Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2026-02-11
25 226502 S53 03 TLAB
25 226521 S45 03 TLAB
25 226529 S45 03 TLAB
Flo Developments Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 391
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
February 11, 2026
Revised Date: February 24, 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):
FLO DEVELOPMENTS INC
Applicant(s):
ON THE POINT DESIGN
Property Address:
212 ALDERBRAE AVE.
COA File No.:
25 132202 WET 03 CO (B0012/25EYK)
25 132225 WET 03 MV (A0131/25EYK)
25 132240 WET 03 MV (A0132/25EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 226502 S53 03 TLAB
25 226521 S45 03 TLAB
25 226529 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
February 03, 2026
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member T. KEZWER
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
FLO DEVELOPMENTS INC
M.CARA
Participant
A. SOTULA
Participant
K. KITAGAWA-FROESE
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This decision was originally issued on February 11, 2026. The decision is now being re-issued pursuant to rule 30.1 of the Toronto Local Appeal Body’s Rules of Practice and Procedure which allows for the correction of technical or typographical errors in a Decision or order. There are two corrections made to this reissued decision. Paragraph 13 (paragraph 12 in the original decision) contains the requested variances, and for Part 2, Variance 4, the reference to the proposed platform has been corrected so that it refers to the south side lot line. In addition, paragraph 57 (originally paragraph 56 in the original decision) outlines the conditions of approval for the variances, and the reference to Part 2, condition 4 a) has been corrected to read Part 2. All other aspects of the originally issued decision remain the same.
2This is an appeal from three decisions of the Etobicoke York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment denying a consent application, and two minor variance applications for the property located at 212 Alderbrae Avenue (the “Subject Property”). The Appellant seeks to sever an existing parcel and to build a detached duplex dwelling on each parcel.
3The appeal is being allowed, subject to the conditions outlined below.
4Prior to the hearing I visited the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.
5The Subject Property is located on the west side of Alderbrae Avenue, immediately south of Valermo Drive and north of Remilton Avenue. Browns Line is to the west, and Horner Avenue is to the south. The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan, and is zoned Residential Multiple, or more particularly, RM (u4) (x18).
6Four exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing:
a. Exhibit 1: Expert Witness Statement of Mr. Romano – Part 1, received by the Tribunal on January 2, 2026
b. Exhibit 2: Expert Witness Statement of Mr. Romano – Part 2, received by the Tribunal on January 2, 2026
c. Exhibit 3: Participant Witness Statement of Ms. Kitagawa-Froese, received by the Tribunal on December 25, 2025
d. Exhibit 4: Participant Witness Statement of Ms. Sotula, received by the Tribunal on January 2, 2026
7I will now review the legal framework guiding this matter.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
8Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
9Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
10Consent – S. 53
The Tribunal 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).
11The proposed severance is shown in the following Draft R Plan.
Exhibit 2, Page 19: Survey – Draft R Plan
12Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering an application for variances from a Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application meets all four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
13The requested variances are as follows:
212 ALDERBRAE AVENUE (PART 1) VARIANCE(S)
- Section 900.6.10.(18)(B), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required lot frontage is 12m.
The lot frontage for the detached houseplex is 7.62m.
- Section 900.6.10.(18)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required lot area is 465m2.
The lot area for the detached houseplex is 278.75m2.
- Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2m.
The proposed detached houseplex is located 0.6m from the north side lot line and 0.9m
from the south side lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013
A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3m from a building with a floor
no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into
the required front yard setback 2.5m if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required
side yard setback 1.2m.
The proposed platform will encroach 0.91m into the required front yard setback and is
located 0.6m from the north side lot line.
212 ALDERBRAE AVENUE (PART 2) VARIANCE(S)
- Section 900.6.10.(18)(B), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required lot frontage is 12m.
The lot frontage for the detached houseplex is 7.62m.
- Section 900.6.10.(18)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required lot area is 465m2.
The lot area for the detached houseplex is 278.75m2.
- Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2m.
The proposed detached houseplex will be located 0.9m from the north side lot line and
0.6m from the south side lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(A)(i), By-law No. 569-2013
A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3m from a building with a floor
no higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into
the required front yard setback 2.5m if it is no closer to a side lot line than the required
side yard setback 1.2m.
