Mandrapilias (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 376

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-11-27

25 128024 S45 15 TLAB

Mandrapilias (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 376

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

November 27, 2025

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

Appellant(s):

S. MANDRAPILIAS

Applicant(s):

S. MANDRAPILIAS

Property Address:

521 DAVISVILLE AVE.

COA File No.:

23 205763 NNY 15 MV (A0560/23NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 128024 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

October 02, 2025

October 16, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

A. BROWN

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

S. MANDRAPILIAS

A. SURIANO

A. ABATE

Party

CITY OF TORONTO

S. MESSINA

Party

T. QUINN

W. ROBERTS

Party

A. KIVI

Party

A. MORGAN

Participant

C. HILL

Participant

N. YEANDLE

Participant

P. LI

Participant

M. DAVEY

Participant

E. WONG

Participant

A. GENOVESE

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an appeal of decision issued on February 20, 2025, by the Committee of Adjustment refusing an application for variances in respect of a dwelling and laneway suite to be constructed at 521 Davisville Avenue (the "subject property").

2The subject property is zoned Residential R (d0.6) (x930) by By-law 569-2013. The site is designated as Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan and is situated within the boundaries of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan Area. It is located on the south side of Davisville Avenue, west of Bayview Avenue, in the Mount Pleasant East neighbourhood.

3The site has a frontage of 7.75m, a depth of 45.11m, and a lot area of 349.62 sm². A detached house and small rear outbuilding are located on the site.

4The Appeal was originally opposed by several Parties and Participants, including the immediate neighbours (Mr. Quinn and Ms. Morgan), the local Residents' Association and the City of Toronto.

5Subsequent to filing the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant made changes to the proposed variances and filed a revised site plan, revised drawings and revised Expert Witness Statements. The proposal is now for a duplex in the main building, in addition to the laneway suite.

6The Appellant and the other Parties engaged in discussions that ultimately resulted in a settlement agreement. The City and the Residents' Association are not in opposition. On October 16, 2025, Mr. Suriano, legal counsel for the Appellant, presented the settlement through the uncontested evidence of two expert witnesses.

7Pursuant to City Council direction to the TLAB, I had attended at the site and the surrounding area. I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation of the hearing of the evidence.

8Revised Variances

1. Detached House Side Setback (Chapter 10.10.40.70.(3)(A)(i))

The required minimum side yard setback for a detached house is 0.45m.

The proposed west side yard setback is 0.31m.

2. Platform Side Yard Setback (Chapter 10.5.40.50(2))

The minimum side yard setback for a rear deck is 0.45m.

The proposed west side yard setback for a rear deck is 0.31m.

3. Area of a deck above the first storey (Chapter 900.2.10(930)(D))

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0m².

The proposed area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4.42m².

4. Side Setback of a Deck (Chapter 900.2.10(930)(D))

The minimum side yard setback of a deck within 0.3m of the rear main wall of a residential building and at a height greater than 1.2m above established grade is 1.8m.

The proposed west side yard setback of the deck is 1.44m.

5. Main Wall Height (Chapter 10.10.40.10.(2)(B)(i))

The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.5m.

The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 9.48m.

6. Rear Yard Landscaping (Chapter 150.8.50.10(1)(B))

A minimum of 85% of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main of the laneway suite must be for soft landscaping.

The proposed landscaping is 74.86%.

7. Front Yard Setback (Chapter 10.10.40.70.(1))

The minimum front yard setback is 3.73m.

The proposed front yard setback is 3.06m.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

9Provincial 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.

10Provincial 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.

11Variance – 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.

12Preliminary Matter

13The variances proposed in the Appellant's application to the Committee of Adjustment are different from the revised proposal that was before the TLAB. The Appellant's original plans showed a single family detached dwelling and a laneway suite. The plans showed a basement, the unfinished portion of which extended almost to the laneway suite. The revised proposal reduced the overall number of requested variances and eliminated the extended portion of the basement. The plans for the main building now show a duplex, with a unit in the basement.

