Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2026-01-13
25 154248 S53 05 TLAB
25 154281 S45 05 TLAB
25 154302 S45 05 TLAB
Pinto (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 381
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
January 13, 2026
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):
GIUSEPPE PINTO
Applicant(s):
SAJECKI PLANNING INC
Property Address:
36 ROMEO ST.
COA File No.:
24 248823 WET 05 CO (B0048/24EYK)
24 248839 WET 05 MV (A0015/25EYK)
24 248845 WET 05 MV (A0016/25EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 154248 S53 05 TLAB
25 154281 S45 05 TLAB
25 154302 S45 05 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Sept.11, 2025 and Nov. 17, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
B. MULLOCK
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
G. PINTO
J. COLE
Party
CITY OF TORONTO
S. BARNETT
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of applications for the property located at 36 Romeo Street (subject property).
2The application for consent to sever was considered by the COA in conjunction with two associated applications for variances, one for each of the proposed resulting lots. The COA denied all three applications at its hearing on April 17, 2025.
3A single detached structure, comprising a one storey dwelling with integral garage, currently exists on the property.
4The purpose of the applications is to sever the property, resulting in two lots, each one to be developed with a single detached dwelling.
5The variances proposed are:
- Exception RD5 - Section 900.3.10(5), By-law 569-2013
Despite regulation 10.20.40.70 (3), the minimum side yard setback is 1.8 metres.
The proposed side yard setback is 1.2 metres.
- Roof Projections - 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law 569-2013
Roof eaves may encroach a maximum of 0.9 metres provided that they are
no closer than 0.30 metres to a lot line.
The proposed eaves encroach 1.15 metres and are 0.65 metres from the
south lot line.
- Minimum Lot Area - 10.20.30.10.(1), By-law 569-2013
The required minimum lot area is 550 square metres.
The proposed lot area is 451 square metres.
- Minimum Lot Frontage - 10.20.30.20.(1), By-law 569-2013
The required minimum lot frontage is 15 metres.
The proposed lot frontage is 10.71 metres.
6The subject property is located in the Maple Leaf neighbourhood of the former municipality of Etobicoke -York. It is located on the west side of Romeo St, just north of the intersection of Romeo St and Cornelius Pkwy. On Map 17 of the the Official Plan (OP), the property is designated Neighbourhoods, and zoned RD under Zoning By-law 569-2013.
7The City of Toronto is a party. Its representatives appeared in opposition to the appeal.
8I 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
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.
11Consent – S. 53 and S. 51(24)
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 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).
12Variance – 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
13I have reviewed all of the evidence and testimony related to this matter, given over two days of hearing. The following summary of evidence is included to provide context for the Decision. If any point of evidence appears to have been omitted in this summary, its omission should not be taken to mean that such evidence was not considered. It indicates, rather, that I determined the recitation of such evidence was not material to my reasoning, which is outlined in the Issues and Analysis section.
14The tribunal qualified David Sajecki, who holds the MCIP, RPP, M.PL, B.Eng and LEED AP designations, to provide expert opinion evidence in his areas of expertise.
15During direct examination, Mr. Sajecki reviewed the appeal broadly and in the light of the Planning Act, the Official Plan (OP), the Zoning By-law, as well as the variance tests for “minor” and “desirable”. He gave evidence on the detail of the proposal.
16It was the expert witness’s opinion that TLAB should allow the appeal and approve the variances as proposed.
17To inform comparison with past COA applications, he made reference to the photographic and chart-summarized detail included in his Witness Statement.
18The expert witness noted that the appeal application differs from the plans which were considered by COA. The two associated variance applications have both been revised by the Appellant for the appeal to TLAB. In each case, he noted, the number of variances now sought is substantially reduced.
19In the expert witness’ opinion, the variances which the City objected to have been removed.
20The expert witness opined that a Draft Plan of Subdivision is not required for the consent, since its approval would not require any new infrastructure.
21The expert witness gave evidence that a variety of built forms exists in the neighbourhood, including bungalows and two-storey, single detached dwellings.
22Further, he noted infill development has taken place in the neighbourhood area (NA). Recent 2 and 3 storey, single detached dwellings exist alongside bungalows.
23The witness explained the borders of the Neighbourhood Area (NA) and Immediate Context (IC), which he delineated.
24He described the 36 Romeo lot as a “key lot”, with the rear of adjacent backyards on Maple Leaf Dr to the south meeting its south side lot line.
25The expert witness opined that the March 13, 2025 City Planning report was, in his view, favourable to the application, in the light of the four tests.
26Mr. Sajecki chose to include 500 and 502 Maple Leaf, which both directly abut the side yard lot line of 36 Romeo property, in the IC he delineated.
