Yeganegi (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 370

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2025-10-27

25 150148 S53 12 TLAB 25 150300 S45 12 TLAB 25 150329 S45 12 TLAB

Yeganegi (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 370

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: October 27, 2025

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s): M. YEGANEGI

Applicant(s): HIRMAN ARCHITECT INC.

Property Address: 11 OSWALD CRES.

COA File No.: 24 220064 STE 12 CO (B0061/24TEY) 24 220070 STE 12 MV (A0869/24TEY) 24 220074 STE 12 MV (A0870/24TEY)

TLAB Case File No.: 25 150148 S53 12 TLAB 25 150300 S45 12 TLAB 25 150329 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): September 18, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

HIRMAN ARCHITECT INC

Appellant

M. YEGANEGI

M. CARA

Party

CITY OF TORONTO

M. LAFORTUNE

Party

A. K. SEDRA

Party

K. ALDRIDGE

Party

M. OPAIT

Participant

M. THYS

Participant

D. THADANI

Participant

B. O’DWYER

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This Appeal arises from the Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of an application for a consent to sever and variances for development proposals on the resulting lots.

2The purpose of the applications is to sever the property known as 11 Oswald Cres (subject property) into two lots, and to construct a duplex on each of the resulting lots.

3The property is designated Neighbourhoods and zoned R (d0.6) (x931) (Zoning By-law 569-2013). It is located in the Davisville Village neighbourhood of the former City of Toronto.

4The applications have been amended from those which were considered by the COA. The applications before the COA were for the purposes of constructing two new, two-storey, single family dwellings with basement secondary suites. The revised applications identify the proposed dwellings as two duplexes.

5The application for consent to sever the lot would result in the same general configuration as that which was before the COA, although the previously required variances for lot frontage and lot area have been eliminated from the variance requests.

6Further, the proposed dwellings have been revised to eliminate variances relating to exterior main wall height.

7A new variance request has been added to allow for roof eaves to project into the side yard setback.

8Prior to the Hearing, a settlement was achieved with multiple Parties (and Participants), entailing some modifications to the proposal. These modifications are reflected in the amended plans; they do not affect or alter the requested variances.

9I was advised by the City’s representative that the City’s concern with the variances had been resolved. By agreement with the Appellant, the City will not oppose the approval, and the Appellant will not engage the issue of the correct interaction between SASP 826 (recent multiplex policies) and Official Plan Policy 4.1.5, (an issue that is currently subject to judicial review).

10As a result of the agreement between the City and the Appellant, the TLAB has been requested not to make any findings on the relationship between SASP 826 and Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

11CONSENT REQUESTED:

To obtain consent to sever the lot into two residential lots and to create an easement/right of way for pedestrian access purposes.

Conveyed – Parts 2 and 4

The lot frontage will be 7.62m and the lot area will be 265.23m2. A new two storey duplex will be constructed.

Easement/Right of Way

Part 4 will be subject to an easement in favour of Parts 1 and 3 for the purpose of pedestrian access.

Retained – Parts 1 and 3

The lot frontage will be 7.62m and the lot area will be 265.65m2. A new two storey duplex will be constructed.

Easement/Right of Way

Part 3 will be subject to an easement in favour of Parts 2 and 4 for the purpose of pedestrian access.

12VARIANCES REQUESTED

PARTS 1 AND 3 VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 900.2.10(931)(D), By-law No. 569-2013

A vehicle entrance through the front main wall of a residential building, other than an ancillary building, is not permitted.

The proposed residential building has a vehicle entrance through the front main wall.

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

Exterior stairs providing access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no closer to a lot line than 0.6 metres.

The proposed front porch stairs are 0.45 metres from the North lot line.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law No. 569-2013

Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 metres provided that they are no closer than 0.30 metres to a lot line.

The proposed eaves project 0.41 metres and are 0.04 metres from the North lot line.

PARTS 2 AND 4 VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 900.2.10(931)(D), By-law No. 569-2013

A vehicle entrance through the front main wall of a residential building, other than an ancillary building, is not permitted.

The proposed residential building has a vehicle entrance through the front main wall.

2. Chapter 10.5.100.1.(1)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

For a detached house, semi-detached house, or duplex, and for an individual townhouse dwelling unit if an individual or private driveway leads directly to the dwelling unit, a driveway that is located in or passes through the front yard may be for lots with a frontage of 6.0 metres to 23.0 metres inclusive, or a townhouse dwelling unit at least 6.0 metres wide, a maximum of 3.84 metres wide.

The proposed driveway is 4.10 metres wide.

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

Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no closer to a lot line than 0.6 metres.

