Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-02-02

23 238694 S45 11 TLAB

Chilver (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 387

INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

February 2, 2026

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):

J. CHILVER

Applicant(s):

L. BAJANA

Property Address:

74 HAZELTON AVENUE

COA File No.:

23 208814 STE 11 MV (A0866/23TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

23 238694 S45 11 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

September 24, 2024

February 27, 2025

March 31, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

April 14, 2025 to Respond

April 28, 2025 to Reply

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member: J. TASSIOPOULOS

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

J. CHILVER

M. MAZIERSKI

Party (TLAB)

J. FARHADPOUR

K. GOSSEN

Party (TLAB)

T. PHILLIPS

K. GOSSEN

Party (TLAB)

ABC RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

RITCHIE KETCHESON HART & BIGGART

Participant

M. PENNER

Participant

J. ORNSTEIN

Participant

L. CHU

Participant

P. ELIA

Participant

D. CAPLAN

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) December 6, 2023 refusal of twelve variances sought to convert the existing two-and-one-half-storey semi-detached dwelling from one dwelling unit into three dwelling units by constructing a rear third storey addition with a terrace, and to construct a new rear two-storey ancillary building (detached garage), accessed by the existing easement/right-of-way, from the abutting property municipally known as 76 Hazelton Avenue.

2The property is located at 74 Hazelton Avenue, designated Neighbourhoods and zoned Residential Detached (RD) in the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013. It is also subject to the provisions of the Site Specific Policies of Section 12 (x322) of Zoning By-law 438-86.

3The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) originally set a hearing date for April 22, 2024. At the request of counsel and the consent of the Parties present, however, it was converted to a mediation session by Member G. Swinkin. There was ultimately no resolution of the various issues among the Parties, during or soon after the mediation session was concluded.

4There being no resolution, the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) issued a Notice of Hearing for this matter, setting the Hearing date for September 24, 2024, and setting out the required submission dates for Applicant Disclosure, Expert Witness Statements, Witness Statements, etc.

5During the course of hearing this matter, two more Hearing days of February 27 and March 31, 2025, were added. In addition, at the consent of the Parties during the third Hearing day, counsel for the ABC Residents Association, Ms. Kacie Layton, was permitted to provide closing submissions following the third Hearing day. This was due to a scheduling conflict which prohibited their attendance and participation on the last Hearing day.

6Following the March 31, 2025 Hearing day, a recording of the Hearing was provided to counsel for the ABC Residents Association with a deadline of April 21, 2024, for their closing submission in writing. Dates for reply from the Applicant were set for May 5, 2024.

7This Decision considers the evidence presented by the expert witnesses, statements from both Parties and Participants, and the opening and closing arguments by Counsel over those three days and the subsequent closing submission and reply following the last Hearing day.

8The application is to convert the existing two-and-one-half-storey semi-detached dwelling from one dwelling unit into three dwelling units, one on each storey, by constructing a rear third storey addition with a terrace. It also proposes the construction of a rear two-storey detached garage.

9The variances sought by the Applicant have been revised from those originally sought and now reflect the August 1, 2024, Examiners’ Notice, namely:

1. Chapter 900.2.10. Exception 860, Section 12(2)322(ii)(a), By-Law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building depth is 17 m.

The altered dwelling will have a depth of 25.81 m.

2. Chapter 900.2.10. Exception 860, Section 12(2)322(ii)(b), By-Law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building height is 7 m, for any portion of the building having a depth greater than 14 m.

The altered dwelling will have a height of 11.55 m, for the portion of the dwelling having a depth greater than 14 m.

3. Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013

Platforms attached to or within 0.3 m of a building must comply with the minimum required building setback of 0.9 m.

The rear third storey deck will be located 0 m from the side (south) lot line.

4. Chapter 10.10.40.30.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building depth is 19 m.

The altered dwelling will have a depth of 25.81 m.

5. Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(B), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% (59.5 m²) of the rear yard must be maintained as soft landscaping.

In this case, 13.4% (15.97 m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.

6. Chapter 10.5.60.70.(1), By-law 569-2013

The total area of the lot covered by all ancillary buildings and structures may not exceed 10% of the lot area (29.78 m²).

