Toronto (City) v. Ghadaki, 2025 ONTLAB 354

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-09-30

25 132962 S45 15 TLAB

2025 ONTLAB 354, Toronto (City) vs Ghadaki

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

September 30, 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):

CITY OF TORONTO

Applicant(s):

H. GHADAKI

Property Address:

23 BEECHWOOD AVE

COA File No.:

24 202087 NNY 15 MV (A0426/24NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 132962 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

July 18, 2025

July 22, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

B. GALLAUGHER

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

Appellant

I. KAGAN

CITY OF TORONTO

S. BARNETT

U. GAUTAM

Party

Participant

H. GHADAKI

S. RANCOURT

R. GILL

Participant

C. FIEDER

Participant

L. LAMARCHE

Participant

D. MIDA

Participant

C. PANNETON

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1. This appeal is from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, issued March 6, 2025, to approve, subject to conditions, an application for seven variances that would permit the construction of a new two storey detached house on the property known municipally as 23 Beechwood Ave. (Note that there is another property known as 23 Beechwood Avenue in Toronto. The subject property is close to the Yonge St. and York Mills Road intersection).

2. The subject property is currently occupied by a single storey detached house. It would be demolished to allow construction of the new house, if approval is granted.

3. Subsequent to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the applicant amended the siting of the building and some landscaping and driveway elements to address concerns expressed by the City’s Forestry Division about destruction and/or injury of trees, among other things.

4. The City’s representative, S. Barnett, indicated that City Forestry has no objection to the revised proposal as shown in the plans drawn by Richard Wengle, Architect, dated June 10, 2025. Further, the City, as Appellant, has no objection to the introduction of the amended plans referenced above.

5. I asked Ms. Barnett whether mediation would be a viable method of potentially resolving the issues. She responded that she did not believe that mediation could succeed in this case and wished to proceed with the hearing.

6. I visited the site in person and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood.

7. The revisions to the plan do not affect the variances required to permit construction of the proposed house. These are:

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

The permitted maximum building length is 17.0m.

The proposed building length is 35.35m.

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

The permitted maximum building depth is 19.0m.

The proposed building depth is 35.35m.

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

The permitted maximum building height is 10m.

The proposed building height is 10.65m.

4. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls for a permitted residential building is 7.5m for all side main walls, for at least 70% of the total width of each side main wall.

The proposed east and west side main wall height is 9.23m.

5. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(4)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

Platforms attached to or within 0.3m of a rear main wall, which are greater than

1.2m above the ground at any point below the platform, are limited to projecting

2.5m from the rear wall and may be no higher than the level of the floor from

which it gains access.

The proposed rear deck is 3.16m above the ground, and projects 12.02m from the rear main wall at its deepest part.

6. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of the first floor above established grade is 1.2m.

The proposed height of the first floor above established grade is 1.81m.

7. Chapter 5.10.40.80.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, a building or structure on a lot must be no closer than 10m from a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank not on that lot.

The proposed architectural feature around the rear deck is 9.01m to the stable top of slope on the adjacent lot.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

8. Provincial 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.

9. Provincial Policy – S. 3

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

10. Variance – 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

Applicant’s Evidence

11. The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Gill, asked that four documents be entered as exhibits. These were:

Exhibit 1 – Witness Statement of Ryan Doherty, dated June 16, 2025

Exhibit 2 – Reply Witness Statement of Ryan Doherty, dated June 30, 2025

Exhibit 5 – City’s Document Disclosure Book, dated June16, 2025

Exhibit 6 – Photos of Backyard of 27 Beechwood Ave, dated July 22, 2025

12. Mr. Gill called his Expert Witness, Ryan Doherty, to the stand. After a review of his qualifications as a land use planner, I qualified him as an Expert Witness in land use planning and he was affirmed. The City did not contest the witness’s qualifications. Mr. Doherty agreed that he is bound by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute’s Code of Conduct.

13. Mr. Doherty described the area as a mature, residential neighbourhood. There are stretches of rectangular lots of a generally uniform size and shape to the north and east of the property. Due to the presence of ravines, there are large, irregularly shaped lots to the south and west of the site. The building stock is almost exclusively large, detached houses, some single storey and some two storeys.