The proposed platform will encroach 0.91m into the required front yard setback and is
located 0.6m from the south side lot line.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Mr. Romano
14Franco D. Romano was qualified as a planning expert to give his planning opinion on the matter before the Tribunal. Mr. Romano has extensive experience as a land use planner, having been the founding Principal of Action Planning Consultants since 1998. Mr. Romano worked as a land use planner for several municipalities prior to founding his land use planning consulting firm. Mr. Romano is a Registered Professional Planner.
15Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the proposed severance does not require a plan of subdivision and meets the various consent criteria outlined in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act. In addition, Mr. Romano opined that the proposed variances for parts 1 and 2 meet the four tests for a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Mr. Romano also provided his opinion that the proposal achieves matters of provincial interest and is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement.
16Regarding the applicable Official Plan policies, Mr. Romano provided his opinion that since the proposal calls for the creation of two duplexes, Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (“SASP 826”) applies, and Policy 4.1.5 is not applicable. SASP 826 applies to multiplexes in Neighbourhoods, including duplexes. SASP 826 asserts that “Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiples are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies: …” Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the Policy 4.1.5 development criteria do not apply to the proposal. These development criteria may assist in describing the existing physical character. I agree with Mr. Romano that the development policies outlined in Policy 4.1.5 do not apply to the proposal before the Tribunal, and that the applicable policies are found in SASP 826.
Ms. Kitagawa-Froese
17Ms. Kitagawa-Froese is an immediate neighbour to the Subject Property, and she is opposed to the proposal before the Tribunal. Ms. Kitagawa-Froese does not have a professional planning background. Ms. Kitagawa-Froese raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on the character and integrity of the neighbourhood, and stated that the proposed severance fails the applicable planning test, and that the proposed variances fail all four tests for a minor variance. Ms. Kitagawa-Froese focused on Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, asserting that the proposal does not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood. In addition, Ms. Kitagawa-Froese took the position that per Policy 4.1.5, it is the immediate context which is most important, and that there are no duplexes currently on the block within the immediate context. In addition, Ms. Kitagawa-Froese stated that Mr. Romano’s examples in his testimony focused on properties that were not in the immediate context.
18In terms of the impact of the proposal on her property, Ms. Kitagawa-Froese asserted that the proposed side yard setback is close to her house and the proposal calls for building near her furnace exhaust and gas meter. Ms. Kitagawa-Froese wants to be able to access these pieces of equipment easily and clearly. In addition, Ms. Kitagawa-Froese is concerned about privacy as the proposal calls for a new large dwelling which will impede on her privacy, and her backyard will not be as private as it currently is. Ms. Kitagawa-Froese also stated that the proposal is dense if four new families are living on the Subject Property, which only currently houses a single-family dwelling. Ms. Kitagawa-Froese also noted that there is an underground water source which creates flooding in her backyard and that she wants green planting to ensure that there is sufficient absorption of water and does not want additional hard landscaping.
Ms. Sotula
19Ms. Sotula is a neighbour to the Subject Property and she provided a written participant witness statement (Exhibit 4). In Ms. Sotula’s statement, she indicated that she was relying upon her written submissions only and did not intend to provide oral evidence or to attend the hearing.
20Ms. Sotula is opposed to the proposal , and believes that the proposed severance and construction of two duplex dwellings represents overdevelopment of the Subject Property and is incompatible with the prevailing character and built form of Alderbrae Avenue. Ms. Sotula indicated that the proposed lot frontage and lot area for each severed parcel results in a built form that is out of scale with surrounding single-family dwellings. Ms. Sotula also raised issues with the proposed reduced side yard setbacks and increase in residential units on a narrow local street, including potential parking pressure.
Case Law
21Mr. Cara presented a Tribunal case that is relevant to the matter before the Tribunal. The case involved the severance and two minor variance applications for 158 Alderbrae Avenue, which is on the west side of Alderbrae Avenue, in the block immediately to the south of the Subject Property. The north boundary of this block is Rimilton Avenue, which is the south boundary of the block containing the Subject Property. The south boundary of the block containing 158 Alderbrae Avenue is Horner Avenue. The Tribunal decision was issued on March 19, 2019, and it involves three TLAB case file numbers, being: 18 228977 S53 06 TLAB, 18 228980 S45 06 TLAB, and 18 228982 S45 06 TLAB.