The new ancillary building (detached garage) will cover 12.6% of the lot area

(37.57 m²).

7. Chapter 10.5.60.40.(2), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building or structure is 4 m.

The new ancillary building (detached garage) will have a height of 5.79 m.

8. Chapter 10.5.60.40.(3), By-law 569-2013

An ancillary building or structure is permitted a maximum height of one storey.

The new ancillary building (detached garage) will have a height of two storeys.

9. Chapter 10.10.40.10.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 11 m.

The proposed height for the proposed third storey addition (building / structure) will be 11.55 m.

10. Chapter 10.5.60.50.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures on the lot is 40 m².

The new ancillary building (detached garage) will have a total floor area of 75.15 m².

10I advised, as per Council direction, that I had visited the site and surrounding neighbourhood and reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the Hearing, but it was the evidence to be heard that was of importance.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

11Provincial 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.

12Provincial 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 (Growth Plan) for the subject area.

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

A summary of evidence is presented here for the purpose of providing some context for the following sections of this Decision. All of the evidence and testimony in this matter have been carefully reviewed and the omission of any point of evidence in this summary should not be interpreted to mean that it was not fully considered, but rather that the recitation of it is not material to the threads of reasoning that will be outlined in the Issues and Analysis section below.

Evidence of Mr. J. Benczkowski

13Mr. Benczkowski has appeared numerous times before the TLAB, and this Member, providing expert evidence in Land Use Planning. In addition to his over 20 years of professional experience and there being no objection from the other counsel, he was qualified to provide expert evidence in Land Use Planning.

14He indicated that when he was retained, in his review of the file, he noticed that a variance for floor space index (FSI) had been included but that it was not required. He indicated to the Zoning Examiner that the FSI variance was not required as the Multiplex Zoning By-law Amendment 474-2023 had removed the need for the variance.

15He further explained that the inconsistencies in the plans, identified during the Mediation session, had been corrected. The current plans were resubmitted to the zoning examiner and an updated Examiners’ Notice was provided for the proposal.

16Mr. Benczkowski described the proposal noting that the ground floor and second floor would each include a 2.46m² addition and the third floor a 10.26m² addition with a 3.01m² terrace at the rear of the subject property. He added that the proposed garage would complement the adjacent present garage on 76 Hazelton Avenue and its overall height would be slightly lower.

17He opined that the neighbourhood had similar examples of extensions of second and third storeys, with similar additions on surrounding properties which are generally long and narrow.

18Mr. Benczkowski listed the city departments and agencies that were circulated the proposed plans and noted:

a. Urban Forestry had a condition, but it seemed odd because all of the additions are occurring in the rear and there is no impact on city trees at the front;

b. There was no objection from city planning or transportation departments; and,

c. There were no conditions applied to the submission from Heritage Preservation Services.

19He presented the neighbourhood study area that was based on the requirements outlined in OP policy 4.1.5. The study area centred on the residential dwellings similar in nature to the proposal and included Hazelton Avenue, Berryman Street and Webster Avenue. He noted that what was proposed for 74 Hazelton Avenue was consistent with the physical quality of surrounding residential dwellings in the study area and that it respected and reinforced the physical character of the broader and immediate context.

20He explained that the neighbourhood and immediate context is comprised of properties where lots are narrow and deep and that “it is common for dwellings to extend beyond the zoning provisions, of both the City of Toronto Zoning by-law 569-2013 Standards as well as the Site Specific Policies of Section 12 (x322) (the ‘Yorkville Triangle’) of the 438-86”.

21Referencing the Official Plan, Mr. Benczkowski indicated that the proposal met with policy objectives of respecting and reinforcing the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes renovated dwellings that vary in both length/depth from adjacent neighbours and was in compliance with Healthy Neighbourhoods policy 2.3.1, the ‘fit’ policies of Built Form 3.1.2, and Neighbourhoods 4.1.5 development criteria policies.

22The proposed addition is only in the rear of the building and does not impact the Hazelton Avenue streetscape, which will remain in its existing condition. Mr. Benczkowski explained that the proposal is consistent with the existing physical character of the immediate area and surrounding context.

23He concluded that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and maintains and reinforces the physical character of the neighbourhood.