14. The subject property is on the south side of Beechwood Ave. It contains an existing house that has been vacant for seven years. This building is 41.4 m long. The lot is large and irregularly shaped.

15. The property slopes down from the street, such that the existing house appears from Beechwood Ave. to be a single storey house but reads as a two-storey house at its south end, as the basement is exposed.

16. The land abutting the property to the west appears to be part of subject property. In fact, it is an unopened 20 metre wide road allowance owned by the City of Toronto. This right-of-way separates the site from its neighbour to the west at 17 Beechwood Ave.

17. The previous owner had used this road allowance, under licence, as a driveway and had installed some paving and landscaping on it. The application under consideration here does not utilize the unopened road allowance. Access is taken directly from Beechwood Ave.

18. Mr. Doherty reviewed numerous photos of the site. Significant vegetation and large trees exist on the east side of the property between the proposed house and its neighbour to the east, 27 Beechwood Ave. Much of this greenery will be retained.

19. The proposed building has primary windows facing all directions, including east, as does the existing house. Vegetation and a set of outdoor stairs have been positioned to screen the east facing windows.

20. Mr. Doherty introduced a series of photos of the house and backyard of the house to the east, 27 Beechwood Ave. (Exhibit 6). There are no windows in the west wall of that building. The backyard is well screened from the subject property by a building extension, patio walls, an ancillary building and a gazebo structure.

The Variances

21. The proposed house reads as a two-storey building with basement from the street. The grade change referenced above creates a situation where the basement is above grade at the rear. The first and second floor have a depth of 25.91 m (15.5 m less than the existing house). The “basement” has a length of 35.35 m (Variances (a) and (b) above). The deck on the roof of this basement structure, accessed from the rear of the first floor, extends 12.02 m from the rear main wall of the house at its deepest point. This arrangement has led to the variance for the depth of the deck (Variance (e) above). Mr. Doherty indicated that the Applicant wishes to take advantage of the significant depth of the lot (88.4 m) in the design of its house.

22. The height variances requested (maximum height and height of main walls) (Variances (c) and (d) above) would allow a full second floor with a modestly sloped roof. Mr. Doherty indicated that there are many styles of roof in the geographic area, including those with gently sloped sides.

23. The variance for height of first floor above established grade (Variance (f) above) is necessary to allow the full length of the ramp leading to the underground parking to be contained inside the building. If the first floor was to be lowered to meet the zoning standard a portion of the ramp would be in the front yard. Mr. Doherty advised that a raised first floor will fit in better with the existing neighbourhood than an exposed ramp to the basement.

24. Mr. Doherty said the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressed no concern with the variance regarding the setback from stable top of bank and produced a letter from the TRCA confirming this position (Variance (g) above).

25. Mr. Doherty addressed the issue of the appropriate “geographic” study area to be used for the analysis of how well the proposal meets the four tests of the Planning Act. He is of the opinion that it should be different than that identified by the City, and that specifically it should include areas to the west, south and south-east which are composed of large, irregularly shaped lots, similar to the subject lot. The City’s “geographic” study area is comprised primarily of the rectangular, smaller lots stretching north and east of the site.

26. The “immediate” study area is defined by the Official Plan as the single block on which the property is located. That is the block of Beechwood Ave. between Hedgewood Road and Highland Cres. The north side of this block is composed of ten relatively small rectangular lots. The south side has two rectangular lots and three large irregular lots, including the subject property.

The Four Tests

27. Mr. Doherty was of the opinion that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. He noted that the Official Plan does not include numerical standards for criteria such as height, depth etc. It requires that new development respect and reinforce the prevailing character of and be materially consistent with the existing geographic neighbourhood. None of these criteria require a proposed building to be identical to existing buildings.

28. He noted that there is a wide variety of house styles and sizes on the irregularly shaped ravine lots to the west and south of the site.