The proposed stairs are 0.45 metres from the South lot line.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law No. 569-2013

Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 metres provided that they are no closer than 0.30 metres to a lot line.

The proposed eaves project 0.41 metres and are 0.04 metres from the South lot line.

13I advised those present at the Hearing that, in accordance with Council direction, I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and that I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their evidence.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

14Provincial 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.

15Provincial 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 for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).

16Consent – S. 53

TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

17Variance – 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

18Mr. Romano was qualified as an expert in land use planning.

19He described the proposal and its context in detail.

20He noted a noticeable rise in elevation from the street to the backyard, whereas the west side of Oswald Cres is more level. This influences the building and the visual presence on the street. The first floors on the east side of Oswald Cres are all elevated.

21Mr. Romano reviewed Official Plan policies and delineated a study area according to the direction contained in OP Policy 4.1.5.

22Mr. Romano noted the Davisville Zoning Amendments study which resulted in Bylaw 1426-2017. This study and By-law addressed built form and landscaping concerns arising from the construction of dwellings with integral garages, including consistency in height across the streetscape and landscaping.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

23This Hearing became an uncontested Hearing for the purposes of approving a consent to sever and a set of variances that have been agreed to by the Parties as part of a settlement agreement between them.

REQUEST THAT THE TLAB NOT MAKE FINDINGS IN RELATION TO SASP 826

24Unfortunately, due to an oversight by TLAB staff, I was not advised in advance of the hearing of the City’s request that the TLAB not make findings on the relationship between SASP 826 and OP Policy 4.1.5.

25The crux of the contested policy issue that is skirted by the City and the Appellant’s agreement is whether SASP 826 exempts multiplexes in Neighbourhoods from the development criteria set out in policy 4.1.5. The City’s position is that it does not. (Exhibit 5).

26I shall accede to the request of the Parties on the basis that the Parties have otherwise come to an agreement and only because the particular features of this application can support of the proposed severance and duplexes without engaging the policies of SASP 826.

CONSENT TO SEVER

27I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Planning Act as the proposal is a division of the existing legal lot in a long-established area. No adaptation or construction of public infrastructure is required.

28Of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, I consider criteria (c) and (f) to warrant further discussion in this Decision.

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; and

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.

29The subject property is zoned Residential (R), which permits, as of right, that a detached house, a semi-detached house, a townhouse, a duplex, a triplex, a fourplex or an apartment building may be constructed.

30The zoning for this particular property is also identified to be subject to an exception (931) which states, in part, as follows:

(C)

The minimum lot frontage for a lot with a detached house is 9.0 metres. [TO: 438-86; 6(3), Part VII, 1.(i) and Appendix 'B']

31It was Mr. Romano’s evidence that the previously requested variances for lot frontage and lot area were identified in error in the list of variances during the COA process. (He referenced zoning notices and other documents which I was not able to find in his Expert Witness Statement materials).

32The exemption references only frontages for detached houses and therefore it is, in any event, now not pertinent since the proposal has been redefined subsequent to the COA decision as two duplexes, rather than the two detached houses with secondary suites that were refused by the COA.

33I accept Mr. Romano’s testimony that the proposed frontages and lot areas for the proposed lots are in compliance with the minimum frontages and lot areas set in the in-force Zoning By-law (569-2013).

34This issue of lot dimensions and shapes in relation to s.51(24)(f) of the Planning Act is a question in this Appeal only as a result of the process that is required to create legal lots, i.e. the consent to sever application.

35The Zoning By-law has been approved by City Council to implement the directions of the Official Plan and in doing so has enshrined a community standard for lot frontage and lot area that the proposal meets.

36Mr. Romano has provided an analysis of lot frontages and lot areas in his study area, including mapping. I am satisfied that lots of similar size and configuration exist in the study area and the immediate context in substantial numbers.

37On the basis of the evidence, I find that the application for consent to sever the subject property maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan with respect to lot size and configuration and satisfies the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

38Mr. Romano provided an overview of the policies of the Official Plan pertinent to the applications for variances.

39OP Policy 4.1.5 provides direction for assessing the “fit” of development within a Neighbourhood. The policy contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.

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.

40I have found that the prevailing size and configuration of the lots (criterion b)) maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan in the section above. Of the criteria listed in OP Policy 4.1.5, I consider criteria c), and e) to warrant further discussion in this Decision.

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type

41Had the applications continued as a request to facilitate two detached houses, variances would have potentially been required to meet the maximum floor space index (FSI) provision in the Zoning By-law. The Zoning By-law was amended in 2023, and the maximum floor space index provision no longer applies to duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.

42Mr. Romano advised that the massing of development in this neighbourhood is located within building footprints, lengths and depths that are not uniform. They are varied, with densities that are low to moderate.

