Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 26, 2026
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Owner/Appellant: C. DENG
Applicant: THE PLANNING AGENCY INC
Property Address: 6 KIRKNEWTON ROAD
COA File No.: 25 198145 STE 09 MV (A0554/25TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 25 232898 S45 09 TLAB
Hearing Date: 02/12/2026
Decision Delivered By: Y. HERSCHER
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
TYPE Appellant Party Participant
NAME C. DENG E. CANOA C. CHERUBINO
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE I. FLETT
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by Chuyue Deng (appellant) of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment’s refusal of an application for five variances from the City’s comprehensive zoning by-Law 569-2013 for the property municipally known as 6 Kirknewton Road.
2The purpose of the application is to permit the owner/appellant, Chuyue Deng, to construct a new two-storey ancillary building (containing one garden suite) in the rear yard of the lot. The property was previously granted approval for a three-storey detached dwelling (fourplex) in the minor variance decision A1079/24TEY of the Committee of Adjustment. If the application at hand is approved, there will be a total of five residential dwelling units on this lot (four units within the main dwelling and one unit within the ancillary building).
3The subject property is designated “Neighbourhoods” in the City of Toronto official plan and is zoned Residential Multiple Zone (RM) in city-wide zoning by-law 569-2013.
4The application before the Committee of Adjustment sought five variances from the City of Toronto’s harmonized zoning by-law 569-2013:
Chapter 150.7.50.10(1), By-law 569-2013 A minimum of 50% (67.49m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building on the lot and the rear lot line must be maintained as soft landscaping. In this case, 37.08% (50.05m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.
Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013 No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the front lot line, beginning from a height of 4m from the required rear yard setback. The ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane, towards the front (east) lot line.
Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013 No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the opposite side lot line, beginning from a height of 4m from the required side yard setback. The ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane, towards the side (north) lot line.
Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013 No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the opposite side lot line, beginning from a height of 4m from the required side yard setback. The ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane, towards the side (south) lot line.
Chapter 150.7.60.40(1), By-law 569-2013 The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 6m if the ancillary building is located a minimum 7.5m or more from the residential building on the same lot. The ancillary building containing a garden suite will have a height of 6.3m and will be located 7.5m from the residential building on the same lot.
5The Committee of Adjustment refused the application on September 10, 2025. The Appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment’s refusal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).
6The TLAB issued a Notice of Hearing and the appeal was heard by me, sitting as the TLAB panel Chair, on February 12, 2026.
7There were two parties in attendance at the hearing: the appellant, represented by legal counsel Ian Flett, and Elizabeth Canoa as the resident immediately adjacent to the subject property. Connie Cherubino, another local resident, appeared as a participant at the hearing.
8I advised those present at the hearing that 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 the evidence.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
9Provincial Interest - Section 2 of the Planning Act
A decision of the TLAB shall have regard to matters of provincial interest, as enumerated in clauses 2 (a) through (s) of the Planning Act.
10Provincial Plans and Policy Statements – Section 3 of the Planning Act
A decision of the TLAB must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024.
11Variance – Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act
In considering an application for variance from the zoning by-law, the TLAB must be satisfied that an application meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variance,
is minor,
is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land,
maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan, and
maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIAN CHAN
12Christian Chan was proffered as an expert witness on behalf of the Appellant. I accepted Mr. Chan’s qualifications as an expert in land use planning. His evidence is described below. Eight exhibits were marked:
Exhibit 1A – Curriculum Vitae of Christian Chan
Exhibit 1B – Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty (Form 6) of Christian Chan
Exhibit 2 – Committee of Adjustment minor variance decision A1079/24TEY for approval of a three-storey detached dwelling (fourplex) on the subject property
Exhibit 3 – Committee of Adjustment application (file no. A0554/25TEY) for proposed two-storey ancillary building (garden suite) on the subject property
Exhibit 4 – Excerpts from the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024
Exhibit 5 – Zoning for Major Transit Station Areas (draft), dated January 27, 2026
Exhibit 6 – Expert Witness Statement (Form 14) of Christian Chan
Exhibit 7 – Appellant’s Document Disclosure
Exhibit 8 – Proposed conditions to the requested approval of the minor variances
Description of the Property
13The subject property is located on the west side of Kirknewton Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West and west of Dufferin Street. The subject property generally descends in elevation about 2m from the frontage (from the east to the west). The rear yard is approximately 1.65m - 2m lower than the grade of the subject property at the front yard.