29. Mr. Doherty said that, in his opinion, determining whether a proposal is “materially consistent” with the character of an area, for the purposes of the Official Plan, requires one to also look at the development standards for which no variances are required. In this case, there are no variances for setbacks, density, lot coverage or landscaped areas. This, the minor nature of the requested variances and his assertion that the part of the house requiring the depth and length variances is not perceived from Beechwood Ave., leads him to believe that the building will reinforce the prevailing character of the neighbourhood and therefore the Official Plan test has been met.

30. He also advised that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. In his opinion, the general purpose of zoning by-laws is to condition appropriate development and limit negative impacts such as shadowing and reductions in light, view and privacy in the neighbourhood. He testified that the impacts of the variances are very small. In particular, the impact of the variances for length and depth are mitigated by the fact that the two-storey portion of the proposed building is 25.91 deep. It is the basement of the building which extends further.

31. Mr. Doherty noted that some of the criteria in the Zoning By-laws for the area, including the depth and length maximums, are applicable to all the lots in the area, including the many relatively small, uniform lots to the north and east of the site. The By-law does not respond to the fact that many lots in the area, including the subject property, are large irregularly shaped lots which can accommodate developments such as the one proposed, without undue negative impacts on the neighbourhood or the neighbours.

32. He indicated that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. The existing derelict house on the site does not address Beechwood Ave., whereas the new house would. The revised plan minimizes the removal of trees. The house to be permitted by the variances would appear materially consistent from the street and be a complement and an asset to the community.

33. Finally, Mr. Doherty said that the variances are minor. The height variances are small and would be imperceptible. The TRCA is not concerned with the proposed setback from the top of bank. Any impacts of the depth, length and projection of the deck are confined to the rear of the property, barely visible from the public realm and screened from the neighbours to the east and west.

Appellant’s Evidence

34. The Appellant’s representative, Ms. Barnett, asked that three documents be entered as exhibits. These were:

Exhibit 3 – Witness Statement of Sina Zekria, dated June 16, 2025

Exhibit 4 – Reply to Response to Witness Statement of Sina Zekria, dated June 30, 2025

Exhibit 7 – City’s Book of Authorities, dated July 22, 2025

35. Ms. Barnett called her Expert Witness, Sina Zekria, to the stand. After a review of her qualifications as a land use planner, I qualified her as an Expert Witness in land use planning and she was affirmed. The Applicant did not contest the witness’s qualifications. Ms. Zekria agreed that she is bound by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute’s Code of Conduct.

36. The witness characterized the area as composed of mainly two storey houses, with a few one and three storey examples. The houses have consistent front yard setbacks, lengths and main wall heights. The lots contain an abundance of soft landscaping.

37. Ms. Zekria indicated that she defined the boundaries of her geographic neighbourhood using the guidance provided in Section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan. She excluded the south side of Valley Road as it is in a different zone.

38. In response to questioning by the Applicant’s representative, she indicated that the Official Plan requires all “natural features” to constitute a boundary of a geographic area. She was unable to form an opinion as to whether the subject lot has more in common with lots to the south and west of the site and therefore the geographic area should include those ravine lots, as she did not look at that part of the neighbourhood during her visit.

The Four Tests

39. Ms. Zekria recommended that the Appeal should be upheld and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment overturned as the variances do not meet any of the four tests of the Planning Act.

40. Ms. Zekria listed the criteria in the Official Plan for new development in Neighbourhoods. Section 4.1.5 requires development to respect and reinforce the prevailing (most frequently occurring) type of buildings in the neighbourhood. It should be “materially consistent”. Section 3.1.3.1 reinforces this, saying that new development should “fit” the existing context.

41. In her opinion, the variances for building length, depth, main wall height and projection of rear platform would permit a house that does not fit the neighbourhood.

42. She conducted an analysis of the variance applications that had been considered by the Committee of Adjustment in her geographic study area, which comprises 230 houses. There were 45 applications, some of which were not approved.

43. With regard to building length, there were only four approvals of a depth beyond 26 m and only one with a depth greater than 35.5 m (that approval was for 49 m). This approval was for a proposal at 29 Beechwood Ave. (two properties east of the subject site) that was not built.