27These two properties were created by a consent, which made allowance for reduced areas and frontages on both.
28Mr. Sajecki gave evidence that approval of the consent would be in line with the Provincial Policy Statement, which encourages the efficient use of land.
29With respect to the OP, he opined that the neighbourhood had not remained, and would not remain, static over time. It would, rather, experience physical change.
30He opined that the proposed dwelling facades “fit” the IC. He noted that no height or front yard setback variances are being requested. The expert witness noted that the proposed uses are permitted within the Neighbourhoods designation.
31The expert witness gave evidence that the NA contains a mix of lot sizes. The lot sizes proposed by the consent, while not the “most frequently occurring”, would still in his opinion fall within an appropriate range within the NA, such lot sizes existing there, “in substantial numbers”.
32Mr. Sajecki opined that the basis of evaluation of the proposal should go beyond the mere numbers, also applying a qualitative approach. He described the proposal as representing, “gentle infill intensification”, deserving of approval.
33He drew comparisons to two nearby approvals, 500/ 502 Maple Leaf to the south, and 55 Jay St. (Part 1 and 2), one street to the west of Romeo St. Both had received consent approvals and both, ”coexist within the existing context”, in his view. Further, both examples in his view, were more similar to, than they were different from, that now proposed at 36 Romeo St.
34With respect to maintaining the intent of the Zoning By-law, Mr. Sajecki spoke to each of the four variances proposed. He gave evidence that each one met the tests, in his opinion. With respect to lot area, proposed at 451square metres, where 550 metres are required, he opined that despite the apparent deficiency, the proposed dwellings fit their lots and the street. They had been carefully designed to do so, and so reflect the neighbourhood.
35With respect to the lot area and lot frontage variances, Mr. Sajecki gave examples of 6 other lots in the IC which he delineates, which show areas and frontages less than the By-law requires. Two of these are on Romeo Street.
36With respect to the side yard setback variance, proposed at 1.2 metres where 1.8 metres is required, he gave evidence that it pertains only to the interior side yards between the two proposed new dwellings. He noted that the deficiency does not pertain to the side yard facing 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Drive, nor that facing 38 Romeo St. to the north.
37He opined that the roof eaves variance sought gave rise to no planning issue, being technical in nature.
38The expert witness gave evidence that, in his opinion, the proposed development is desirable, representing gentle intensification, which is compatible with the IC and NA.
39The development is also minor, in his view, giving rise to no adverse impacts, while being compatible with the lot fabric of the neighbourhood. The dwellings are well designed, representative of the prevailing built form in the IC and the NA
40In conclusion, Mr. Sajecki opined that the consent and related variance applications should be approved by TLAB, with the standard Consent conditions to apply.
41Under cross examination by Sarah Barnett for the City of Toronto, and asked to explain why he had included 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Dr in his IC delineation, Mr Sajecki gave evidence that the east lot line of 502 Maple Leaf is essentially a continuation southward of the west side curb line of Romeo St. It can therefore be realistically viewed as comprising the same street, in his opinion. The actual point of division between Romeo St and Cornelius Parkway is not clear to a person standing there.
42Mr. Sajecki acknowledged that the NA delineation had been revised for the TLAB appeal application. It is not the same as that presented to COA. A number of lots, in the order of 70, which were included in the COA application, were not included in the TLAB application. These properties lay to the south and east of Cornelius Parkway. Mr Sajecki acknowledged this revision could impact the calculation of average lot frontages and sizes in the NA.
43For the City of Toronto, Ms Barnett called Allan Ramsay as an expert witness. Mr. Ramsay holds the MCIP and RPP designations. The tribunal qualified Mr. Ramsay to give evidence in this appeal within his area of expertise.
44Mr. Ramsay gave evidence that he agreed with the history of application given by Mr. Sajecki.
45He described Romeo Street as a cul de sac with 12 properties. The neighbourhood he described as containing 100% single detached dwellings of 1-2 storeys. A broad mix of building types is not present in his view.
46Mr. Ramsay presented a map of the Neighbourhood Area and Immediate Context area upon which his analysis is based (FIGURE 2, page 338 of City Disclosure). The Neighbourhood Area (NA) extends south from Highway 401 to North Park. Mr. Ramsay excluded the commercial properties fronting Keele St from his delineation of the NA. His NA delineation extended east from Keele St to Connie St and the ravine properties on Cornelius Parkway backing on to North Park, on the NA’s eastern and southern perimeters.
47Mr. Ramsay gave evidence that the OP provides guidance as to how to delineate the Immediate Context of a property, which he has carefully followed.