24Referencing the Yorkville Hazelton Area Heritage Conservation District Plan he noted that section 1.4.7 Alterations and Additions allows for additions at the rear of the building and further noted that Heritage Preservation Services did not submit any objections to the proposal.

25He explained that the proposed variances were minor in nature because they did not affect the streetscape along Hazelton Avenue and were specific to the additions proposed at the rear. The addition in his opinion was in keeping with similar additions and approvals given to 76 and 78 Hazelton Avenue and there was minimal additional impact to the immediate neighbour to the north.

26To illustrate the potential impact of the addition at the rear, Mr. Benczkowski presented a shadow study that indicated the shadowing that would occur from morning to afternoon on March 21st and June 21st at hourly increments. He noted that the shadow impact was almost unchanged from the existing condition. He did note that in the spring and fall there would be some additional shadowing for the most southerly portions of 76 Hazelton Avenue Avenue’s deck on the third floor and second floor balcony.

27Regarding the test of desirability for the appropriate development or use of the land, he explained that the addition would provide additional living space for the provision of a multiplex residential dwellings; it is close to amenities and transit and will provide for housing variety in the neighbourhood.

Evidence of Mr. Ryan Sankar

28Mr. Sankar has been qualified previously at the TLAB and the former Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to provide evidence with respect to transportation engineering and transportation planning matters. He is a licensed engineer under the Professional Engineers of Ontario and a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers with experience in functional design of site vehicular systems, parking and loading facilities. Given his over 14 years of experience, having been previously qualified by TLAB, and there being no objection from counsel and the Parties present, Mr. Sankar was qualified to provide expert evidence in Transportation Planning and Engineering in opposition to the proposed garage access and door width.

29Mr. Sankar provided different ingress and egress scenarios in his modelling with respect to vehicle manoeuvre from the proposed garage structure for 74 Hazelton Avenue noting that even with a smaller vehicle being used for the analysis he undertook, multiple corrections would be required both in entering from the driveway easement from 76 Hazelton Avenue and in exiting from the proposed garage, for 74 Hazelton Avenue, to access the same driveway.

30In order to mitigate the number of corrections and limit the impact of those corrections that would need to take place on the neighbouring property’s portion of that easement, he recommended that a wider garage door should be introduced for the garage if it was approved. He explained that when a wider door was introduced in his modelling, fewer corrections and less manoeuvring were required.

31Mr. Sankar opined that based on his modelling a wider garage door of 16 feet should be provided as it was more desirable in terms of entry and exit and would lessen the impact on the portion of the shared driveway that was within the property of 76 Hazelton Avenue.

Evidence of Ms. Rachelle Larocque

32Ms. Larocque has previously appeared before the TLAB and other tribunals providing expert evidence in Land Use Planning. In addition to her over 18 years of professional planning experience, and there being no objection from the other counsel, she was qualified to provide expert evidence in Land Use Planning.

33In the review of the revised variances sought, Ms. Larocque questioned the removal of the FSI variance based on the proposals intention to be a multi-unit residential building and therefore exempt, noting she did not think the proposed building would be used as a multi-unit residential building. Furthermore, she was of the opinion that even though the height variance was removed by zoning examiner, it would still be required.

34Although she had considered both a geographical and immediate study area for her analysis and for previous approvals of variances in the neighbourhood, she noted that the immediate study area was more important with respect to the variance being sought. This was especially due to the type of built form in the immediate context that would be more applicable to the proposal. Her immediate study area was on either side of Hazelton Avenue between Webster Avenue and Scollard Street.

35Ms. Larocque indicated that in reviewing the proposed building depth of 25.63m depth relating to the first and second storey and the third storey addition depth of 20.47m, they generally exceeded previously approved depth variances in the neighbourhood. She further explained that compared to the third storey depth of 76 Hazelton Avenue at 17.8m, the proposal exceeds that depth by 2.67m and would impact their access to light and privacy.

36She further indicated that in her analysis of depths and rear yard patterns, the building depths were generally consistent on many of the rear elevations found on 87 through 107 Hazelton Avenue. She noted that in her analysis of third storey additions, where extended beyond the neighbouring property, they were generally found on the north side of building, not impacting south side.