14I am satisfied that the revised variances are an improvement over the original application at the Committee of Adjustment. They respond to concerns raised by the other Parties and are in the public interest. For example, west-facing windows have been removed from the plans, no variances are sought for the laneway suite, and there is no longer a proposed variance for the rear yard setback. There is a new proposed variance to permit a front yard setback. This was not previously identified in the Zoning Review, but it was shown on the site plan. Pursuant to s.48.18.1 of the Planning Act, I find that the amendments are minor and that no new notice of hearing is required.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

15The Tribunal admitted six exhibits into evidence:

Exhibit #1 - Appellant's Document Book – August 21, 2025

Exhibit #2 - Expert Witness Statement (Mr. Uens)

Exhibit #3 - Response to Expert Witness Statement (Mr. Uens)

Exhibit #4 - Expert Witness Statement (Mr. Miele)

Exhibit #5 - Updated List of Proposed Variances - October 15, 2025

Exhibit #6 – Proposed Conditions of Approval - October 15, 2025

16The Tribunal heard evidence from two experts, one in Land Use Planning and one in Landscape Architecture and Arboriculture.

17Graig Uens testified for the Appellant. Mr. Uens provided a summary of his qualifications and experience in the field of Land Use Planning. I qualified him to provide expert evidence at the hearing. His revised Expert Witness Statement and his Reply to Expert Witness Statement were marked as Exhibits and he adopted them as his evidence.

18Planning Act

19Section 2 of the Planning Act requires that the Tribunal, in carrying out its responsibilities, must have regard to matters of Provincial interest. Mr. Uens testified that the proposal is consistent with several matters enumerated in s.2, including, for example, s.2.(j), "the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing," and s.2.(p), "the appropriate location of growth and development". In his opinion, "the proposed development will improve an existing, underutilized site with new housing in a low-rise, multiplex and laneway suite format which will provide the opportunity for intergenerational living and rental accommodations over time."

20Provincial Policy Statement (2024)

21Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters shall be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement.

22Mr. Uens stated that the proposal contributes to greater housing options to serve the community. In his opinion, the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the PPS 2024.

23Official Plan and Zoning By-law

24Mr. Uens explained that several policies of the Official Plan are relevant to the proposal. The Official Plan must be read as a whole. Mr. Uens cited Official Plan Policy 3.2.1, which directs that a full range of housing should be provided and maintained. The built form policies in Chapter 3 direct that new development must fit with the existing or planned context of the neighbourhood and must limit impacts on adjacent properties.

25O.P. Policy 4.1.5 describes the criteria for development in established Neighbourhoods, with the emphasis that a new built form should respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood, in particular:

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

• prevailing size and configuration of lots;

• prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;

• prevailing building type(s);

• prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages;

• prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

• prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;

• continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and,

• conservation of heritage buildings, structures, and landscapes.

26Mr. Uens explained that, "City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 649 (OPA 649) and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit multiplexes citywide as part of the Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) initiative that aims to bring more types of housing to Toronto's low-rise neighbourhoods." Further, "SASP 826 intends that new multiplexes continue the prevailing pattern of streets and blocks, setbacks, lot sizes, landscape and tree canopy characteristics, and have regard for heritage resources."

27Site Area Specific Policy 826 has several objectives for multiplex development, including:

• encouraging larger units with multiple bedrooms;

• limiting privacy and overlook impacts;

• maintaining open space, soft landscaping, and tree canopy; and,

• including sustainable building technologies.

28Policy b) i. of SASP 826 establishes the criteria whereby a proposed multiplex is

determined to fit within the existing and planned context of a neighbourhood in which it is located, further to the Neighbourhoods land use designation policies found in Section 4.1 of the Official Plan.

29Mr. Uens also referred the Tribunal to Site and Area Specific Policy 546 (SASP 546) which permits laneway suites across the City, subject to a range of criteria. Policy 1.b) of SASP 546 establishes several objectives for the development of a laneway suite, including:

• ensuring direct and safe access by meeting fire and emergency service

requirements;

• limiting privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties;

• limiting the reduction of soft landscaping on the property;

• mitigating the injury or removal of a healthy tree protected under Municipal

Code Chapter 658 and Chapter 813 v. to the greatest degree possible; and,

• encouraging the inclusion of sustainable building technologies.