44. For the projection of the rear platform (deck), there were only two variances allowing projections greater than 6 m.

45. Similarly, only nine variances were considered for the height of the main walls. A variance for 9.1 m was refused. Another of 9.5 m was approved but only for a minor portion of the wall.

46. The limited number of approved variances in the geographic area for the development standards from which the Applicant is requesting relief demonstrates that the proposed building does not fit the area or respect and reinforce the prevailing character. Therefore, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is not maintained.

47. In Ms. Zekria’s opinion, the purpose of the Zoning By-law is to maintain the character of the built form of the area and to control negative impacts, such as overlook.

48. As the house would be the deepest in the neighbourhood, it does not maintain the area’s character. She also did not agree with Mr. Doherty’s opinion that the rear part of the building would not be visible from the street. As the 20 m frontage abutting the property to the west is a public right-of-way and unlikely to be built upon, it could afford views into the rear of 29 Beechwood Ave.

49. She did agree with Mr. Gill that the eastern side yard setback was larger than the minimum required by the by-law, that the rear portion of the building was set back further from the east lot line, that screening of main windows on the east side of the house was provided, that there were no primary windows on the west side of the neighbouring house at 27 Beechwood Ave., that most of the existing trees and vegetation were to be retained and that all of these conditions would mitigate concerns over the privacy of the residents at 27 Beechwood. Ms. Zekria did point out that vegetation is not necessarily permanent.

50. She considered the proposed development to not be in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as it would not achieve the objectives in 47) above.

51. She did not consider the variances to be appropriate for the development of the lot as they would result in a “massive” building with inappropriate elements, including the gently sloped roof.

52. In addition, the variances are not minor, especially when taken together. The impact of such a large, deep building on the neighbourhood would be significant.

53. The applicant’s representative, Mr. Gill, questioned Ms. Zekria about whether she would consider some of the other houses in the area to be “large”. He showed pictures of 17, 27, 29, 32 and 34 Beechwood Ave. (the neighbouring properties, most in the immediate study area). He also showed pictures of 15, 17 and 19 Hedgewood Rd. In each case Ms. Zekria responded that these houses were not large and did fit the neighbourhood.

54. Mr. Gill also questioned Ms. Zekria about the massing of buildings along Hedgewood Rd. and Upper Highland Cres., asking whether these existing buildings were more massive than the proposed house. She was unable to provide an opinion as she did not know the side yard setbacks, main wall heights, overall height and depth of the examples shown. She did say that if a building was in compliance with the Zoning By-law, then it was not too massive for the neighbourhood.

55. Mr. Gill asked Ms. Zekria whether her determination of whether a variance is minor is based on numerical values or fit, impact and mitigation. She said she used the latter criteria. He asked her if the Zoning By-law was “an end in itself” or a means to an end. Again, she agreed with the latter approach.

Participants

56. Five Participants submitted Participant Statements and two provided verbal testimony.

57. Christina Panneton resides on May Tree Road. She was concerned about the impact the proposed house may have on flooding in the area.

58. Laura Lamarche was speaking on behalf of Sharon Rancourt, who was unable to attend in person. She believed the variances did not meet any of the four tests. She said the local City Councillor, the City Planning Division and 46 residents opposed the application at the Committee of Adjustment but it was approved nevertheless.

59. She was also concerned about flooding. The removal of vegetation and reduced room for additional planting could exacerbate an already difficult situation with storm water management, including potential mudslides.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

60. From the Appellant’s testimony and statements it appears that the variances of most concern to the Appellant are the length and depth of the proposed house and the projection of the rear deck, which would make it the deepest house in the neighbourhood, and the height of the main walls, which give the house a “boxier” look with a shallower roof slope than the prevailing house forms in the area. It is contended that these conditions would cause the house to not fit in the neighbourhood, and that it would not respect and reinforce the prevailing (most frequently occurring) type of buildings in the neighbourhood. As such it would not be “materially consistent” with other neighbourhood buildings.