14The subject property has a frontage of 7.62m, a lot depth of 40.13m, and a lot area of 307.79m2. The site was previously developed with a one-storey bungalow with a parking pad on a front yard that was comprised almost entirely of hard landscaping.
15Kirknewton Road is classified by the city’s Road Classification System as a Local Road and connects to Eglinton Avenue West and has access to Dufferin Street via Dynevor Road and Rowan Avenue to the east.
16Mr. Chan’s evidence was that the geographic neighbourhood is bounded by Eglinton Avenue West to the north, Dufferin Street to the east, Dynevor Road and Branstone Road to the south, and the properties on Branstone Road to the west. The neighbourhood is generally characterized by residential lots of 7.62m (25ft) frontages, consistency of lot depths and rectangular lot shapes.
Description of the Proposal
17The proposal is for a two-storey (6.3m above average grade), three-bedroom garden suite with a gross floor area of 102.95m2. The proposed garden suite has compliant side yard setbacks, rear yard setback, and separation distance from the fourplex.
18The proposed garden suite seeks approval of variances related to soft landscaping, rear and side angular planes, and height. Because of recent changes to the zoning by-law and development standards related to garden suites, described below, if the application for the garden suite were made today, the proposed garden suite would require only one variance, for rear yard soft landscaping. In other words, no variances are needed to address the rear and side angular planes or height.
19At the time of the Committee of Adjustment application, the garden suite’s height of 6.3m was non-compliant with the permitted maximum height at 6m at a distance of 7.5m from the principal building. Due to the recent zoning by-law amendments, the plans and elevation of the garden suite are now in line with the maximum height permitted in the zoning by-law.
20The elevation drawings for the proposed garden suite included north and south side angular planes beginning at a height of 5m on the north and south main walls, and variances were requested at the time of application due to non-compliance. However, due to the recent zoning by-law changes that eliminated the requirement for angular planes, an application submitted today for a 2-storey garden suite would not require any relief from front, side and rear angular planes.
21The one variance that would still be required if the application were to be approved, even under the new development standards, is the reduction of soft landscaping for the rear yard to 37.08% (50.05m2) from the required minimum of 50% (67.49m²).
22The evidence of the expert witness was that the proposal has regard for the matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, those being:
2(p) appropriate location for growth and development within a zone classification that permits up to seven residential units on a lot
2(q) promotion of development that is designed to support public transit as located within the Fairbank Major Transit Station Area
2(r)(i) promotion of a built form that implements a height that complies with the maximum height permitted in the zoning by-law
23With respect to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), Mr. Chan’s evidence was that the proposed garden suite increases the range and mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents. The garden suite supports the achievement of complete communities by accommodating an increased range and mix of land uses. The garden suite is representative of residential intensification of a new housing option within a previously developed area, resulting in a net increase in residential units. The proposed garden suite is located in a major transit station area, which is defined as a strategic growth area in the PPS.
24In Mr. Chan’s opinion, the proposal is consistent with relevant PPS policies: 2.1.4 a), 2.1.6 a), 2.2.1 b), c), d), 2.3.1.1; 2.3.1.2 a) - d), 2.3.1.3, 2.4.2.2 a), b) and 2.4.2.3 a).
Official Plan
25The site is designated as “Neighbourhoods” in Toronto’s official plan. Neighbourhoods are made up of residential uses in lower scale buildings such as detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes and townhouses, as well as walk-up apartments that are no higher than four storeys. Parks, low scale local institutions, home occupations, cultural and recreational facilities and small-scale retail, service and office uses are also provided for in Neighbourhoods.
26In February 2022, Toronto city council adopted official plan amendment (OPA) 554 which amended Chapter 7 of the official plan by the addition of Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) 670. SASP 670 permits garden suites on all lands designated as Neighbourhoods and includes new policies for the development of garden suites.
27The subject property is also subject to Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) 826, which permits multiplexes of up to four storeys in this area. Approval has already been granted on this property for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new three-storey, four-unit multiplex (fourplex).
28Two blocks east of the site is Dufferin Street which is a Major Road and is classified as a Transit Priority Segment under Map 5 (Enhanced Surface Transit Network) of the official plan. TTC bus routes are along Eglinton Avenue and Dufferin Street, providing 24-hour bus and express bus route services.