30In Mr. Uens' opinion, the proposed development is consistent with the Official Plan's objectives to create new infill housing in a form and scale that reflect the physical character of the Neighbourhood and that limit adverse impacts on adjacent properties. It will create three dwelling units. Moreover, the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan to encourage compatible intensification, although the Plan has no specific direction for this site.

31Mr. Uens stated that the Immediate Context of the subject property includes the 45 lots fronting the south side of Davisville Avenue (485 to 559 Davisville Avenue) and the intermittent lots fronting the north side of Davisville Avenue opposite the site (496 to 508 Davisville Avenue and 530, 532 Davisville Avenue). The broader Geographic Neighbourhood includes the lots within the Immediate Context as well as additional lots to the north, south, and west. These were shown on maps found in the Expert Witness Statement.

32Mr. Uens explained that all lots within the Immediate Context and Geographic Neighbourhood are zoned R(d0.6) (x930) by the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013. The area largely comprises two- and three-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings in a variety of styles, front elevations and roof designs.

33The proposed side yard setback is 0.31m on the west side of the dwelling, and it reflects the existing setback. The By-law requirement is 0.45m. Mr. Uens' analysis found that buildings with non-compliant side yard setbacks are common within the Geographic Neighbourhood and there were several examples within the Immediate Context. He concluded that "in the context of lots across the Neighbourhood, the requested side yard variance is appropriate, maintains the function of side yards, does not create any overlook or privacy issues, meets the side yard setbacks required for other types of 3-storey buildings, and maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw."

34The proposed side yard setback for the rear deck is 0.31m, whereas the zoning requirement is 0.45m. The deck does not project from either side of the building, reducing potential overlook. The owner has agreed to construct opaque screening on both sides of the deck.

35A platform located 1.2m above grade is required to have a side yard setback of 1.8m and a maximum area of 4.0sm². The proposed third floor deck has a side yard setback of 1.44m and an area of 4.42sm². The proposed deck does not project from the rear main wall. Essentially, it is set into the roof structure and therefore has side walls and a roof. Mr. Uens explained that this mitigates against potential concerns regarding overlook and privacy. The only view is to the south. The Owner has agreed to have opaque screening on both sides. The deck would be used as a sitting area off the main bedroom and is not designed for large gatherings.

36The proposed front yard setback is 3.06m, whereas the Zoning By-law prescribes a minimum setback of 3.73m. The calculation of the By-law minimum is based on an average of the setbacks of the adjoining properties. The Morgan property has a setback that is less than the proposed variance, and the Quinn property has a setback that is greater than the proposal. Mr. Uens stated that the proposed development will align with other setbacks on the street and meets the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

37The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls is 8.5m. The proposed main wall height is 9.48m. Mr. Uens explained that "the general intent of the Main Wall Height provisions is to prevent three-storey flat roofed buildings and to ensure that the height and roof profile of any new building is generally compatible across a neighbourhood."

38The proposed dwelling has three storeys. Its overall height is By-law compliant. The proposed roof is not flat. According to Mr. Uens, "Reducing the side main wall height by 0.98m would make a negligible difference on the perception of building height but would have an outsized impact on the layout and function of the 3rd floor of the house and on the ability for the proposed elevator within the home to reach the 3rd level."

39The proposal is to permit 74.40% soft landscaping of the rear yard, whereas the By-law requires at least 85%. Mr. Uens' analysis found that many lots in the Geographic Neighbourhood have rear yards with significant hardscape areas between the main house and an accessory structure. In addition, based on aerial photography, several properties along Davisville Avenue have a similar combination of hardscape and softscape areas comparable to the proposal. He cited several variance decisions allowing reduced soft landscape areas.

40Mr. Uens explained that the requested variance results from the distance between the duplex and the laneway suite, which is greater than that required by the Zoning By-law. Moving the laneway suite closer to the house would obviate the need for the variance but would result in a smaller area of soft landscaping and could impact the tree protection.

