbour and noted 6 instances where the FSI was greater. He further noted that because of the stepping and wall plane changes “the impact of the building massing associated with the increased FSI is minimized and that the proposed dwelling achieves an appropriate massing and scale.”

28Mr. Guetter indicated that the variances for building height, number of storeys and main wall height should be considered together, providing a comparative illustration of the front façade of the proposal with an overlay of what was permitted as of right (Exhibit #2, Tab 31). He explained that the variances were mostly due to the way height is measured for flat roof designs and that the portion of the smaller third level, above the permitted height, required the variance. He noted again that the stepback of the third level mitigated the impact and it was in keeping with what has been permitted where a sloped roof has been included in the design.

29The main wall height is not along the same plane of the building, but the undulation and articulation of the main wall dissipate its impact when compared to a wall that rises straight upward without any articulation.

30Referencing Zoning By-law (S.10.20.40.10.(4)(B), he noted it allows for main walls to be located above the maximum permitted main wall height provided that the additional front and rear main walls, located above the permitted height are set back a minimum of 1.4 m from the permitted front and rear main walls. While the stepback does not meet the minimum 1.4 m setback from the front and rear main walls, it exceeds it from the rear main wall at the first floor and only a portion of the front main wall at the third storey is setback less than 1.4 m, the side main walls of the third storey are also stepback from the south and north sides more than the minimum required. For these reasons he was of the opinion the proposal meets the intent of the zoning performance standard.

31Mr. Guetter stated that the proposal was desirable for the appropriate development of the land because its design and massing provide a sensitive form of new development that fits its context and minimizes impacts on the property and its surroundings. In addition, there are several new and existing dwellings of the same size in the geographic neighbourhood, and the proposal would fit harmoniously within the streetscape.

32In his opinion, the proposal is minor because it does not result in undue adverse impact, and he explained that determining impact is not a numeric exercise but is also about determining impact and appropriateness of the variances being sought. He explained that the combination of the building siting and its proposed design, did not created unacceptable impacts to the surrounding properties in terms of shadowing or overlook.

Evidence of Mr. A. Castaneda

33The City’s expert witness in land use planning was Mr. Andrew Castaneda who presented his land use planning experience and executed his acknowledgement of expert duty. Having reviewed his CV and no objection indicated from counsel, he was qualified to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

34Mr. Castaneda indicated he had reviewed the revised plans and Mr. Guetter’s witnesss statement, dated June 10, 2024, confirmed that the Planning department was satisfied with all the changes except for the variances for height and the number of storeys of the proposal. He opined that the variances for height and number of storeys would not meet the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law and would set an undesirable precedent in the neighbourhood.

35In his review of the immediate and geographic area context, which was more compact and less than half the size of Mr. Guetter’s, he found through his site visit photographic documentation that the neighbourhood predominantly consisted of one and two-storey, detached, peaked roof houses. He noted that they included a cottage style and character that generally met the zoning height and massing requirements while not introducing three storey contemporary styled dwellings, with greater massing.

36He explained that within the study area he identified there were 13 properties that had sought variances with only 9 seeking variance for height and 4 for FSI. He indicated that in his immediate study area only one property had variances approved for height and number of storeys and was located at 1 Kingsbury Crescent.

37In his review of minor variance decisions, in his outlined study area, the majority of the work undertaken was predominantly for additions to existing dwellings and very few for new construction. He explained that the proposal was not appropriate because the majority of the dwellings in the neighbourhood were one and two storeys, and the proposal was not in keeping with the immediate context in terms of scale or massing. He went on to say that the proposal would “present visually as a three-storey flat structure and would clearly introduce a new form and scale of development that is not in keeping with the unique context within the study area.”

38Mr. Castaneda did not agree with Mr. Guetter’s interpretation of the PPS and the Growth Plan noting that redevelopment in this context referred to the idea of redevelopment in terms of increased density and that the proposal was not a form of intensification, as there is no new net gain except in the size of the proposed dwelling.

39The proposal, in his opinion, did not meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan because it did not adhere to policy 4.1.5 and OPA 320. It did not meet the criteria of prevailing or most frequently occurring, as it relates to dwelling height and number of storeys in the neighbourhood. He described the most frequently prevailing as predominantly 2 storeys in height or having the appearance of two storeys in height, renovated single and two-storey dwellings not new builds, and that they included a sloped or peaked roof architecture. He opined that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the immediate or geographic neighbourhood. He further indicated that the proposal’s 3 storey height, with a flat roof, its scale and massing, and the height of more than 10.0m, did not fit within the prevailing character of the neighbourhood’s streetscape, height, number of storeys, and roof styles.

40He stated that stepping or setting back the third storey, to mitigate the height of the proposal is not philosophically or practically an appropriate measure to be taken within the context of single detached low-rise neighbourhoods.

