Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
25 218829 S53 20 TLAB 25 218833 S45 20 TLAB 25 218835 S45 20 TLAB
Paul (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 398
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 2, 2026
PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) and subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant(s): N. G. PAUL
Applicant(s): SOL-ARCH
Property Address: 60 HUNTINGTON AVE
COA File No.: 24 254842 ESC 20 CO (B0003/25SC) 24 254849 ESC 20 MV (A0005/25SC) 24 254856 ESC 20 MV (A0006/25SC)
TLAB Case File No.: 25 218829 S53 20 TLAB 25 218833 S45 20 TLAB 25 218835 S45 20 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): Friday, January 30, 2026
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member B. Mullock
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type APPELLANT PARTY
First Initial. Last Name N. G. PAUL E. LEE
Representative M. MAZIERSKI J. LEE
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of applications for the property located at 60 Huntington Ave (subject property).
2The application for consent to sever was considered by COA in conjunction with two associated applications for variances, one for each of the proposed resulting residential lots. COA denied all three applications at its hearing on August 13, 2025.
3A single detached structure comprising a one storey dwelling currently exists on the property.
4The purpose of the applications is to sever the property, resulting in two lots, and to construct two new, three storey detached dwellings, each one containing four dwelling units.
5Each dwelling would contain two units with 3-bedrooms and two units with 2 bedrooms.
6The list of variances requested for each of Parts 1 and 2, is as follows:
Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 464 m². The new lot area will be 383.22 m².
Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 12 m. The new lot will have a frontage of 9.14 m.
Chapter 200.5.1.10.(2)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013 A parking space must have minimum required dimensions of 3.2 m in width The new parking space will have a width of 2.7 m.
7The subject property is located in the former municipality of Scarborough. The property is situated on the west side of Huntington Avenue and is zoned RD. It is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan.
8The next-door neighbour at 58 Huntington Ave is a party, whose representative appeared in opposition to the appeal.
9I advised those present at the Hearing that, in accordance with Council direction, I had attended at the site and the surrounding area, and that I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their evidence.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
[10] Provincial 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.
11Provincial Policy – S. 3
12A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
13Consent – S. 53
14TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
15Variance – 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
16I have reviewed all of the evidence and testimony related to this matter. The following summary of evidence is included to provide context for the Decision. If any point of evidence appears to have been omitted in this summary, its omission should not be taken to mean that such evidence was not considered. It indicates, rather, that I determined the recitation of such evidence was not material to my reasoning, which is outlined in the Issues and Analysis section.
17The tribunal qualified Jonathan Benczkowski, who holds the MCIP and RPP designations, to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning, his area of expertise.
18During direct examination, Mr. Benczkowski reviewed the appeal in the light of the Planning Act, the Official Plan (OP), the Zoning By-law (ZBL), as well as the variance tests for “minor” and “desirable” and SASP 826. He gave evidence on the detail of the proposal.
19It was the expert witness’ opinion that the application merits approval. It implements the City’s changing policy with respect to four plexes, he opined. In his view, TLAB should allow the appeal and approve the consent and the variances as proposed.
20He asserted that all the materials submitted had been prepared under his supervision. He made reference to the chart-summarized detail included in his Expert Witness Statement.
21The expert witness noted that the appeal application differs from the plans which were considered by COA. The two associated variance applications have both been revised by the Appellant for the appeal to TLAB. In each case, he noted, the number of variances now sought is reduced. Garden suites are not proposed, he noted.
22In the expert witness’ opinion, the variances which the City objected to have been removed, with respect to the built form of the two proposed four plexes.
23Mr. Benczkowski gave evidence that the subject lot, as it exists today, stands out as being unusually wide. In his view, its width does not represent the prevailing form in the neighbourhood. The prevailing form is narrower, in his view. The subject site is substantially wider than most other properties in the geographic area, he asserted.
24The expert witness gave evidence that four plexes are permitted as of right on RD, residentially-zoned properties, which the subject site is.
25Multiplex height is limited to 10 m, he noted, but this proposal actually asks less. It seeks only 9 m. He also noted that multiplex length is limited to 19M, but this proposal asks only 17 m.