29The subject property is within the Fairbank TTC Line 5 MTSA and subject to the policies of OPA 540, as approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in August 2025. MTSAs are described in Policy 2.4.2 of the PPS as areas within an approximate 500-800 metre radius of a transit station and representing a 10-minute walk.
30The relevant policies of the official plan are those that relate to the development of garden suites in Neighbourhoods as found in Chapter 2.3.1 of the official plan and SASP 670 and the housing policies in Chapter 3.2.1.
31The official plan provides that development in Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes, and open space patterns, and recognizes that neighbourhoods are stable but not static.
32Policy 2.3.1.1 states that Neighbourhoods are “low rise and low-density residential areas that are considered to be physically stable. Development in Neighbourhoods will be consistent with this objective and will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas.”
33Policy 3.2.1.3 provides for new rental housing that is encouraged through a range of strategies. These strategies would include allowing garden suites in Neighbourhoods and incentives such as the Laneway and Garden Suite Development Charges Deferral Program.
34In Mr. Chan’s opinion, the proposal meets the intent of the relevant SASP 670 policies. The proposed garden suite is subordinate to the primary dwelling and is a self-contained residential unit, meets fire and emergency service requirements having a minimum 1m width walkway from the front lot line, limits privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties by implementing opaque privacy screening on all rear-facing second storey windows, maintains the majority of the rear yard as open space (including hard and soft landscaping elements), maintains stormwater management on site by providing soft landscaping, permeable walkways and appropriate drainage in the sunken patio areas for the fourplex’s lower level unit, expands the urban tree canopy through the planting of two new trees in the rear yard, and the location and massing and design of the garden suite preserves existing trees.
Zoning
35In Mr. Chan’s expert opinion, the proposal maintains the general intent of city-wide zoning by-law 569-2013, as described below. The subject property and immediate area are within the Residential Multiple RM Zone.
36Zoning by-law amendment 849-2025, passed in July 2025, amends zoning by-law 569-2013 to update performance standards for garden suites, in order to align with new less restrictive provincial standards in O. Reg. 462/24.
Soft Landscaping
37With respect to rear yard soft landscaping, zoning by-law 569-2013 requires that a minimum of 50% (67.49m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building on the lot and the rear lot line must be maintained as soft landscaping. In the proposal, 37.08% (50.05m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping. The intent of regulating the rear yard soft landscaping area is to allow for sufficient open space and green space and to assist with on-site stormwater management.
38Mr. Chan testified that all of the walkways are intended to be constructed of permeable paving, which helps to ensure that stormwater is managed and permeable into the ground of the rear yard. 14.54m2 of permeable pathways are proposed, which also assist with stormwater management.
39The proposed rear yard soft landscaping is reduced below the minimum 50% soft landscaping because the hard landscaping in the rear yard is designed to minimum walkway widths for accessibility requirements to the sunken patio for the rear entrance to the lower-level multiplex unit. This sunken patio will include a wheel-chair elevator, enabling the lower-level multiplex unit to be wheelchair accessible. The sunken patio occupies 10.58m2 in the rear yard area and has on-site stormwater drainage.
40The calculation of soft landscaping is also reduced by the areas underneath the rear fire escape for the multiplex building. The 6.37m2 area underneath the rear fire escape is composed of soft landscaping, but is generally not included in zoning calculations as soft landscaping because it is assumed that exterior stairs are impermeable structures.
41The rear exit stairs are proposed to be made of metal grating, and will allow 100% of rainfall to pass through it into the soft landscaping areas below the exterior fire exit stairs. In addition, the residual soft landscaping areas are proposed with planting for two new trees in the rear yard which enhance groundwater absorption.
42The total area of the rear yard which is designed to address matters related to stormwater management in terms of groundwater absorption and drainage comprises 81.54m2 or 60.41%.
43The total amount of open space in the rear yard (both hard and soft landscaping) is 75.6m2 or 56%. This is calculated by subtracting the garden suite coverage (53m2) and the rear exit stairs (6.37m2) from the total area of the rear yard (134.97m2).
44In Mr. Chan’s opinion, the proposed rear yard landscaping maintains the majority of the rear yard as open space and the intent of the rear soft landscaping standard is maintained, in that the actual rear yard area that will contribute towards stormwater management is above the minimum required 50% rear yard soft landscaping.
Rear Angular Plane
45The intent of the angular plane requirement is to limit the second storey massing of a garden suite on adjacent properties – however this standard has since been deleted from Chapter 150.7 of the zoning by-law.
