Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date:

2025-10-24

25 147223 S45 06 TLAB

Macedo (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 369

INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

October 24, 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):

L. MACEDO

Applicant(s):

N. ESPINOLA

Property Address:

2 HAWKSDALE ROAD

COA File No.:

25 194006 NNY 06 MV (A0417/24NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 147223 S45 06 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

September 02, 2025 September 25, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

B. GALLAUGHER

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

L. MACEDO

I. DONNELL

Party

N. ESPINOLA

Party Participant

B. TANG A. MCKEE

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1. This appeal is from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, issued April 3, 2025, to partially approve, subject to conditions, an application for three variances that would permit the construction of a new two storey detached house on the property known municipally as 2 Hawksdale Rd.

2. Two of the variances (see [9] below) requested relief from a side yard setback requirement. These variances were approved.

3. The third variance concerned the location of the driveway. This variance was refused by the Committee of Adjustment.

4. The Applicant appealed the COA’s decision on April 17, 2025. A routine “administrative screening” was performed by the Chair of TLAB. The Chair found that “the reasons set out in Form 1 do not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds upon which the TLAB could allow all or part of the Appeal.” Accordingly, he notified the Appellant that he proposed to dismiss the Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.1 (a).

5. A teleconference was conducted. As a result, a de novo hearing was scheduled for September 2, 2025. At that hearing, the Appellant informed the Tribunal that his expert witness was ill and unable to attend. The hearing was adjourned sine die. The Appellant subsequently informed TLAB staff that they would be ready to proceed on September 25, 2025.

6. Subsequent to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the applicant amended the garage and driveway elements so that the integral garage would be accessed through a single garage door and the hard landscaping leading to this door was reduced. This change allows the preservation of a mature Blue Spruce tree on the property and addresses the concerns of the City of Toronto’s Forestry Department about the destruction of that tree. No additional notice is required for this change to the plans.

7. No Parties or Participants appeared or provided written comment in opposition to the variances.

8. I visited the site in person and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood. I observed that 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. The current driveway access is from Tilbury Dr.

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

a) Chapter 10.5.80.40.(3) B), By-law No. 569-2013 Vehicle access to a parking space on a corner lot must be from a flanking street that is not a major street. The proposed vehicle access to a parking space is from Hawksdale Rd. instead of Tilbury Dr.

b) Chapter 10.20.40.70.(6) A), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 3.0m for a corner lot where the required lot frontage is 12.0m or more. The proposed North side yard setback is 1.91m.

c) Chapter 10.20.40.70.(6) B), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 3.0m for a corner lot where there is an adjacent lot fronting on the street abutting the side lot line. The proposed North side yard setback is 1.91m.

(Note that Variances b) and c) above relate to the same side yard).

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 Planning 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

13. The Appellant’s solicitor, Mr. Donnell, said that the COA had expressed concern over the destruction of a mature tree on the property to allow construction of a two-car driveway serving a two-door integral garage. In his view, this constituted a possible reason why the COA did not approve the variance regarding the location of the driveway. As that condition has now been rectified by amendments to the width of the driveway and garage entrance, he urged the Tribunal to authorize all the variances.

14. Through the course of the hearing Mr. Donnell introduced three exhibits as follows: Exhibit 1 – Applicant’s Disclosure – Form 3 Exhibit 2 – Aerial Photos of the area. This exhibit was submitted during the hearing with my permission Exhibit 3 – Expert Witness Statement of Bonnie Tang

15. Mr. Donnell called his first witness, N. Espinola. Mr. Espinola was not called to give opinion evidence so he was not qualified as an Expert Witness. Mr. Espinola was affirmed.

16. Mr. Espinola explained that he is a custom home and renovation designer. He was responsible for the design of the proposed house.

17. He said that the house was designed with the driveway access from Hawksdale Rd. to allow the owner to maximize the size of and make full use of the backyard.

18. He noted that there are five houses on corner lots in the neighbourhood which exhibit the same driveway condition. i.e. corner lots where the driveway is not accessed from the flanking street. These are 1 Cuffley Cres. N., 1 Cuffley Cres. S., 100 Cuffley Cres. S., 2 Bayford Ave. and 18 Hawksdale Ave. (the opposite end of the block from the subject site).

19. He also said that the driveway and garage were redesigned to preserve the mature tree on the east side of the property. The redesign has also reduced the curb cut to the width of one car and increased the amount of soft landscaping.

20. Mr. Donnell then called his next witness, A. McKee. Mr. McKee is a licenced architect but was not being called as an Expert Witness. Mr. McKee was affirmed.

21. Mr. McKee said that he had worked with Mr. Espinola on the plans for the house. He reiterated some of Mr. Espinola’s testimony.

22. He also said that a “traffic study” was done by the City. Part of the study was the determination of the classification of the two streets that intersect at this location: Hawksdale Rd. and Tilbury Dr. Both roads are “collector” roads, according to the City’s Road Classification of Streets List.

23. Mr. Donnelly then called his Expert Witness Ms. B. Tang. Ms. Tang is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) and has been previously qualified as an Expert Witness in land-use planning. I qualified Ms. Tang as an Expert Witness for this hearing. She was affirmed.

24. She told the Tribunal that she had visited the site in June 2025.

25. The property is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan (OP). As such it is subject to the policies contained in Section 4.1 of the OP. She said that the proposal was in compliance with all the criteria laid out in Section 4.1.5 except subsections f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; and g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.