43Approval of the duplex form of housing has been in place for the R category of Residential Zoning since adoption of the By-law. Thus, duplexes have been a permissible building type in this neighbourhood predating the adoption of the City’s multiplex policies and the subsequent amendments to the Zoning By-law.

44Recent changes to the Zoning By-law eliminated some Principal Building Requirements for duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes (such as FSI maximums), and loosened provisions for others (such as maximum height provisions). In this proposal, no variances are required for maximum height, FSI, or any building characteristics relating to heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type.

45A premise of the Planning framework in Ontario is that the provisions of the By-law are understood to implement the Official Plan. It is on this basis that building permits are issued (“as of right”) without further planning process if the provisions of the Zoning By-law are met.

46The requested variances for vehicle entrances through the front main wall, the driveway, encroachment of exterior stairs into the setback and roof eaves projection in this case are not impactful to the height, massing, scale, density or dwelling type of the proposal.

47Mr. Romano provided a useful depiction of a section of the Oswald Cres streetscape that places the proposal in context with its neighbours, along with photographs of similar examples in the neighbourhood.

Figure 1: Streetscape, Ex 2, Tab 14.

48I concur with Mr. Romano that the proposed building heights, mass, scale, density and dwelling type are complementary to, and consistent with, surrounding residential development.

e) “Prevailing location, design, and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages.”

49Mr. Romano advised that the proposal consists of above grade driveway and garage features and is consistent with the prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages.

50The design and elevations of garages have been of particular concern in this neighbourhood and were addressed in a City-initiated Zoning Amendment in 2017.

51I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence provided and referred to above, that the proposal is respectful of the concerns articulated in the Davisville Village Zoning Study (Exhibit 2 Tab 12). These concerns centred upon overwhelming massing, excessively tall houses, elevation of front doors and living spaces much higher than the street, (thereby severing connection to the street), that can result from the inclusion of an integral garage within the building volume.

52Mr. Romano provided an analysis of integral garages in the broader neighbourhood, including a map of integral garage locations and approvals as well as photographic evidence. I am satisfied that integral garages in the form proposed for the subject property are represented in sufficient numbers that they are not anomalous in this neighbourhood.

53On the basis of evidence provided by Mr. Romano and for the reasons above, I find that the proposal is a reasonable and compatible form of development that fits with the existing character of the neighbourhood.

GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW

VARIANCE 1: Vehicle Entrances through Front Main Wall

54Each proposed duplex is to have private on-site parking within an integral garage, accessible from a driveway. Variances are required to allow vehicle entrances through the front main walls of the dwellings.

55Mr. Romano asserted that the proposed vehicle entrance through the front main wall of the dwelling meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to accommodate suitable parking and achieve a dwelling that has height and landscape features that are compatible with the surrounding area.

56I concur with Mr. Romano’s opinion in respect of the vehicle entrance through the front main wall for the same reasons set out in the paragraphs above.

VARIANCE 2: Encroachment of front porch stairs into side yard setback.

57The porch stairs for both duplexes encroach into the side yards between the two new lots. Existing neighbours are not impacted by these variances. The encroachments do not impact passage between the new dwellings.

58Recognizing the particular site characteristics and context, I concur with Mr. Romano that the variances (both 15cm), meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law to achieve adequate space for access and spatial separation.

VARIANCE 3: Roof Eaves Side Yard Setbacks

59I accept Mr. Romano’s advice that the variances allow for adequate remaining spatial separation between the eaves of the two new duplexes to facilitate installation and maintenance.

VARIANCE 4: (Part 2 and 4 only) Driveway Width

60The Part 2 driveway curves in front of the dwelling to pass around the City tree. The variance is required only for the part of the driveway at the widest curved point. The variance does not impact the curb.

61Mr. Romano advised that the proposed driveway width variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning By-law to achieve suitable access and to align the driveway with the parking area beyond.

62I accept Mr. Romano’s opinion that the driveway variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

63I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

MINOR AND DESIRABLE

64The Appellant was able to come to the Hearing of this matter having settled the contested issues between themselves and the other Parties and Participants, albeit with a rider from the City.

65The Appellant is to be commended for their constructive engagement with their neighbours. Consensual resolution of issues between Parties is supported by the TLAB.

66Given the cooperation of the elected Parties to this Hearing, I find that there are no undue adverse impacts of a planning nature associated with the proposal.

67For all the reasons outlined above, I find that the requested variances are desirable for the development of the land.

NOTICE

68A tribunal is permitted to make a decision on applications that have been amended from the original application provided that notice is given to the persons and public bodies who received notice of the original application. There are provisions for the tribunal to waive notice if, in its opinion, the amendments are minor.

