Wang (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 366

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2025-10-22 File No.: 25 154722 S45 15 TLAB Citation: Wang (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 366

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: October 22, 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): XI WANG Applicant(s): RICHARD WENGLE ARCHITECT INC Property Address: 53 SNOWDON AVE. COA File No.: 25 123174 NNY 15 MV (A0098/25NY) TLAB Case File No.: 25 154722 S45 15 TLAB Hearing Date(s): October 15, 2025 Decision Delivered By: R. KANTER

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Appellant	X. WANG	D. BRONSKILL
Party	CITY OF TORONTO	R. GODLEY
Party	TEDDINGTON PARK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION	A. BEPPLE
Participant	A. BEAUCHAMP
Participant	P. STOYAN
Participant	M. LUCEY

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1On April 17, 2025, the Committee of Adjustment refused an application for ten (10) minor variances (the "C of A Decision") at 53 Snowdon Avenue (the "Site").

2The Site is located in the Lawrence Park North neighbourhood in the former City of North York. The Site is designated Neighbourhoods in the City's Official Plan (the "OP").

3On May 5, 2025, the Appellant appealed the C of A Decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "TLAB").

4On July 11, 2025, the TLAB issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing to be held on October 15, 2025.

5On August 11, 2025, the TLAB received requests from the City of Toronto (the "City") and the Teddington Park Residents Association (the "TPRA") for party status. The TLAB also received requests from three local residents for participant status.

6Following the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, the Appellant revised the site plan and elevations from those before the C of A (the "Revised Plans") and reached a settlement with the TPRA. The City did not oppose the settlement.

[7] The Revised Plans:

• increased the west side yard setback generally and for the front porch, rear deck, front canopy and rear canopy from .41m. or .46m. to .61m.
• eliminated the variance for a projection of the rear deck
• reduced the proposed floor space index (the "FSI") from .86 to .7998 times the area of the lot
• maintained the proposed variances for front and rear wall height, building length and building depth

8On October 15, 2025 I conducted a hearing with respect to the appeal. I advised the Parties that I would take the settlement into account, but the Appellant must still persuade me that the variances resulting from the Revised Plans (the "Revised variances") meet the legislative and policy framework for approval. No Participants appeared at the hearing.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] 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

12Counsel for the Appellant called Mr. E. Theodore as a witness. After I reviewed his education and experience, I qualified Mr. Theodore as an expert witness in the fields of land use planning and urban design.

13Mr. Theodore described the Site as a rectangular lot mid-block on the south side of Snowden Ave. east of Yonge Street west of Bocastle Ave. The Site slopes downward from Snowden to the rear of the Site.

14The Site is located approximately 800m from the Lawrence Station on the TTC Line 1 Yonge University Subway line.

15The Site is currently occupied by a two storey single detached dwelling. Vehicular access is provided by a driveway entrance from Snowden which is shared with 55 Snowdon to the east, leading to a parking pad in front of the Site.

16The Revised Plans will result in a three story single detached house on the Site. Parking will continue to be provided by a parking pad in the existing location. The proposed house will be located .61m from the west lot, rather than .27m as is currently the case.

[17] Mr. Theodore described the geographic neighbourhood where the Site is located:

• north to the north side of Forest Glen Crescent
• east to the western edge of the Rosedale Golf Club and adjacent natural areas
• south to the northern edge of Lawrence Avenue East
• west to the easterly limit of lots designated for Mixed Use on Yonge St.

18Mr. Thedore referred to the entire geographic neighbourhood, consisting of approximately 1,000 lots, as the Broader Context. He referred to the lots fronting Snowden Avenue from the eastern boundary of the lots fronting on Yonge St. to Bocastle Ave. to the east as the Immediate Context.

19Mr. Theodore provided his professional opinion that the Revised Variances have regard for matters of provincial interest, such as development that supports public transit, and is well-designed.

20Mr. Theodore opined that the Revised Variances are consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (the "2024 PPS"), which encourages residential intensification. Most significantly, the Site is located within 800 metres of the Lawrence subway station, which is a major transit station area.

21Mr. Theodore submitted that the Revised Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of OP policies with respect to healthy neighbourhoods and built form.

22Mr. Theodore opined that the Revised Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Neighbourhoods Policy set out in Section 4.1.5 of the OP. The proposed height of the front and rear main walls is comparable to other height variances approved within both the Broader and Immediate Context. He noted that there is no variance for the overall height of the building, or front, rear or east side-yard setbacks.