26. She said that the impact of the north side yard setback variance was mitigated by the fact that the maximum incursion into the side yard was by two projecting windows, which took up less than 50% of the length of the wall. The main wall of the house was set back from the side lot line by 2.5 m. Additional trees and soft landscaping, which will replace the existing driveway, will soften the effect of the reduced side yard. She said that the variances for side yard setback did uphold the general intent and purpose of the OP, as this incursion into the required setback did not overwhelm the streetscape or offend the neighbourhood character.

27. She also said that the side yard setback variance would uphold the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the magnitude of the variance would not result in an undesirable condition in the neighbourhood.

28. Ms. Tang was of the opinion that the purpose of the Zoning By-law (ZBL) requirement that driveway access for a house on a corner lot should be taken from the flanking street was to allow the driveway to be as far as possible from the intersection, for traffic safety reasons. In her opinion, as both streets are classified as “collector” streets, traffic issues are minimized. She also noted, anecdotally, that Hawksdale Rd. may have less traffic than Tilbury Dr. as Tilbury Dr. connects with Keele St., a major arterial road. For these reasons she said that taking driveway access from Hawksdale Rd. does uphold the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

29. As other houses in the neighbourhood also have this condition, granting this variance does not create a precedent.

30. Ms. Tang said the house that would be permitted by the variances would be desirable for the use of the land. The building has the same use and general form as the other houses in the neighbourhood and will not look out of place.

31. She also thought that the variances were minor, again because the proposed house will fit its context, as required by the OP.

32. She summed up her testimony by recommending that the Tribunal approve the variances, as they meet the four tests of the Planning Act and represent good planning.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

33. There are only two development standards that require variances: the location of the driveway and the depth of the north side yard.

34. The City Planning Division supplied a letter to the Committee of Adjustment in which it did not object to the reduced side yard setback, saying “The proposed side yard setback to the north … lot line of 1.91 meters would only apply for a small portion of the dwelling. Regulating side yard setbacks is important to ensuring that new dwellings and structures have adequate distance from side lot lines and neighboring buildings for maintenance, rear yard access, and to maintain a consistent built form character in the neighborhood. In order to ensure the proposal is built as shown, staff recommend that approval be subject to the proposal being built substantially in accordance with the site plan drawing submitted to the Committee of Adjustment.” The City Planning Department did not object to or recommend refusal of the variance.

35. On March 27, 2025 the City of Toronto’s Transportation Services Division indicated, in writing, that it has no objection to the variance for the driveway location, subject to a number of conditions which are listed below.

CONCLUSION

36. 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

37. The side yard setback variance relates to subsection (g) of Policy 4.1.5. There are no variances required that would offend any of the other criteria.

38. The OP requires new construction to be materially consistent with the existing built form in the neighbourhood. As most of the north wall of the proposed building will encroach upon the setback line by only 0.5 m, the difference in setbacks from the neighbouring building to the west will be barely perceptible.

39. The OP does not prescribe numerical values to be met. I agree with Ms. Tang that the magnitude of the variances relating to the side yard setback are not such that they significantly disrupt the physical character of the area.

40. With respect to the location of the driveway, the site is located at the intersection of two “collector” streets. Of the two, Hawksdale Rd. appears to carry less traffic than Tilbury Dr. The goal of promoting traffic safety and a good pedestrian environment appears to be met by taking driveway access from Hawksdale Rd.

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

41. 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.

42. I agree with Ms. Tang’s assessment that the minor nature of the encroachment into the northern side yard setback and the additional landscaping provided in this area will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

43. I find that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law has been maintained in the location of the driveway, as taking it from Hawksdale Rd. rather than Tilbury Dr. will promote traffic and pedestrian safety.

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

44. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. A single detached house is proposed that will fit the context of the neighbourhood. The location of the driveway will have minimal impact on traffic safety. Any negative impacts stemming from these variances have been mitigated to an acceptable level.

Are the variances minor?

45. The variances are minor. I was not advised of any adverse impacts of a planning nature that would result from the approval of the requested variances.

DECISION AND ORDER

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

B. Gallaugher Panel Member

APPENDIX A

APPROVED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL

VARIANCES:

1. Chapter 10.5.80.40.(3) B), By-law No. 569-2013 Vehicle access to a parking space on a corner lot must be from a flanking street that is not a major street. The proposed vehicle access to a parking space is from Hawksdale Rd. instead of Tilbury Dr.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(6) A), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 3.0m for a corner lot where the required lot frontage is 12.0m or more. The proposed North side yard setback is 1.91m.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(6) B), By-law No. 569-2013 he required minimum side yard setback is 3.0m for a corner lot where there is an adjacent lot fronting on the street abutting the side lot line. The proposed North side yard setback is 1.91m.

CONDITIONS:

1. The Applicant is directed to provide the revised site plan referred to in [6] above, properly dimensioned, to the TLAB within two months of the issuance of this Interim Decision and Order. Failing receipt of a completed revised site plan within two months of this Decision and Order will result in refusal of all variances. A Final Decision and Order will be issued upon receipt of an acceptable site plan.

2. The applicant must obtain all required permits from the Permits and Enforcement unit of Transportation Services prior to commencing construction, which may include but not be limited to, payment of a Municipal Road Damage Deposit. The owner must contact the Permits and Enforcement unit of Transportation Services in order to obtain the exact particulars of all required permits; and revise the plan to include the following notation “All portions of existing driveway and curb cut that are no longer required must be closed and restored with soft landscape and full concrete curbs in accordance with the applicable City standards to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services Division, and at no cost to the City of Toronto”.

3. The applicant must submit a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.

4. Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting the site. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.