48It is Mr. Ramsay’s evidence that Mr. Sajecki‘s IC delineation does not follow this guidance, with respect to considering only properties on the same street. He points out that Mr. Sajecki‘s IC delineation includes 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Drive. Mr. Ramsay specifically excludes those properties from his IC, since they do not face onto Romeo St, as laid out in the OP, nor are they situated on the block opposite the subject property.
49The witness noted that the area of the two lots proposed is 451 m2. The witness gave evidence that in the IC, as he delineates it, only 2 of 12 lots on Romeo St. are less than 475 m2 in area. By contrast, 10 of 12 lots are substantially larger in area than 451 m2, those ten being greater than 625 m2.
50The witness gave evidence that both the IC and the NA are comprised of relatively large lots. In his view, the lots proposed would be among the smallest in the NA.
51Mr. Ramsay gave evidence that an approval of the consent would fail to show regard for the subdivision criteria of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. Neither would it conform with s. 4.1.5 of the OP. This, he opines, requires that new development respect and reinforce the “prevailing size and configuration of lots” in the neighbourhood area.
52Mr. Ramsay said he had researched and reviewed the variance history of the NA. In doing so, he had found little consent to sever activity. He gave evidence that over the past 15 years, only 4 consents to sever have been granted in the NA. Fifteen in total had been applied for.
53Mr. Ramsay opined that the nature of the NA appears to be stable. Within it, his analysis does not identify any emerging trend toward severance development of the type proposed.
54Mr. Ramsay gave evidence that his research did not show any emerging trend, which would alter the NA’s prevailing characteristics, regarding lot size and configuration.
55Among the consents sought, the witness gave evidence that the history shows little indication of consent applications being proposed which sought substandard lot areas in the NA. He gave evidence that it shows no such application having been approved in the IC.
56Mr. Ramsay opined that reference to EHON is not relevant. He notes that EHON legalizes some multiplex and garden suite development, but it does not reference consents as a way forward to creating additional housing.
57Redevelopment, he notes, is taking place in the NA, but it is primarily redevelopment through renovation and replacement of dwellings on existing lots, not through the creation of undersize lots by consent to sever.
58The witness gave evidence that the prevailing lot area in the NA falls in the range of 550 m2 to 725 m2, while the prevailing frontage dimension lies in the range of 12m to 18m. Both ranges are significantly larger than those proposed.
59Mr. Ramsay opined that the frontage proposed fails to maintain the intent and purpose the Zoning By-law. One such aim is to maintain a consistent lot pattern in the neighbourhood. He is of the view that a frontage of only 10.71m is not in keeping with the lot pattern of the NA or the IC.
60Further, the witness opined that the lots would be too small to accommodate the dwellings proposed. The substandard lot size would contribute to overbuilding on the site, in his opinion.
61The witness opined that the proposal fails to meet the test of being minor. It would create undersized lots, along with development which is out of character with the area. Further, due to the setback variance along the common side lot line, privacy and overlook impacts would be created for each of the two proposed dwellings.
62Mr. Ramsay gave evidence that, in his view, the proposal is inconsistent with the OP’s objective of ensuring contextual stability in a neighbourhood.
63Under cross examination by Mr. Foderick, Mr. Ramsay acknowledged that, were TLAB to approve the proposal, such approval would not necessarily become a precedent which would serve to destabilize the neighbourhood.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Tests Relating to a Consent
64TLAB 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. I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required, since the application requests a division of one existing lot into two, in a long-established urban neighbourhood with existing municipal services and infrastructure.
65In considering a consent, TLAB must also determine that "regard shall be had" to a number of general and specific criteria, pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
66In considering this case, my focus will be on whether the application demonstrates regard for two applicable listed criteria:
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; and
(f) the dimensions and shapes of existing lots.
67Policy 4.1.5 of the OP requires development in established neighbourhoods to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including in particular:
c) prevailing size and configuration of lots; and
g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks
68The four variances requested line up in two categories. Two are specifically consent related, dealing with the sub-standard area and frontage dimensions of the lots proposed by the severance.
69One of the two other variances relates to side yard setback and one to the roof eaves projections between the two proposed dwellings.
70It should be noted that the variances relating to side yard setback and roof eaves projection become of consequence, if and only if, the consent to sever itself is deemed to merit approval. Otherwise, those variances become moot if severed lots are not approved.
71It is important to make determinations with respect to 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Dr. Their rear lot lines abut 36 Romeo along its south side lot line. The lots touch. Do 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Dr. lie within the immediate context of 36 Romeo? The evidence of Mr. Sajecki is that they do, while that of Mr. Ramsay is that they do not. Policy 4.1.5 of the OP speaks to IC delineation.
72I prefer the evidence of Mr. Ramsay in this regard. I find that his reasoning more closely follows the guidance provided in 4.1.5 of the OP, with respect to the delineation of immediate context – namely including ,” the properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (the immediate context) “.