46A rear angular plane is no longer required for garden suites. At the time of the Committee of Adjustment application, the zoning by-law required that no part of a garden suite penetrate 45-degree angular planes on all four sides of the building. The city amended its requirements for angular planes in response to the enactment of O. Reg. 462/24 which applied to some but not all garden suites. Toronto expanded the removal of the 45-degree angular plane requirements to all garden suites, not just those specified in O. Reg 462/24.
47The garden suite is proposed with no rear angular plane, which complies with the modified development standards currently in force under by-law 849-2025. By-law 849-2025 provides that the massing of a garden suite at a setback of 1.5m from the rear lot line if there are no openings at and above 4m height. If there are openings, then the required rear setback is 3m.
48The intent of an increased rear setback of 3m for a garden suite with openings above 4m height is to reduce impacts related to privacy and overlook to adjacent neighbouring properties from upper-storey windows in proximity to a rear lot line, and to other potential garden suites facing each other.
49The proposal provides that opaque privacy screening is intended to be installed on the rear-facing second-storey windows (according to the site plan) in an effort to address and mitigate impacts of overlook on the adjacent rear yards and buildings.
Side Angular Planes
50The garden suite could be proposed with no side angular planes, with main walls heights of 6.3m. The current design would comply with the modified development standards under by-law 849-2025 that no longer require side angular planes for a garden suite of more than 4m height. As stated above, the city has directed that 45-degree angular plane requirements no longer apply to garden suites
51Although side angular planes are no longer required, the proposal includes 45-degree side angular planes beginning at a height of 5m on the north and south side main walls. The side angular planes were intended to reduce the impact of the garden suite’s massing on the abutting north and south properties.
Height
52By-law 849-2025 now permits garden suites of up to 6.3m height above average grade. The garden suite is proposed with a height of 6.3m, in line with the amended height permissions in Chapter 150.7 if a garden suite is separated by a distance of 7.5m or more from the main building.
Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land
53According to Mr. Chan’s evidence, the proposed garden suite will provide an additional residential unit in a compact built form in the neighbourhood and on Kirknewton Road, and will add to the city’s “missing middle” rental housing stock.
54He also testified that it is desirable to add additional rental dwelling units in an area that is well supported by transit. The garden suite is intended as purpose-built rental housing and is designed as a family-sized unit, which adds housing options to the neighbourhood. A garden suite is ground-related, low-rise, and subordinate to the main building.
Is the Variance Minor?
55Mr. Chan stated that “Minor” is not simply an assessment of the numerical variance; it is also one of impact rises to the level of undue adverse impact of a planning nature. Cumulative impacts as well as individual impacts are considered.
56In Mr. Chan’s opinion, the impact to the function of soft landscaping which provides for open space, green space and soil volume area for the growth of trees, and groundwater and stormwater management is minor in impact.
57The total area that will provide for groundwater absorption in the form of soft landscaping is 37.08% (grassed areas) plus soft landscaping underneath the rear exit stair for additional water infiltration. This is further supported by 10.77% (14.54m2) of permeable pathways which will assist in groundwater absorption. Two trees are proposed in the rear yard which will also contribute to groundwater retention and reduce the impact of stormwater into the city’s sewer system.
58The landscaping variance does not result in adverse impacts and maintains the functional intent of the by-law: the rear yard remains substantially landscaped and permeable, and the reduction is tied to accessibility, which is itself a public policy objective.
59Pursuant to zoning by-law 849-2025, a garden suite’s built form no longer requires front, rear and side angular planes, and therefore a two-storey garden suite could be proposed without considering the impact (as there would be no variances for angular planes) in an as-of right 2-storey 6.3m tall garden suite.
60If implemented as proposed in the site plan, the front and side angular planes reduce the impact of the garden suite to a less impactful building envelope than what can be currently built under zoning by-law 849-2025. The form of the garden suite as presented would not require any relief from angular plane provisions in the modified zoning by-law.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE OF ELIZABETH CANOA
61Ms. Canoa resides at 8 Kirknewton Road, immediately adjacent to the subject property. She submitted a witness statement and testified regarding her concerns about the proposal.
62Her evidence was that massing on the subject lot, in addition to the already approved fourplex, with the requested garden suite erodes green space, creates shadowing, reduces privacy and does not fit in the character of existing neighbouring homes. The combination of the fourplex and two-storey garden suite represents over-intensification.