41The cumulative variances sought, especially for height and number of storeys, would create “a highly undesirable pattern of development which would create an unsustainable shift and precedent for such a highly established residential community” (Hearing Day 2, 54:38).

42Mr. Castaneda opined that the proposal was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and that “any permission for dwelling use of this scale and style creates an undesirable precedent which could lead to destabilization of this neighbourhood” (Hearing Day 2, 56:02).

Party, Mr. D. Shep

43Mr. Shep during his statement was concerned with the potential overlook to the southwest towards his home. He did not think the proposal had adequately mitigated overlook.

44He was concerned that the architectural style was not appropriate for the neighbourhood.

Party, Mr. P. Passalent

45Mr. Passalent had submitted a detailed witness statement and summarized, in testimony, the concerns expressed in his written submission.

46Mr. Passalent felt that the three storeys and overall height were not minor in nature and that the proposal was not consistent in terms of the look and feel of the neighbourhood. He explained that using the comparative of the three storey dwelling at 1 Kingsbury was not applicable because that house has a different surrounding context.

47He was concerned that the style of the proposal and the variances sought were not in keeping with the prevailing architectural styles and that the proposal only matched a small percentage of dwellings that would share similar metrics.

Party, Mr. M. Marmoreo

48He was concerned that the third storey balcony space would still create some form of overlook that a third floor, if built within or integrated into the roof form or slope, would not have.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

49Although the number of variances sought for this updated proposal have been reduced from 11 to 9 variances the City’s expert witness maintained that the variances for height and number of storeys were still not supportable as they were not reflective of the prevailing height and number of storeys in the overall neighbourhood. The other Parties to the matter also indicated this concern in addition to potential impacts on privacy due to overlook from the design of the proposal and potential shadowing.

50Regardless of the agreement on which variances were acceptable and which were not, given that this is a new Hearing I will consider all 9 variances sought in the revised proposal, anew.

51Both Mr. Guetter and Mr. Castaneda, during cross-examination, agreed that the proposal was in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement (2024) and that the Growth Plan, although Mr. Castaneda did not agree with how Mr. Guetter was interpreting provincial policy.

52Turning first to the issue of potential overlook I find that this concern has been adequately mitigated through the proposed design, stepbacks of the dwelling at each level and the fact that the majority of the south elevation living areas does not include opportunities for overlook. Mr. Guetter noted that the rear yard setback is greater than what is required at the third floor which further minimizes potential overlook. Finally, screening, along the south portion of the second storey rear balcony is proposed to provide further mitigation.

53During cross-examination Mr. Castaneda agreed that he would not be concerned with overlook from the subject site to 14 Lakeside Avenue if a screen were provided along the south elevation of the second floor balcony. He also noted that there would be no overlook from the third floor because the balcony was setback from the second storey. But the window at the southwest corner on the third storey would.

54Regardless of the mitigative measures undertaken, to assuage concerns of overlook, there are numerous examples in case law and previous TLAB decisions that speak to the reasonable expectation that within an urban environment that there will be some form of overlook and some lessened privacy. In fact, when one considers the neighbouring buildings whether they are two storeys in height the potential for overlook is also present in them and there was no evidence given that suggested the proposal exceeded what could reasonably be expected in this context.

55During Ms. Gautam cross-examination of Mr. Guetter, it was pointed out that the height variances were sought at the Committee of Adjustment for 10 proposals and that only 4 had been granted the variances. Mr. Guetter explained that the numeric approach or use of percentages were the only way of assessing the maintenance of physical character in the immediate context. Although I understand the City’s numerical analysis would lead them to assess the proposal as not reflecting the prevailing height in the neighbourhood it does not take into consideration of the qualitative aspects of the proposal. The design of the proposed dwelling incorporates architectural design elements to mitigate what would be potential impacts. If the dwelling were to rise along the same plane without the proposed plane changes, articulation, or stepbacks at different levels there would be a greater impact in terms of massing and scale .

56The City is predominantly concerned with the height of the proposal and the number of storeys proposed. I prefer Mr. Guetter’s evidence in that the height variance is for 1.09m beyond the permitted height and that this added height is mitigated by the increased stepbacks that are present on the third level of the dwelling. The proposal’s walls do not just rise along a singular plane but instead the second storey is articulated and stepped at the front and rear and then the third storey is further stepped back from the second storey on all elevation edges.

57When one considers the design and articulation of the proposal, it is evident that only a small portion of the third storey triggers the variance for height (see Figure 1). This massing variation and articulation does result in a design that qualitatively mitigates the rather narrow approach of the City’s position of only applying a numeric performance standard. Should the proposal have consisted of a dwelling that was simply extruded for three storeys without building wall stepback or plane changes, massing variation, or wall articulation, it would have a greater impact to the neighbouring properties and the streetscape. This is not the case with the residential dwelling being proposed for the subject property.