37Ms. Larocque opined that the proposal did not meet the Official Plan policy requirements as outlined in policies 2.3.1, 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 with regard to respecting and reinforcing the physical character of the neighbourhood. The proposed addition does not respect and reflect the physical character or pattern in the immediate context, which include depths for first and second storeys for semi-detached dwellings that are typically smaller. She explained that 78 and 80 Hazelton were the only others not consistent and that those properties have a greater depth.

38Ms. Laroque noted that because the side of the additions would be visible from the street they would require a heritage permit.

39The increase in depth would have an adverse impact in terms of shadowing on all of the decks at the rear of 76 Hazelton Avenue. She explained that the depth variance approved (25.63m) for 76 Hazelton Avenue in the past included the first and second floor overhangs that are not enclosed. Meanwhile the first and second storey of the proposal are enclosed and will impact view, airflows, and light.

40Of greater concern to Ms. Larocque was that the third-floor addition of the proposal would not only be 2.67m deeper than that of 76 Hazelton Avenue but would also include a window that would look northward into their deck amenity area. This would result in a loss of privacy, views and light given the addition was to the south.

41Ms. Larocque pointed out that the reduction in rear yard landscaping due to the addition and the proposed garage did not meet the general intent of the ZBL and was not desirable for the development and use of the land because it will impact water drainage, amenity space, and allow for a garage structure whose two-storey height and massing are not appropriate.

42Ms. Larocque explained that the proposal and the variances sought were not minor in nature because the building depth and additions requested are greater than others in immediate context of the neighbourhood. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the immediate neighbours in terms of light and privacy.

43She concluded that the application did not meet the four tests, but should the variances be approved conditions with respect to shadowing, third floor depth, garage cladding and use of permeable pavers, amongst other conditions, be included to mitigate the proposal impact on their neighbour at 76 Hazelton Avenue.

Testimony of Mr. T. Phillips - Party

44Mr. Phillips was concerned that the proposal would not only impact him as the neighbour but that it would also have an impact on the neighbourhood.

45He questioned the accuracy of the shadow study because it was the same shadow study that had been provided for the earlier version of the proposal and he was concerned about how 76 Hazelton Avenue appeared augmented.

46His biggest concern with the proposal was that the neighbour did not consult with neighbours. Mr. Phillips recounted that when he had renovated 76 Hazelton Avenue and included additions and a third storey extension, he consulted the applicant and made adjustments to his proposal at the time to make it more acceptable to his neighbour. His third storey depth was adjusted to line up with the existing depth of the pergola on the third-floor deck of 74 Hazelton Avenue.

47Mr. Phillips also indicated that the proposed garage was two storeys in height and that it would be greater in height and massing to his garage.

Statement of Mr. P. Elia - Participant

48Mr. Elia provided a statement indicating that he was concerned with the proposal and its impact on 76 Hazelton Avenue. He noted that in fairness that the third storey addition should line up with the third storey addition wall of 76 Hazelton Avenue.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

49In my assessment of the proposal, I generally find that it is acceptable with necessary conditions in order to truly meet the four tests of s 45(1). of the Planning Act.

50Heritage concerns were raised during the Hearing with respect to the proposed addition’s side elevation being exposed to public view, and according to Ms. Larocque should require a heritage permit in order to proceed. During cross-examination Ms. Larocque was brought to the HCD requirements for alteration of elevations facing the street. It was her opinion that whether it was facing the street or visible because of the adjacent parking lot, a permit should be required.

51This is a generous interpretation given that 74 Hazelton Avenue is not a corner lot but an internal lot that is exposed to view because of a parking lot to the south. Given that Heritage Preservation Services has not commented on the proposal and that all the alterations occur at the rear of the building elevation and property, and none are proposed at the front facing onto Hazelton Avenue, I am satisfied that the proposal meets heritage expectations.

52Both of the land use planning expert witnesses agreed that the immediate context including both sides of Hazelton Avenue was the more relevant geographical study area with respect to the proposal, however, the extent of Ms. Larocque’s study area considered a smaller portion than Mr. Benczkowski’s. I preferred Mr. Benczkowski’s outline of Hazelton Avenue as it continues to include residential dwellings north of Webster Avenue.