23Mr. Theodore provided similar evidence that the proposed variances for the building length, depth and FSI are similar to a significant number of other approved variances in the Broader and Immediate Context.

24Mr. Theodore opined that the built form resulting from the small variances to the west side-yard setback, for the wall of the building, and the front porch and rear deck will continue to respect and reinforce the character of the neighbourhood.

25Mr. Theodore emphasized that the Site was at the northeast corner of the Lawrence Protected Major Transit Station Area ("PMTSA"), approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on August 15, 2025. The PMTSA directs growth and development to such areas, and requires a minimum density of .5 times the area of the lot. The proposed variance for FSI would bring the dwelling on the Site within the density required within the PMTSA.

26Mr. Theodore also opined that the Revised Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the "ZBL")

27He stated that the purpose of the side yard setback was to ensure adequate separation between buildings, provide adequate access and maintenance space, and minimize privacy or overlook impacts. He explained that there were no privacy or overlook issues, since neither the existing house at 51 Snowdon nor the proposed house at 53 Snowdon would have significant windows.

28I asked Mr. Theodore if the proposed side yard setback of .61m on the Site, together with the existing side yard setback of .45m at 51 Snowden would be adequate to provide access and maintenance between two three storey houses. Mr. Theodore stated that it represented an improvement over the existing condition, would result in a reduction of only .29m from the setback required, and was sufficient for maintenance either with a ladder or from the roofs of the respective houses.

29Mr. Theodore explained that the increase in the front main wall height was limited to 40% of the third floor which was a modern dormer. The remaining 60% was set back as a modified pitched roof. The roof design was a modern representation of a traditional pitched roof and gable, materially consistent with many of the homes in the immediate context.

30He further opined that the increase in FSI from .35 required by the ZBL has now been replaced by a minimum of .5 required by the PMTA. He pointed out that the increase to .79 will result in a home that complies with the overall height, front, rear and east side setbacks, and will not result in unacceptable shadow, overlook or privacy impacts.

31The increase in building length and depth will be consistent with the neighbouring house at 55 and others in the Immediate context. It will not result in any unacceptable adverse impact.

32Mr. Theodore stated that the Revised Variances are desirable since they facilitate the development of a new well-designed detached dwelling. He further stated that the variances are minor, since individually and collectively they do not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts.

33Neither Counsel for the City nor Counsel for the TPRA called any evidence. Counsel for the TPRA agreed that the Revised Variances which were acceptable to her client. Counsel for the City did not object to the Revised Variances.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

34The expert opinion evidence provided by Mr. Theodore was clear, comprehensive and uncontested.

35There is a preliminary procedural issue before me. There have been some small changes from the plans before the C of A to the Revised Variances. I find that the changes illustrated in the Revised Plans require smaller variances from the ZBL than those before the C of A, and are minor. Consequently, the Revised Variances do not require further circulation, pursuant to Section 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

36The only substantive issue before me is whether the Appellant's planning and urban design evidence meets the test for variances set out in the Planning Act.

[37] I find that Mr. Theodore has provided clear and comprehensive evidence that the Revised Variances:

• have regard for matters of provincial interest
• are consistent with the 2024 PPS
• contribute positively, although modestly, to the City's housing supply through reinvestment
• make efficient use of the Site, and existing municipal infrastructure and services
• respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood in the Lawrence Park North area
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL; and
• are desirable and minor

38I want to commend Counsel for the Appellant, the city and the TPRA for working together to settle their differences and allow the Appellant to present evidence of Revised Variances acceptable to the TPRA without objection from the City. I am supportive of the Revised Variances, not only because they are acceptable to all Parties, but also because they meet the relevant tests.

39I further understand that all Parties have agreed to conditions to ensure that the proposed dwelling is built and maintained in a manner which is consistent with the Revised Variances.

CONCLUSION

40I declare that the TLAB is not required to give further notice of the Revised Variances to those who received notice of the application before the C of A, pursuant to Section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

41I will allow the appeal in part, as set out in the Decision and Order below.

DECISION AND ORDER

42I will allow the appeal, in part.

43I will approve the Revised Variances set out in Schedule B; and

44I will make the Revised Variances subject to the Conditions set out in Schedule C.

R. Kanter Panel Member