Figure 1 – Blue outline indicates portion beyond permitted heigh with red dashed outlining the permitted as-of-right building envelope.

58There was a great amount of time devoted to the discussion over what is a three storey dwelling and what appears or may give the impression of a three storey dwelling. During the cross-examination of Mr. Guetter, he was taken to several images that were identified in his witness statement as having a three storey appearance and was asked to speak to the qualitative nature of these images. I find that this was not illustrative of the potential impact of what was being proposed. It is not a case of merely assessing the heights and whether a third storey habitable space is indeed present in all of the examples, but rather, what is their impact and interface with the streetscape, and whether that impact is unduly adverse.

59Mr. Castaneda, during his testimony, stated that the proposal was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and that “any permission for dwelling use of this scale and style creates an undesirable precedent which could lead to destabilization of this neighbourhood” (Hearing Day 2, 56:02). Although three storey heights are not prevalent in the neighbourhood, there are still examples of variances granted for three storeys in height and they do not appear to have destabilized the neighbourhood. I would suggest that a mere application of numerical analysis for height without considering the way the height and massing have been deployed on the subsect property, is a very rigid application and fails to consider the notion of “fit.” The proposal along with the adjustments presented to the floor plans, wall articulation, and stepping at the third level, will mitigate the impact of the additional storey and 1.09m of additional height sought in the variance. The idea that such a proposal would destabilize this established neighbourhood is overstating the impact of the proposal; in such an established neighbourhood, the introduction of this proposal can be absorbed within the streetscape and not destabilize it.

60The City’s expert witness indicated during his testimony that the architectural style of the proposed dwelling was not appropriate or undesirable for this established neighbourhood. It should be noted that the architectural style of a proposed building is not subject to control by the OP or ZBL. Although the Official Plan regulates the expression of physical characteristics by policy and the Zoning By-law through defined performance standards such as setbacks, building height and length, etc., they do not regulate or present criteria for architectural expression.

61Mr. Castaneda, during cross-examination, agreed that is the height of the building could be reduced if it was depressed approximately three feet or 1.09m further below grade, then City staff could support the proposal, and it could be approved with three storeys. The problem with this rationale is that it would potentially introduce a building interface and streetscape relationship that would indeed be out of keeping and an outlier within the immediate neighbourhood. What the Applicant has presented in the latest proposal is a more sensitive approach with respect to the streetscape and neighbouring properties.

62The concern with precedent being set for height was brought up by the City’s expert witness during his testimony and by residents who were Parties to the matter. This again is a rigid approach with respect to performance standards. The only precedent that could be established in this instance is if a future application was to seek similar or identical variances and per this proposal, then they would also need to ensure the proposal includes the mitigative and qualitative aspects of this particular proposal. Namely, it would need to include multiple stepbacks and massing articulation in order to mitigate height, number of storeys, FSI, etc.

63This proposal would not be a precedent to allow for a simple square box extruded for three storeys continuously without plane changes. This is where the idea of using a rigid numerical analysis is weakened. If one was only to consider the height and number of storeys, numerically as a precedent rather that also applying the layer of qualitative analysis, then it could potentially create a precedent with adverse impacts. However, when both are applied to a proposal a more complete picture of the impacts of the variance being sought can be assessed and understood.

64One needs to consider the proposal as it is presented, within its context, property, and its adjacent and streetscape relationships. In the case of this proposal, I find that the design has mitigated any potential impacts of the variances proposed.

65I agree with the assessment that the proposal variances do not pose undue adverse impact with respect to shadowing, massing impact or through overlook and privacy. The inclusion of screening on the second storey rear balcony that were agreed to by both expert witnesses will further mitigate the potential impact of overlook and privacy to the property to the south.

CONCLUSION

66For all the reasons set out above, I find that the revised proposal requiring FSI, lot coverage, building and wall height, number of storeys, porch stair and driveway width, front rear yard, and building length variances are supportable and that the proposed variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, are desirable for the development of the land and are minor.

67I find that the revisions that have been made to the application, which was previously considered by the COA, to be beneficial. Previously requested variances for building depth and ancillary building (cabana structure) setback have been eliminated, the variances requested for FSI, lot coverage, building length and height have been reduced and the front yard setback has been increased. These are all revisions that move closer to compliance with the Zoning By-law and I, therefore, find that no further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

68The Appeal is allowed in part. The variances listed in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

69No further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

J. Tassiopoulos

Panel Member

APPENDIX A

30 LAKESIDE DRIVE APPROVED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS:

VARIANCES:

Exception RD 1462.(A)(iii), By-law No. 569-2013

The maximum permitted floor space index is 0.4 times the lot area (280.08 m2).

The proposed floor space index is 0.7126 times the lot area (498.94 m2).

Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013