61. It is worth noting that the existing house on the property has a greater depth than that proposed. It is also relevant that the two-storey part of the proposed house has a depth of 29.92 m. The balance of the depth is made up of the basement, which also serves as the deck accessed from the first floor.

62. The Appellant provided detailed analysis of variance applications in the geographic neighbourhood that showed the length, depth, deck projection and height of side walls applied for in this case are outliers.

63. The Applicant made the case that, although the new house would not fully comply with the Zoning By-law, it would appear from the street as a large house no bigger or out of scale with other large houses on the large, irregular lots in the geographic area which the Applicant defined.

64. Interestingly, the Appellant’s expert witness did not consider other houses in the neighbourhood, that appear in photos from the street to be as large or considerably larger than the subject house, to be “large”. Only this house was “massive”. Regardless of its bearing on the case, it is difficult to reconcile this inability to recognize obviously large houses with the knowledge and experience that would be expected of an expert witness in land use planning.

65. The Appellant’s witness seems to have based her opinion that the proposed house is “massive” on the depth of the house, which she thought could be visible from the street, as the abutting property on the west side is an unopened road allowance owned by the City. It appears the City does not maintain this property so I expect it will become overgrown with vegetation and small trees, as has the portion of the road allowance area to the south of the former driveway installations. If so, this condition will provide screening for the rear part of the house.

66. This lot sits between an area to the north and east which is characterized by relatively smaller, rectangular lots and an area to the south and west which has large, irregularly shaped ravine lots. To define its geographic neighbourhood as consisting primarily of the area to the north and east, such as that chosen by the Appellant, or consisting primarily of the area to the south and west, such as that chosen by the Applicant, seems arbitrary.

67. Mr. Doherty suggested that the proposed building presents a good appearance to the neighbourhood. The visual impact of the house from the street will reinforce and respect the existing character of the area. The minor variances will have little to no negative impact on the neighbourhood or the immediate neighbours.

CONCLUSION

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

68. Section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan states:

4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the

existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in

particular:

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;

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

69. I did not hear any evidence from the Appellant’s expert witness that the variances would permit a building that did not uphold the criteria in Section 4.1.5, except for subsection (c).

70. The Appellant expressed concerns that the depth of the building was not in keeping with character of the neighbourhood. However, Section 4.1.5 does not speak to the depth of the house, only the prevailing pattern of rear yard setbacks (subsection (g)). No variance for rear yard setback has been requested.

71. With regard to subsection (c), the OP does not prescribe numerical values to be met. I do not consider the magnitude of the variances relating to height of the main walls and height of the building to offend the physical character of the area. There are many houses that present similar massing and architectural styles in the area, especially on the large, irregular lots to the south and west of the site.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

72. According to the Official Plan, the purpose of numerical and performance standards in the Zoning By-law is to provide standards for the implementation of the policies of the OP.

73. As the By-law divides the area into zones, the same standards can apply to a variety of lot shapes and sizes in the zone, creating differences in the effect of the zoning standards on lots that don’t fit the norm. Put another way, one size does not fit all when it comes to zoning. One of the purposes of the variance process is to address this issue. The By-law’s objective can be maintained, even though variances are granted, on lots that are relatively large and irregularly shaped, such as the subject site.

74. To facilitate my review of this test, I have examined each group of variances with a view of how it (they) may or may not maintain the intent of the By-law.

75. The first group of variances relate to the depth of the proposed building:

76. Variance (a) - The permitted maximum building length is 17.0m, the proposed building length is 35.35m

77. Variance (b) - The permitted maximum building depth is 19.0m, the proposed building depth is 35.35m

78. Variance (e) - Platforms are limited to projecting 2.5m from the rear wall, the proposed rear deck projects 12.02m from the rear main wall at its deepest part

Mr. Doherty explained that permitting building depth above that allowed by the By-law may result in the side wall of the building being visible from the backyard of neighbouring houses and potentially creating negative impacts on the neighbour’s ability to enjoy that space.