22The Tribunal approved the severance of the existing lot, which had a lot frontage of 15.24 metres and an area of 556.24 (or 557.48) square metres, into two lots, each with a frontage of 7.62 m and lot area of 278.7 sq. m. These dimensions are virtually identical to the proposal before the Tribunal.
23Policy 4.1.5 was the applicable development plan criteria for the proposal. The Tribunal noted that “While similar reinvestment and regeneration in the neighbourhood study area and beyond has been occurring, it has not affected the stability of the neighbourhood. The proposed dwellings here would be taller than the existing, but the obvious variety in building types nearby would accommodate such a change.” The Tribunal further found that “Even if OPA 320 did apply, I find that the proposal should be evaluated including the nearby streets as well as the subject one. There is a great variety of lot sizes and building types there, and so this is a characteristic of the this [sic] neighbourhood for OP purposes. I find the “neighbourhood” here to be much larger than the immediate block.”
24The Tribunal also held that “Here, what exists on the ground is often below the By-law standards. Thus the existing context here does not reflect the planned context. The real test of a non- complying application is “capable of co-existing in harmony”. I find that the proposed severance and detached dwellings meet this test in this context.”
25I find this case to be relevant to the proposal before the Tribunal, as it involves the creation of two lots of almost identical dimensions in the block immediately to the south of the Subject Property.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Geographic Neighbourhood per Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan
26Even though Policy 4.1.5 is not the applicable policy for the proposal before the Tribunal, Mr. Romano delineated the following geographic neighbourhood.
Exhibit 2, Page 2: Geographic Study Area
27I agree with Mr. Romano that the geographic study area is useful in this case. There are 924 properties within the geographic study area. The geographic study area generally includes properties on the west side Lunness Road to the west, properties on the north and south side of Lanor Ave to the north, properties on the east side of Delta Street to the east, and properties north of Horner Avenue to the north.
28I accept the geographic neighbourhood outlined by Mr. Romano, and find that it meets the various criteria outlined in Policy 4.1.5, including: zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features.
Provincial Interest
29Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest to which the Tribunal shall have regard.
30Mr. Romano opined that various matters of provincial interest are supported by the subject proposal, including: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, (p) the appropriate location of growth and development, (q) the promotion of transit supportive development, and (r) the promotion of well-designed built form. I agree with Mr. Romano that various matters of provincial interest are supported by the subject proposal, including the matters of provincial interest which he has cited.
2024 Provincial Planning Statement
31Mr. Romano opined that the proposal is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (the “2024 PPS”). Mr. Romano cited the proposal as being consistent with the following 2024 PPS policies: 2.1 Planning for People and Homes, 2.2 Housing, 2.3.1 General Policies for Settlement Areas, 2.4.3 Frequent Transit Corridors. I do not believe it is necessary to review the cited policies in detail in this decision as the 2024 PPS is general in nature and provides the framework within which the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate. I accept that the proposal is consistent with the 2024 PPS.
Section 45(1) Test for Minor Variances
Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
32Mr. Romano provided his opinion that Chapter 1 describes the overarching “planning priorities, vision and principles to guide Toronto’s growth and development to 2051.” Chapter 1 was replaced in its entirety on April 18, 2024. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that other chapters of the official plan have not yet entirely caught up to this update. I find that the focus in Chapter 1 on distributing opportunities for new housing supply in all neighbourhoods and to ensure that they include a mix of housing types and affordability is met by the current proposal.
33Chapter 2 of the Official Plan focuses on the urban structure in shaping the City. I find that the proposal meets various Policies contained in Chapter 2, including the Policy 2.1 direction to focus growth to make better use of existing infrastructure and services, including transit accessibility.
34Chapter 3 of the Official plan focuses on public realm, built form, housing and natural environment policies for all forms of development. Some of the relevant policies which Mr. Romano opined the proposal meets include: Policy 3.1.3.1. the provides for development to be located and organized to fit within its existing and planned context, the relevant portions of Policy 3.1.3.4 dealing with the driveway, and Policy 3.2.2 dealing with the replenishment of the housing stock. I agree with Mr. Romano that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the applicable Chapter 3 policies of the Official Plan.