53I do not find that Ms. Larocque’s assessment of the building depth variance not being in keeping with other approvals for depth variance, in the immediate context, to be quite accurate as there were numerous approvals as outlined in both her and in Mr. Benczkowski’s analysis of previous COA approvals. With respect to building depth variances, it appears from Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence shows that depth variances are very common for Hazelton Avenue properties, with 14 properties having approved depth variances of 20.0m or more. In particular, at least 5 of these 14 properties were approved with similar or greater depths than the proposal’s, ranging from 24.86m to 29.97m. This included 76 Hazelton Avenue, approved at COA with a depth of 25.63m; only slightly less than that of the proposal and at a greater depth 28.09m (97 Hazelton) and 29.97m (80 Hazelton), 2.28m and 4.16m, respectively.

54It was established during the Hearing that the depth variance for 74 Hazelton Avenue of 25.81m was close to the 25.63m depth for 76 Hazelton Avenue. In addition, the way that the massing is deployed on the property, with the exception of the third floor depth, is complementary to its immediate neighbour. Given this condition, and the limited impact it will have on other properties, I find the variance to be appropriate and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. However, as noted, this depth cannot be considered appropriate as applied to the third floor depth of the proposal.

55Where I do agree with Ms. Larocque is that the proposed depth of 20.47m, 2.67m further than the third floor of 76 Hazelton Avenue, to be problematic. I am aware that there are numerous examples in case law and previous TLAB decisions, including my own, that speak to the reasonable expectation that within an urban area there will be some impact in the form of views, shadowing and privacy. In this case, the third floor extension is 2.67m deeper that the neighbouring wall. During Mr. Phillips testimony he indicated that when they were deciding on the third storey addition depth for 76 Hazelton Avenue they had adjusted the depth as to not be any deeper than the pergola location on the existing third storey for 74 Hazelton Avenue. Mr. Phillips expressed his concern that the applicant had not taken the concerns of their neighbours into account.

56In this particular context, with respect to this particular property, the proposal being a residential dwelling attached to its neighbour to the north, and the substantial extension beyond the depth of the immediate neighbours, I find that this can constitute an undue adverse impact. The very close proximity of the two attached neighbouring dwellings, with proposed decks and balconies within tight urban fabric makes the third floor addition depth overbearing and an undue adverse impact in this context. Given this impact, a condition will be introduced restricting the third-floor depth to 17.8m matching that of 76 Hazelton Avenue.

Figure Illustrating the location of the 74 Hazelton Avenue pergola next to an image of the potential impact of the proposed third storey addition

57In addition to the impact on 76 Hazelton Avenue, a pull back of the third floor will also lessen its impact in terms of scale and massing, especially as it relates to exposed views from the parking lot area to the south and its fit to the northern property.

58With respect to building height the proposed height to the third storey is 11.55m which is almost identical to the height of 76 Hazelton Avenue at 11.53m. As per the depth variances there are numerous approvals that exceed the 7.0m permitted height with 12 proposals exceeding 10.0m in height. For these reasons the height variance proposed is supportable.

59During the cross-examination of Mr. Benczkowski, it was indicated that the side elevation of the proposed addition did not appear to reflect the 2% slope indicated on the roof plan. There was some suggestion that this was problematic. From the perspective of the TLAB the expectation is that should a proposal be approved, a condition would be added indicating that the building addition be constructed substantially in accordance with the architectural plans approved. In this instance the roof plan would also be included as part of the condition.

60There was a lot of discussion regarding the shadow impacts of the addition on 74 Hazelton Avenue to the rear and third floor deck and the accuracy of the shadow study. Both Ms. Larocque and Mr. Gossen contended that the shadow study presented at the hearing was based on the previous variances with respect to height and not the variances sought at TLAB and were therefore inaccurate. Given that Mr. Benczkowski spoke to the shadow study but did not prepare them, and those who did prepare were not present at the hearing to confirm how they were prepared, they were not relied upon in my analysis of the shadow impact of the addition. Having said that, the shadow study of the existing condition illustrated that the third storey of 76 Hazelton Avenue shadowed a good portion of its own rear deck and most likely the proposal’s third storey addition would add some additional shadowing, but it would not be substantially more than that of the existing condition.