As noted above, there in only one example of a variance being granted in the neighbourhood that exceeds 35.35m. That variance (49m depth) was for 29 Beechwood Ave., two properties east of the site. The proposed building was not built. However, Mr. Doherty informed the Tribunal that the condition of the side walls of houses being completely exposed to the rear yard of their neighbours exists on the streets serving the large, irregularly shaped lots to the west and south of the site (for example, Highland Cres., Old Yonge St. and Hedgewood Road). On these streets, due to the curves of the roads and/or lot lines not being perpendicular to street, this condition can exist even though no depth variance is required to permit it. The lack of previous variances permitting additional length and depth in this neighbourhood does not mean the condition does not exist in the geographic neighbourhood.

In addition, the depth of the proposed house will be well screened from the public realm and the neighbouring property to the west. The neighbouring property to the east contains buildings, ancillary buildings and screening with no windows facing the subject site. I agree with Mr. Doherty’s assessment that the depth of the property and the screening provided by both the proposed plan and the existing building to the east will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law

76. The second group of variances relate to the height of the building:

77. Variance (c) - The permitted maximum building height is 10m, the proposed building height is 10.65m.

78. Variance (d) - The permitted maximum height of the exterior portion of main walls is 7.5m for all side main walls, the proposed east and west side main wall height is 9.23m.

79. Variance (f) - The permitted maximum height of the first floor above established grade is 1.2m, the proposed height of the first floor above established grade is 1.81m.

Mr. Doherty noted that height restrictions in the By-law are one of the development standards used to control the size and built form of proposed buildings and amount of floor space in them.

The effect of the height variances, especially Variance (d) relating to the side wall height, is to create a “boxier” building than would be possible without the variance due to the reduced slope of the roof. This can also allow a building to contain additional Gross Floor Area (GFA). However, no variance for density (GFA divided by lot area) or coverage (building footprint divided by lot area) is required. These height variances do not permit the floor area in the building to exceed the Zoning By-law standard.

The proposed building has a moderately sloped roof. The Applicant showed illustrations of a number of buildings in the geographic area with similarly sloped or flat roofs (17 Beechwood Ave. (the property to the west) and 3 Hedgewood Rd. (two properties to the west)).

An excerpt from Mr. Doherty’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 1) provides information on other height variances that have been granted in the area. “An analysis of Committee of Adjustment decisions within 500 metres of the site indicates that there are at least a dozen examples of dwellings with heights of over 10 metres, ranging up to 12.62 metres (see Appendix “D”, pg. 8). The closest example includes the recently constructed 2-storey detached house to the immediate west of the Site (i.e., 17 Beechwood Avenue), which required a height variance for 10.99 metres. Similarly, there are several approvals for dwellings with first floor heights above established grade exceeding 1.2 metres in the surrounding area, including an existing dwelling directly across the street at 24 Beechwood Avenue providing 1.8 metres, which would reflect the requested variance.”

The height does not overwhelm the neighbouring houses or introduce an incompatible element into the streetscape.

77. The final variance relates to the setback from the stable top-of-bank:

78. Variance (g) - On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), a building or structure on a lot must be no closer than 10m from … a stable top-of-bank not on that lot, the proposed architectural feature around the rear deck is 9.01m to the stable top of slope on the adjacent lot.

The TRCA has confirmed in writing that they have no concerns about the incursion of the structure approximately 1m into the required setback from the stable top-of-bank. I must conclude that, on the basis of their expertise, the general intent and purpose of this provision have been maintained.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

78. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. A large, single detached house is proposed, very similar in look and impact as the others on the street and in the neighbourhood. The new house will replace a derelict building that exhibits an undesirable appearance.

Are the variances minor?

79. The variances are minor. The impact of the building they will permit is small or non-existent in relation to privacy and shadowing impacts on the immediate neighbours and the neighbourhood.

DECISION AND ORDER

80. The Appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 6, 2025, for the subject Application, is confirmed.

81. This decision is subject to the condition that the building must be constructed as shown in architectural plans issued by Richard Wengle and dated June 10, 2025. As the official TLAB file for this hearing does not contain a full set of plans dated June 10, 2025, the approval is not effective until these plans have been submitted and included in the TLAB file.

B. Gallaugher

Panel Member