69In this case, some of the variances refused by the COA have been eliminated, largely as a result of the redefinition of the proposal as two duplexes instead of two detached dwellings.

70I shall waive the requirement for further notice under s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act on the basis that the overall form of the structures does not differ significantly from that which was before the COA, and because the proposal has been beneficially amended with the involvement and to the satisfaction of the affected neighbours and community representatives.

CONDITIONS

71The standard conditions for consent to sever will be imposed on the approval as well as the TLAB’s customary conditions for variance approval, one of which ties the variances to the plans which have been justified through this proceeding.

72As the proposal to construct a second unit, separate from the main unit, has the effect of relieving the proposal from certain provisions of the By-law which would have applied to a single detached dwelling, I shall impose an additional condition requiring that two separate units must be maintained on each of the severed properties as a condition of the variance approvals.

CONCLUSION

73I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence given, that the revised proposal meets the criteria set out in s.51(24) of the Planning Act. I am satisfied that the variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. I find that the proposal is minor and desirable for the development of the land.

74I find no further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

75The Appeal is allowed.

76The application for consent to sever is approved subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A

77The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix B are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

A. Bassios

Panel Chair

APPENDIX A

78Consent Conditions

The Consent Application is approved on Condition

The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB, therefore, consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, the applicant is to fulfill the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment:

(1) Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of the Revenue Services Division, in the form of a statement of tax account current to within 30 days of an applicant's request to the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment to issue the Certificate of Official as outlined in Condition 7.

(2) Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

(3) One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS (3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their respective areas, shall be filed with, and to the satisfaction of, the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

(4) One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services shall be filed with the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

(5) Prepare and submit a digital draft of the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O. Reg. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act if applicable as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent transaction to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

(6) 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 each of the resulting properties involved in the application. The current Street Tree Planting Payment is $583 per tree.

(7) Once all of the other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall request, in writing, that the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment issue the Certificate of Official.

(8) Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.

APPENDIX B

APPROVED VARIANCES:

PARTS 1 AND 3

1. Chapter 900.2.10(931)(D), By-law No. 569-2013

A vehicle entrance through the front main wall of a residential building, other than an ancillary building, is not permitted.

A vehicle entrance through the front main wall is permitted.

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

Exterior stairs providing access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no closer to a lot line than 0.6 metres.

The front porch stairs are 0.45 metres from the North lot line.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law No. 569-2013

Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 metres provided that they are no closer than 0.30 metres to a lot line.

The eaves project 0.41 metres and are 0.04 metres from the North lot line.

PARTS 2 AND 4 VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Chapter 900.2.10(931)(D), By-law No. 569-2013

A vehicle entrance through the front main wall of a residential building, other than an ancillary building, is not permitted.

A vehicle entrance through the front main wall is permitted.

2. Chapter 10.5.100.1.(1)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

For a detached house, semi-detached house, or duplex, and for an individual townhouse dwelling unit if an individual or private driveway leads directly to the dwelling unit, a driveway that is located in or passes through the front yard may be for lots with a frontage of 6.0 metres to 23.0 metres inclusive, or a townhouse dwelling unit at least 6.0 metres wide, a maximum of 3.84 metres wide.

The driveway is 4.10 metres wide.

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

Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no closer to a lot line than 0.6 metres.

The stairs are 0.45 metres from the South lot line.

4. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law No. 569-2013

Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 metres provided that they are no closer than 0.30 metres to a lot line.

The eaves project 0.41 metres and are 0.04 metres from the South lot line.

CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL

Parts 1 and 3

1. The owner shall 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.

2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Hirman Architects dated 2025-08-02 and attached hereto:

• Site Plan and Site Statistics Drawing A0

• Main (West) Elevation Drawing A5

• Side (South) Elevation Drawing A6

• Rear (East) Elevation Drawing A7

• Side (North) Elevation Drawing A8

3. Two separate units, generally as depicted in drawing A1 prepared by Hirman Architects dated 2025-08-02, shall be maintained on Part 1 as a condition of variance approvals.

Part 2 and 4

1. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.

2. Submission of 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.

3. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Hirman Architects, dated 2025-08-02 and attached hereto:

• Site Plan and Site Statistics Drawing A0

• Main (West) Elevation Drawing A5

• Side (South) Elevation Drawing A6

• Rear (East) Elevation Drawing A7

• Side (North) Elevation Drawing A8

4. Two separate units, generally as depicted in drawing A1 prepared by Hirman Architects dated 2025-08-02, shall be maintained on Part 2 as a condition of variance approvals.