61With respect to the landscaping variance, it was agreed to during the Hearing through Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence and during the cross-examination of Ms. Larocque, that soft landscaping was limited or did not exist because of the driveway access along the rear of both 74 and 76 Hazelton Avenue. This condition was also noted as existing on other properties along Hazelton Avenue. Both expert witnesses agreed that the inclusion of permeable pavers would be preferred to alleviate potential drainage and allow for infiltration.

62The variances for ancillary building FSI, coverage, and height are all related to the proposed garage. Although a concern had been expressed about the height of the garage by Ms. Larocque and Mr. Phillips, they both agreed under cross-examination that the height proposed was almost identical to that of the garage on 76 Hazelton Avenue. I find that these variances, as related to the proposed garage ancillary building, are supportable.

63Mr. Sankar provided evidence with respect to modelling the manoeuvring and corrections that would be required with the proposed garage building with a 12-foot wide door. Although, as counsel for the applicant noted, a variance was not required for this, there is an issue of potential adverse impact to the neighbouring property and the limiting of corrections in the part of the right-of-way easement located at 76 Hazelton Avenue. For this reason, a condition will be applied to ensure a 16-foot garage door is introduced to help mitigate the number of corrections.

64During the cross-examination of Mr. Benczkowski by the counsel for ABC Residents Association, Mr. Biggart, it was suggested that the neighbourhood in Yorkville Triangle requires a more restrictive zoning to maintain the physical character and stability. Mr. Benczkowski agreed but was of the opinion there was nothing in the variances sought, focusing on the addition at the rear of the property, that destabilizes the physical character of the neighbourhood or the Hazelton Avenue streetscape. I agree with his assessment and do not find that proposed variances will destabilize the neighbourhood or compromise this streetscape as a result of the variances sought.

65Conditions with respect to the use of translucent glazing at the first and second floor northwest corners, the provision of permeable pavers in the rear between the dwelling and the garage, and the restriction that there be no habitable residential unit in the garage will all be applied.

66The proposed variances have been justified through this hearing process on the basis of a circumscribed application of the requested variances.

CONCLUSION

67For all the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal variances, building depth, building height, platform setback, soft landscaping, and ancillary building lot coverage, height and floor space, with conditions, are supportable with limitations on the deployment of the depth variance for the third floor. The proposed variances (subject to conditions), both individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, are desirable for the development of the land and are minor in nature.

68I find that the changes to the variances sought for the application, which were previously considered by the COA, are numerical and corrected by the August 1, 2024, Examiners’ Notice. The correction of the figures for some of the variances, or their omission, were not a result of changes to the proposed building plans and elevations, which have remained the same. The variance corrections or omissions do not alter the proposal before the TLAB in a materially substantive way as to require recirculation of the architectural plans. Therefore, I find that no further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

CONDITIONS

69The variances have been required and justified for only certain areas, or sections, of the proposal and approval of the variances should not constitute an unfettered increase in permissions for height, building depth etc. The TLAB’s standard condition tying the approval to a set of drawings will be imposed to ensure that the proposal is constructed as described and justified in these proceedings, and under the conditions which will be imposed on the approvals.

70Variances will therefore be approved on condition that the building be constructed substantially in accordance with revised drawings which are required to be submitted to the TLAB by this Order.

DECISION AND ORDER

The Applicant is directed to provide a revised set of drawings containing the following amendments (and which will contain no other changes) to the TLAB within two months of the issuance of this Decision and Order. They shall include the following:

a. the third-floor plan and a depth that does not exceed 17.8m in depth measured from the front wall, and generally in line with the depth of the 76 Hazelton, third floor;

b. opaque glazing of windows at the northwest corner of the first and second floor;

c. the site plan indicating permeable pavers at the rear yard;

d. note indicating that the garage shall not include a habitable residential dwelling; and

e. the revision of the garage plans and elevation to illustrate and dimension the revised garage door width to 16 feet.

71Failing receipt of a revised set of drawings within two months of this Decision and Order will result in refusal of all variances.

J. Tassiopoulos

Panel Member