35Despite the development policies in Policy 4.1.5 not applying, Mr. Romano did provide his opinion that the proposal meets these development criteria. I accept Mr. Romano’s opinion in this regard, and find that even though Policy 4.1.5 does not apply to the proposal, the various development criteria are met. To be clear, I have considered the various Policy 4.1.5 development criteria, however, I will not be reviewing them in detail.
36Mr. Romano also conducted an analysis of the SASP 826 test:
Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies:
a) For the purposes of this Site and Area Specific Policy, a "multiplex" refers to a duplex, triplex, or fourplex.
The proposal calls for the creation of two detached duplexes.
b) Development of multiplexes:
i. will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:
a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;
Mr. Romano provided his opinion that there is an existing mixture of grid and modified grid streets which create rectangular and irregular shaped blocks. In Mr. Romano’s opinion, there is no change to the existing patterns and that the proposal confirms to this part of the Official Plan.
b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;
The prevailing lot size for the Neighbourhood and along Alderbrae Avenue is modest. Mr. Romano provided a Decision Summary Table with a description of development activity that has resulted in new lots of a similar lot size to the proposal in the geographic neighbourhood which is found at Exhibit 2, page 40. This includes the creation of dozens of lots with similar frontages and lot areas.
The prevailing lot configuration is rectangular and irregular-shaped rectangles. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal is consistent with the prevailing lot size and configuration, occurring substantially and fitting in well with the existing lot fabric.
c) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;
Building street setbacks undulate and are not identical, providing a fairly
consistent street wall. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal maintains a setback to the street that aligns well with neighbouring buildings.
No variance is required for the proposed front yard setback.
d) maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard setbacks that is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy;
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal exceeds the Zoning By-law landscaping requirements and conforms to the Official Plan. The proposal is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy.
e) conserving heritage properties and heritage conservation districts; and
f) special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood;
There are no heritage properties, heritage conservation districts, special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood that are affected.
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal contributes to existing environment in a manner that is consistent with, and complementary to, the existing and planned context.
ii. is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit that contains multiple bedrooms;
Both of the proposed dwellings contain a four bedroom unit (234.46m2), and a one bedroom unit (69.78m2). Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal satisfies the large unit and multiple bedroom matters described in this aspect.
iii. will provide entrances that are safely accessible from the street, which may be located at the front, side or rear of the building;
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that each unit has independent entrances that are accessible from the outside.
iv. should not result in the injury or removal of a healthy tree protected under Municipal Code Chapters 608, 658, and 813 on the subject property and adjacent properties;
The proposal does not involve injury or removal of regulated trees. The proposal affects trees in a manner that is consistent with as-of-right development, including permitted construction areas.
v. is encouraged to salvage and/or reuse existing building materials and/or foundations;
Mr. Romano stated that the proposal is for new construction, with modern materials which are energy efficient.
vi. is encouraged to provide green roof areas, solar panels, and low carbon building materials, and to ensure any parking spaces are designed to permit future electric vehicle supply equipment;
Mr. Romano stated that the architect advised that the roof design can accommodate solar panels. The new dwellings are being constructed with energy efficient materials and designed to permit future electric vehicle supply equipment.
vii. will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units;
The side windows are located at the basement level bedroom, first floor living/dining and for two second floor bedrooms. The windows are placed within permitted building length, depth and height areas. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal minimizes privacy impact between adjacent dwelling units.
viii. will integrate with existing grades at the property line; and
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal maintains existing grades at the property line, and that it appropriately integrate the grades at the property line.
x. is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a multiplex.
Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the proposal will result in the ability to plant a new tree in the rear yard of Part 1. The Part 2 lot has a large tree in the rear yard which may not make that part a suitable candidate for a new rear yard native tree planting. Mr. Romano provided that this aspect can be confirmed with Urban Forestry staff through the permit process, as appropriate. The proposal also provides the city with Urban Forestry’s requested funds for boulevard tree planting. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the site layout provides for space in the front and rear yards to accommodate additional vegetation.