41In Mr. Uens' uncontested expert opinion, the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

42Appropriate for the Development or Use of the Land

43Mr. Uens testified that the proposed variances would permit the creation of three housing units, one of which could be rented, thus increasing the form and variety of housing in the local area. The proposal is designed to limit impacts on adjacent properties. Government policies encourage the development of rental housing, and the proposed development will facilitate multi-generational living in the main building.

44In Mr. Uens' opinion, the proposal is appropriate for the development of the land.

45Are the Proposed Variances "Minor"?

46Mr. Uens testified that the proposal reflects the side yard setbacks of the existing dwelling. The west side yard setback is deficient by 0.14m. There are no windows facing the west side of the site. The east side of the dwelling has a shared easement with its neighbour with a combined width of over 2.0m. The side yards will provide access and clearance for maintenance.

47In Mr. Uens' opinion, neither of the proposed decks will result in an unacceptable adverse impact of a planning nature (such as overlook or lack of privacy) on the adjacent properties. Screening will be provided, as mentioned above.

48The proposed area for the rear yard soft landscaping provides a larger open space than if the laneway suite were moved closer to the main building. The larger open space would benefit the owner and the neighbours.

49In sum, it is Mr. Uens' expert opinion that the variances do not create unacceptable adverse impacts of a planning nature and are minor.

50Mr. Uens showed the Tribunal maps showing the immediate and broader context, and provided photographs of lots along Davisville and nearby streets, in addition to the laneway. Information was provided about variance decisions in the area (for example, in respect of side yard setbacks and rear soft landscaping) that are consistent with the proposed variances in this Appeal.

51Mr. Uens concluded that the proposed variances meet all four tests in the Planning Act.

52The Appellant also called Nick A. Miele to testify. The Appellant filed Mr. Miele's Revised Expert Witness Statement, which Mr. Miele adopted as his evidence (Exhibit #4). Mr. Miele testified about his qualifications and experience in the fields of Landscape Architecture and Arboriculture. I qualified him to provide expert evidence at the Hearing in those fields.

53Mr. Miele was retained by the Appellant to provide a report about trees that might have been at risk as a result of the proposed construction. He revised his expert statement when the Appellant's proposal was revised, particularly because the extended basement is no longer in the Plans. His report was obtained by the Appellant to address concerns raised by the City's Urban Forestry Department, which requested a standard condition regarding protection of the trees on private property.

54Mr. Meile examined three trees within or around the subject property. These are large trees and the adjoining property owners were concerned that construction might harm them. Tree #1 and Tree #2 are Norway Maples on the rear lot at 523 Davisville Avenue, very close to property line with the subject property. Tree #3 is a Sugar Maple situated on the rear lot at 517 Davisville Avenue, and there will not be an encroachment into its tree protection zone (TPZ).

55In Mr. Miele's expert opinion, the trees can be successfully protected and retained if his recommendations are followed.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

56This is an uncontested Hearing for the purposes of approving a revised set of variances that have been agreed to by the Parties as part of a settlement of the issues between them. In the interest of consensual resolution of disputes, deference will be given to a settlement provided that the joint submission falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

57Any findings of fact are for the limited purpose of ensuring that the settlement is not contrary to the Planning Act. As a settlement, this case has no precedential or referential value.

58I accept Mr. Uens' evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2024) for the subject area. I also accept his evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Planning Act, s.2.(j), "the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing".

59General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

60The Official Plan encourages development that respects and reinforces the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood according to the criteria enumerated in Policy 4.1.5. Moreover, the Official Plan encourages the construction of multiplex housing within existing neighbourhoods. SASP 828 contains policy criteria that apply to multiplex developments. Mr. Uens stated that the proposal complies with both of these policies.