63Ms. Canoa compared the construction of a fourplex and garden suite at 33 Kirknewton Road, which appeared to her very similar to the proposal at hand. She testified that at 33 Kirknewton Road there is an absence of green space and insufficient allocation of space in the rear yard for numerous waste receptacles and large air conditioning units. She was concerned that the same issues would arise on the subject property. Ms. Canoa suggested that the mechanical units be placed in an area on the subject property less intrusive to the neighbouring properties, given their size and the noise emitted, such as the roof.
64Ms. Canoa’s evidence was that the reduction in the rear yard soft landscaping from 50% to 37%, given that the fourplex had already received landscaping variances for the front yard, will affect the lot’s permeability.
65Ms. Canoa testified that the subject lot sits at a higher grade than the neighbouring properties to the south and west. The proposed two-storey garden suite will negatively affect privacy and sunlight access of nearby residents, with direct sightlines into neighbouring homes and backyards and will create a wall-like effect for neighbours to the south and west. She was hopeful that the angular planes would be implemented as shown in the site plan and not minimized.
66Ms. Canoa indicated that the city’s land use planning process is somewhat overwhelming for a layperson. She acknowledged that part of the distress experienced by her in relation to the subject proposal was because of the significant and ongoing changes to the city’s zoning and development framework.
67In conclusion, it was Ms. Canoa’s evidence that the requested variances are neither minor or desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE OF CONNIE CHERUBINO
68Ms. Cherubino resides at 20 Kirknewton Road and submitted a witness statement and testified in opposition to the proposed severances. Ms. Cherubino indicated that her concerns related primarily to fire hazards and insufficient space between the fourplex currently under construction on the subject property and the proposed garden suite.
69Ms. Cherubino also compared the subject property to the completed development at 33 Kirknewton Road. Similar to Ms. Canao’s concerns, Ms. Cherubino testified that at 33 Kirknewton Road there is an absence of green space and insufficient allocation of space in the rear yard for the numerous waste receptacles and large air conditioning units. She was concerned that similar issues would arise on the subject property.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
70The TLAB must determine whether the proposed variances are consistent with Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and whether they have regard for the provincial interests in section 2 of Planning Act. The onus is also on the appellant to put forth evidence to prove that the proposed variances meet all four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variance,
is minor,
is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land,
maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan, and
maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.
71I accept the evidence of the expert planner that the application has regard to matters of provincial interest as stated in section 2 of the Planning Act and is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. A general direction of the PPS is to encourage intensification at appropriate locations that can take advantage of existing services and infrastructure.
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
72The subject lands are designated as “Neighbourhoods” in the City of Toronto official plan. Based on the evidence of the expert planner, the TLAB finds that the proposal conforms to the land use policies of the official plan, including the policies in sections 2.3.1 and 3.1.3. Chapter 2.3 of the official plan states that neighbourhoods are considered to be physically stable areas but not static.
73Mr. Chan also referred the tribunal to SASP 670 of the official plan, which is specifically aimed at encouraging the development of garden suites as a means of increasing housing options in the city. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant’s proposal is consistent with many of the applicable policies found within SASP 670.
74The official plan policy aimed at maximizing soft landscaping is a consideration that must be weighed along with the policies in the official plan that encourage infill housing and gentle intensification through the development of garden suites. The official plan is to be read as a cohesive whole. The proposal aligns with the intent of the official plan to increase housing options through gentle intensification.
75I find that the proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the official plan.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
76Toronto zoning by-law 569-2013 zones the subject property as “Residential”, permitting the approved fourplex building and proposed garden suite. Five variances to the zoning by-law have been submitted to facilitate the garden suite.
77The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, which implements the city’s official plan, is to permit and regulate the construction of garden suites to provide more housing options on existing lots in the city.
78The proposed rear yard landscaping maintains the majority of the rear yard as open space and the intent of the rear soft landscaping standard is maintained. Stormwater will be managed through permeable pavers and the addition of two new trees, which will result in more than the minimum required 50% soft landscaping.
79The TLAB has reviewed the applicable provisions of the zoning by-law in the context of the proposal for the subject property and finds that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.
Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land
80In term of whether the proposed development is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, I agree with the expert evidence of Mr. Chan that the proposed variances are appropriate for the development of the land, given that the proposal is consistent with the official plan, represents a good fit within the existing and planning context, will create additional housing, and supports gentle intensification advanced by the garden suite official plan and zoning by-law amendments. It is proposed within a delineated MTSA, where intensification is directed to occur in strategic growth areas pursuant to the PPS 2024.
81The proposed garden suite can be adequately and appropriately accommodated on the subject property in such a way that reinforces the existing physical form along Kirknewton Road. Considering the neighbourhood and broader area around the subject property, the TLAB finds that the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the property.
82While the concerns raised by the local residents are reasonable and valid in terms of the massing, density and lack of parking related to the proposed garden suite, the current objective of city council is to allow, nay encourage, the construction of garden suites across the city in an effort to increase housing options. Development and building standards applicable to garden suites have been relaxed by the city and development charges related to garden suite proposals associated with multiplexes have been deferred.
83The city’s policy documents support garden suites as representing a new form of rental housing, multigenerational housing, and an option for aging-in-place, for current and future residents of Toronto. Garden suites are a component of the city’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) initiative to plan, permit, and facilitate more low-rise housing in residential neighbourhoods.
84As a consequence, the concerns articulated by local residents must be weighed against the clear policy direction of city council. If the same application that is before the TLAB were to be submitted to the Committee of Adjustment today, only one variance would be required, to the rear yard soft landscaping. Four of the five variances sought (height and angular planes) would be allowed as-of-right given the new city standards.
85While the TLAB has before it and must decide on all the variances based upon when the application was submitted, in light of the city’s revised performance standards, it could be argued that with respect to the tests mandated by the Planning Act, it is practical and reasonable to make that assessment only for the variance related to the rear yard soft landscaping.
Is the Variance Minor?
86The basis for assessing whether or not a proposed variance is minor is not just one of impact. The determination as to whether a proposed variance is minor is if the actual effects of the variance do not rise to a level of undue adverse impacts of a land use planning nature on the surroundings.
87I find that the variances sought are minor in nature and will not introduce significant adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and the immediate context and are minor in nature and in impact.
DECISION AND ORDER
88I am satisfied that the proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest. Therefore, I find that the application for the five variances requested, individually and cumulatively, has regard for the matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS and satisfies the four tests set out in subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. I authorize the variances, subject to the conditions contained herein.
89The TLAB orders that the appeal of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is allowed and that the following variances to the zoning by-law are authorized, subject to the conditions described below:
Chapter 150.7.50.10(1), By-law 569-2013 Whereas the requirement is that a minimum of 50% (67.49m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building on the lot and the rear lot line be maintained as soft landscaping, in this case 37.08% (50.05m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.
Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(ii), By-law 569-2013 Whereas no part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the front lot line, beginning from a height of 4m from the required rear yard setback, the proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane, towards the front (east) lot line.
Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013 Whereas no part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the opposite side lot line, beginning from a height of 4m from the required side yard setback, the proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane, towards the side (north) lot line.
Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(iii), By-law 569-2013 Whereas no part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45 degree angular plane projected towards the opposite side lot line, beginning from a height of 4m from the required side yard setback, the proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane, towards the side (south) lot line.
Chapter 150.7.60.40(1), By-law 569-2013 Whereas the maximum permitted height of an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 6m if the ancillary building is located a minimum 7.5m or more from the residential building on the same lot, the proposed ancillary building containing a garden suite will have a height of 6.3m and will be located 7.5m from the residential building on the same lot.
90The variances to the zoning by-law are authorized, subject to the following conditions:
The proposed garden suite shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Proposed Site Plan for 6 Kirknewton Road, prepared by Modcity Construction Ltd. and Lucid Homes Inc., Project 2024-074, and submitted as part of the document disclosure for the Committee of Adjustment and dated 09/09/2025.
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/tree.
Trees shall be planted on the subject property as shown on Site Plan Diagram SP01 as shown in the Proposed Site Plan for 6 Kirknewton Road, prepared by Modcity Construction Ltd. and Lucid Homes Inc., Project 2024-074 (submitted as part of the document disclosure for the Committee of Adjustment), dated 09/09/2025.
All walkways on the subject property, whether new or replacement walkways, shall be constructed of permeable interlocking pavers (PICP or equivalent).
The area located underneath the rear exterior stairs of the 3-storey main building on the subject property shall be constructed of permeable interlocking pavers (PICP or equivalent).
Y. Herscher Panel Member