37I agree with Mr. Romano’s opinions regarding the SASP 826 criteria outlined above. I find that the proposal meets the requirements of SASP 826. By way of overall conclusion, I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?
38The Subject Property is zoned RM-multiple residential zone, under the City Zoning By-law 569-2013.
39The overall general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is to achieve orderly, compatible development. Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the Zoning By-law provides flexibility for houseplexes to facilitate them within the residential zone. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal accommodates new detached residential housing in a houseplex - or more precisely, duplex - form consisting of a built form that is located within largely by-law compliant site layout, height, mass, density, scale and location.
40Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposed lot frontage and/or lot area variances meet the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to achieve appropriately sized lots within the Subject Property’s physical context. Mr. Romano’s further opinion is that the proposed lot sizes fit in well with the surrounding lot sizes, including comparable lots that exist and have been created through lot severance.
41I agree with Mr. Romano and note that the aforementioned Decision Summary Table which is found at Exhibit 2, page 40, contains examples of development activity within the geographic study area that have resulted in numerous new lots of a similar lot size and frontage to the proposal.
42Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposed side yard setbacks maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to provide suitable space for access, maintenance and spatial separation. Mr. Romano’s opinion is also that the setbacks reflect the setbacks in the surrounding area.
43Mr. Romano also provided his opinion that the platform (front porch) side yard setback maintains the additional general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law to achieve a subordinate attachment to the dwelling.
44I agree with Mr. Romano and find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
45Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and that it appropriately implements the existing planning framework at the provincial and city levels.
46I agree and find that the proposal will contribute to the existing housing supply in a compatible manner. In addition, the proposal will increase the housing choices for the area, including rental housing supply that is being accommodated through the houseplex design that maintains a detached residential physical form.
47I find that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
Are the variances minor?
48Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the proposed residential buildings are organized to be aligned with neighbouring dwellings, and are Zoning By-law compliant with various matters such as: building length, building depth, building height, pedestrian entrance height, front and rear yard setbacks and landscaping. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the resulting development generates similar impacts to an as-of-right development, creating no unacceptable adverse impacts.
49Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the determination of minor is not based on a mathematical calculation. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal fits with the surrounding area and the general physical patterns and is compatible with the surrounding area.
50Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the proposal will maintain an appropriate low rise, low scale physical form of development that reflects zoning by-law compliant standards, and variances that reflect development that exists within the surrounding area. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts resulting from the proposal.
51I agree, and find that the proposal meets this stage of the minor variance test.
Consent Request Subsection 51(24) Criteria
52Mr. Romano provided his opinion that a plan of subdivision is not necessary to facilitate the severance proposal or for the proper and orderly development of the Subject Property.
53Section 51(24) of the Planning Act lists various criteria to consider for the severance of land. Mr. Romano reviewed these criteria and provided his opinion that the proposal has appropriate regard for them. These criteria are as follows:
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal suitably addresses matters of provincial interest. I agree, and I have provided various reasons why throughout the various areas of this decision.
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest
Mr. Romano stated that both his opinion and the City review process have demonstrated that the Subject Property has available services and is located within an area that contains residential services and facilities to accommodate the residential development. The proposal is within the public interest to provide increased housing supply. I agree.
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any
I find that the proposed severance conforms to the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision. The reasoning applied for the finding that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan can also be applied here.
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided
The Subject Property has maintained a residential land use which continues to be suitable.
Mr. Romano provided his opinion that the Subject Property is physically suitable for the proposed residential development. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposed site design reflects an appropriate development form which is reflected in the Subject Property’s surroundings. I agree.
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing
There are no proposal implications in this regard.
(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
The Subject Property has appropriate road access. Mr. Romano noted that the City’s review confirmed that there are no road or access concerns.
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots
Mr. Romano opined that the proposal provides lot dimensions and shapes that contribute to the existing lot fabric appropriately. I agree, and have discussed my findings with regard to the lot frontage previously in the context of the proposed variances.