61I am satisfied that the main building respects and reinforces the low-rise types of development in the neighbourhood. No rear yard setback is required and the front yard setback aligns with other properties along the street. The two-storey laneway suite does not require variances. The laneway itself has a variety of structures ranging from laneway suites to garages to sheds. Although the neighbourhood does not have many three-storey dwellings, the overall height of the main building is by-law compliant. The side yard setbacks are consistent with many other properties on Davisville Avenue and fit the existing building context. Moreover, the proposal increases the housing supply in an established neighbourhood by creating a separate unit in the main building in addition to the laneway suite. In my view, the proposal is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

62General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

63Zoning By-law 569-2013 was amended to expand housing options, to permit multiplex developments and to permit laneway suites. As mentioned, the proposed laneway suite does not require variances. The duplex does not encroach into the rear yard setback. Its side yard setbacks are consistent with the setbacks along the street (as shown in the photographic evidence). The setback on one side is by-law compliant and will provide access to the rear. The rear soft landscaping maximizes the distance between the buildings, creating a sense of open space for the owners and the neighbours. I conclude that the construction will not result in an overbuild or massing on the site. I agree with Mr. Uens' uncontested evidence that the proposal is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

64Appropriate and Minor

65The development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and will contribute to the mix of housing options in the neighbourhood. I agree with Mr. Uens that the proposed development fits with the surrounding area and the general physical patterns.

66The test for "minor" focuses on the scale and nature of the perceived impact caused by the variance. The test is not merely a matter of mathematical calculation. The courts have established that the test is not that there be no impact, but that the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature.

67There is no evidence of undue adverse impacts of a planning nature from the proposal. The west-facing windows were eliminated from the plans. The decks will have opaque screens, there will be open space (soft landscaping) at the rear, and the basement will not exceed the permitted building depth under the By-law. The overall height of the building is By-law compliant.

68The Appellant referred me to the Tribunal's decision in Green v. Woldemichael 2023 ONTLAB 14 in which the Tribunal approved certain variances that can be compared to some variances proposed in the instant Appeal.

69I am satisfied on the evidence that the proposal is appropriate for the development of the land and that the variances are minor.

70The Parties submitted their Proposed Conditions, as found in Exhibit #6. The Tribunal issued an Interim Order and Decision on November 6, 2025. Further to that decision the Parties have confirmed that the Appellant and the adjoining neighbours (Ms. Morgan and Mr. Quinn) have a written agreement and that the other Parties (the City of Toronto and Mr. Kivi for the South Eglinton Davisville Residents' Association) are not opposed to the settlement.

CONCLUSION

71Pursuant to s.48.18.1 of the Planning Act, I find that the amendments to the COA application are in the public interest and that no new notice of hearing is required.

72I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and that they are desirable for the development of the land and are minor.

DECISION AND ORDER

73The Appeal is allowed.

74The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

A. Brown

Panel Member

Schedule "A"

Approved Variances

1. Detached House Side Setback (Chapter 10.10.40.70.(3)(A)(i))

The required minimum side yard setback for a detached house is 0.45m.

The proposed west side yard setback is 0.31m.

2. Platform Side Yard Setback (Chapter 10.5.40.50(2))

The minimum side yard setback for a rear deck is 0.45m.

The proposed west side yard setback for a rear deck is 0.31m

3. Area of a deck above the first storey (Chapter 900.2.10(930)(D))

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0m².

The proposed area of each platform at or above the second storey is 4.42m².

4. Side Setback of a Deck (Chapter 900.2.10(930)(D))

The minimum side yard setback of a deck within 0.3m of the rear main wall of a residential building and at a height greater than 1.2m above established grade is 1.8m.

The proposed west side yard setback of the deck is 1.44m.

5. Main Wall Height (Chapter 10.10.40.10.(2)(B)(i))

The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.5m.

The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 9.48m.

6. Rear Yard Landscaping (Chapter 150.8.50.10(1)(B))

A minimum of 85% of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main of the laneway suite must be for soft landscaping.

The proposed landscaping is 74.86%.

7. Front Yard Setback (Chapter 10.10.40.70.(1))

The minimum front yard setback is 3.73m.

The proposed front yard setback is 3.06m.

CONDITIONS

1. The proposed duplex and laneway suite shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the site plan, plans and elevations included in the revised architectural plans dated August 20, 2025 included in the Applicant's Disclosure Form 3 submitted by the Applicant to the TLAB on August 21, 2025 (the "Revised Proposal"), as attached:

2. Two separate units shall be maintained in the main building (duplex) as a condition of the variance approvals.

3. The Applicant will 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.