73In my finding 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Drive do not face the same street as 36 Romeo St. Mr Sajecki, however, gave evidence that the visual distinction between Romeo St and Cornelius Parkway is obscure. He opines that the property, 502 Maple Leaf Dr, appears to be on the same the same street as 36 Romeo. He observes that at their intersection, the west curb of Romeo St and the north curb of Cornelius Parkway share a continuous curb line, so supporting his evidence that 502 Maple Leaf Dr. should reasonably be deemed to lie within the immediate context of 36 Romeo.
74With respect to 500 and 502 Maple Leaf Dr., I prefer the evidence of Mr. Ramsay over that of Mr. Sajecki. Although these properties are situated close by and were created by a consent which undersized frontages, I do not view them as compelling precedents. One is a corner property, so dissimilar from 36 Romeo in that regard. Further, I agree with Mr. Ramsay that these properties do not respect and reinforce the character of the neighbourhood with respect to lot frontage.
75Another guideline factor, however, requires consideration in this determination. Does 502 Maple Leaf Drive face the same street as 36 Romeo St.? Having no frontage on Romeo St., it does not. It is the side yard lot line of the 502 Maple Leaf Dr. property, lying along Cornelius Parkway, which gives onto this stretch of curb line. The frontage of 502 Maple Leaf Dr. is on Maple Leaf Dr., not Romeo St.
76In my finding, neither 502 nor 500 Maple Leaf Dr. meets the guidance of 4.1.5
of the OP, with respect to being permissible for inclusion in the immediate context of 36 Romeo St.
77Each of the two proposed lots for 36 Romeo St. would be significantly sub-standard with respect to both lot area and lot frontage.
78Generally, as I review the evidence presented, neither the NA nor the IC exhibits a trend towards the severance of lots. I find no trend towards severances to create compliant sized lots, let alone any emerging trend of severances to create sub-standard sized lots.
79Mr. Sajecki draws the tribunal’s attention to the reduction in the number and severity of variances sought, when the application was amended for presentation to TLAB. In my finding, however, this reduction did not resolve the more fundamental issues pertaining to the consent. These issues are associated with the proposed lot sizes and frontages.
80I find that undersize frontages do not have a "significant presence" in the immediate context of 36 Romeo St.
81I prefer the evidence of Mr. Ramsay over that of Mr. Sajecki in this regard. In my finding, the deficiencies in both the frontage and size of the proposed lots do not respect and reinforce the pattern of lot sizes in the neighbourhood. Neither are they the most frequently occurring lot sizes, or even present in substantial numbers in the geographic neighbourhood.
82I agree with Mr. Ramsay’s evidence to the effect that the general intent and purpose of the lot area and frontage provisions in the Zoning By-law is to prevent overbuilding on a lot. Further, I accept his evidence that the two proposed dwellings, if situated on the substandard lots proposed, would be too large for those undersized lots and would not be compatible with the character of the IC.
83The proposed sub-standard lots would not be materially consistent with the existing lots on Romeo St. In my finding, the proposed sub-standard lots are not sensitive to the physical character of the IC.
84I take note of the evidence given by Mr. Ramsay that only 17 of the 536 lots (3.2%) in the NA have frontages narrower than the 10.71M proposed. This figure clearly does not represent a substantial percentage.
85I agree with the evidence given by Mr. Ramsay that the proposed development is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character, which is characterized by large lots with frontages equal to or greater than 12m. By comparison, the severed and retained lots proposed would be significantly undersized. A severance would not respect and reinforce the integrity of the existing physical character neighbourhood or the immediate context.
CONCLUSION
86A sufficient degree of evidence of development in the neighbourhood, which could be viewed as amounting to an “emerging trend”, was not presented to the tribunal with respect to the approval of consents which resulted in undersized lots.
87I do not find that a sufficient basis in evidence was provided for TLAB to find that the creation of two substandard sized lots, each with an undersized frontage, conforms to the criteria set out in s. 51(24), ( c) and (f). No compelling evidence came forward to support the emergence of such a trend, which the proposal might be said to mirror.
88The tribunal is not persuaded, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the proposal conforms to the criteria set out in s. 51(24), (c) and (f) of the Planning Act. I am not satisfied that the two variances relating to the consent maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Neither do I find that the requested variances are minor and desirable for the development of the land.
89The proposed severance and variances for lot area and lot frontage would result in lots which do not maintain the prevailing size and configuration of lots. I find therefore that the variances for lot frontage and lot area do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Having so found, I find that the proposed severance does not meet criteria (c) and f) of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
90The Appeals are dismissed. The Committee of Adjustment decisions noted above are final and binding.
B. Mullock
Panel Member