(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
Mr. Romano provided his opinion that there are no restrictions or impediments on the Subject Property or on adjoining land which affect the proposed residential development. I agree with this opinion, as I have found that the proposed variances meet the four tests outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
In addition, Mr. Romano opined that the proposal substantially aligns with the planned context, being largely zoning by-law compliant. In Mr. Romano’s opinion, the proposed site layout and built form appropriately implement the existing framework.
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control
Mr. Romano noted that the proposal is not located within a natural heritage area. Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposal provides appropriate and conventional landscaping and grading. The City has not raised any concerns with this item.
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that municipal services and utilities are adequate. I agree that the existing lot is fully serviced and there is no evidence to suggest that services and utilities would not be available for the newly created lot.
(j) the adequacy of school sites
There are no identified proposal implications in this regard.
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes
No conveyances for public purposes have been identified through the city review process.
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
Mr. Romano’s opinion is that the proposed site layout and built form provide an efficient land utilization and will utilize modern materials which optimize energy.
(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.
The proposed development within this area of the city is not subject to site plan control. There are no proposal implications in this regard.
54In conclusion I find that the proposed severance meets the necessary criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.
CONCLUSION
55By way of overall conclusion, I find that the severance proposal meets the necessary criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act. I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. In addition, I find that the proposed variances for Parts 1 and 2 individually and cumulatively meet the four tests for a variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
56The Tribunal has considered the provisions of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The Tribunal, therefore, consents to the creation of new lots as shown on the plan filed with the Tribunal or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, the condition that before a Certificate of Consent is issued, as required by subsection 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:
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 6.
Municipal numbers for the subject lots 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The applicant shall retain a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O 1990 as amended) to carry out a Stage 1- 2 archaeological assessment of the entire development property and follow through on recommendations to mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. The assessment is to be completed in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.
Should the archaeological assessment process continue beyond a Stage 1-2 assessment, any recommendations for Stage 3 - 4 mitigation strategies must be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning prior to commencement of the site mitigation.
The consultant archaeologist shall submit a copy of the relevant assessment report(s) to the Heritage Planning Unit in both hard copy format and as an Acrobat PDF file. All archaeological assessment reports will be submitted to the City of Toronto for approval concurrent with their submission to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.
No demolition, construction, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the City’s Planning Division (Heritage Planning Unit) and the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Archaeology Programs Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.
Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.
57The appeals with respect to the minor variance applications for Parts 1 and 2 are allowed on the following conditions:
Part 1, 212 Alderbrae Avenue
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.
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 sites involved in the application. The current Street Tree Planting Payment is $583 per tree.
The owner shall submit the revised site plans to illustrate the followings to the satisfaction of the Development Engineering:
a) The site plan to illustrate a positive slope of a minimum 2% to a maximum 4% that will be maintained on each of the proposed driveways, as measured between the proposed garage door entrance to the curb line of the street.
b) All proposed curb cuts must be clearly illustrated on the site plan.
c) Illustrate the existing and proposed grades along the property boundary.
d) The service connections (service type) must be clearly labeled. Include a note on the drawings stating that all service connections will be constructed in accordance with the latest City standards.
- The proposed detached houseplex shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by On The Point Design dated 2025-08-20:
a) Part 1:
Site Plan Drawing A100
East Elevation Drawing A105
South Elevation Drawing A106
West Elevation Drawing A107
North Elevation Drawing A108
Part 2, 212 Alderbrae Avenue
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.
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 sites involved in the application. The current Street Tree Planting Payment is $583 per tree.
The owner shall submit the revised site plans to illustrate the followings to the satisfaction of the Development Engineering:
a) The site plan to illustrate a positive slope of a minimum 2% to a maximum 4% that will be maintained on each of the proposed driveways, as measured between the proposed garage door entrance to the curb line of the street.
b) All proposed curb cuts must be clearly illustrated on the site plan.
c) Illustrate the existing and proposed grades along the property boundary.
d) The service connections (service type) must be clearly labeled. Include a note on the drawings stating that all service connections will be constructed in accordance with the latest City standards.
- The proposed detached houseplex shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by On The Point Design dated 2025-08-20:
a) Part 2:
Site Plan Drawing A100
East Elevation Drawing A105
South Elevation Drawing A106
West Elevation Drawing A107
North Elevation Drawing A108
T. Kezwer
Panel Member