26Mr. Benczkowski opined that, in view of these compliant factors, the proposal represents only modest intensification of development and avoids adverse impacts.
27The witness gave evidence that the owner had agreed to eliminate the wall height variances, contained in the previous proposal, at his recommendation.
28Further, he gave evidence, the third floor had been recessed 1.4 m on the front elevation, moving it in and back from the curb, in order to reduce its visual impact from the street.
29Mr. Benczkowski asserted that the proposed massing of the two four plexes is compliant with the Zoning By-law. He noted that proposed wall height, coverage and side yard set backs are entirely permitted by the ZBL. In view of these facts, he opined, no undue adverse impacts would be created.
30The witness opined that the existing lot configuration with its 18.28 m frontage, represents underutilization of the site. By his calculation, were this unusually wide, large lot to be retained and developed with a single dwelling, that dwelling could be built at 7800 SF as of right. Such a large dwelling, while compliant, would not be representative of the geographic neighbourhood, he opined.
31He opined that the lot configuration now proposed, encompassing two new lots at 9.14 m frontage each, would be more representative of the geographic neighbourhood than is the 18.28 m frontage existing lot.
32Mr. Benczkowski asserted his opinion that City Council is encouraging more housing options. Multiplexes, he gave evidence, are planned for neighbourhoods and that this proposal is in line with that planned context.
33Mr. Benczkowski asserted his opinion, that itshould be noted that community planning had not issued a staff report. Neither, he noted, had Engineering and Construction Services voiced objection to the proposal.
34The witness gave evidence with respect to Urban Forestry’s Memorandum dated May 21, 2025. It, he explained, requested refusal of the application, citing concern that the proposed dwelling on Part 2 of the severance would require the removal of healthy trees.
35The witness noted that, beyond its May 21, 2025 Memorandum, Urban Forestry had submitted no further materials or comment to TLAB with respect to the proposal. He said it was understood by the Appellant that Urban Forestry conditions #2 and #3 would apply, were the application to receive approval.
36The witness gave evidence that, in determining the geographic neighbourhood to be studied, he had followed the guideline set out in 4.1.5 of the OP. The resulting neighbourhood study area, he continued, is bounded by:
I. Residential dwellings to the south of Eglinton Avenue East. II. Wolfe Avenue and Danforth Road to the south III. Commonwealth Avenue to the west IV. Falmouth Avenue to the east
37Mr. Benczkowski calculated that only nine lots in the neighbourhood study area are larger than the subject lot. Of those nine lots, he opined, only three are suitable for a Consent Application. The others have irregular shapes or contain existing apartment buildings.
38The witness gave his opinion that the proposal implements the intent of the Official Plan in a way that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. It proposes a range and mix of housing, he asserted, while it helps to create a transit supportive community with its proximity to the Eglinton LRT, a high order transit system.
39The witness opined that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The OP, in his view, does not demand replication, but rather encourages development that is compatible within the proximate area of a site.
40He gave evidence that this proposal is in no way “out of keeping” with the immediate context of the site, as evidenced by the fact that no built form variances are being sought.
41Mr. Benczkowski testified that the proposal would create no undue overlook impacts on the adjacent properties to the north and south. Only washroom windows with high transoms were proposed for the side walls of the dwellings, he noted, while the living area windows exclusively face to the front and rear.
42The witness expressed his opinion that the proposed dwellings offer good street proportions visually. Two-storey is a predominant built form in the neighbourhood area, he noted. Due to the fact that the third floors are recessed 1.4 m, the proposed dwellings will, in his view, present to the street largely as two-storey.
43He opined that the proposal, including the proposed lot areas and frontages, respect and reinforce the physical characteristics of the immediate and broader neighbourhood.
44Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposal is consistent with Official Plan Amendment 649, which made changes to the OP to permit multiplexes in Neighbourhoods. In his opinion, it is also consistent with Site and Area Specific Policy 826, enacted as per OPA 649, which encourages multi-bedroom units.
45In the witness’ view, the proposal delivers the desired additional dwelling units with only a modest increase in intensity of development.
46Mr. Benczkowski gave his opinion that the lot size and configuration proposed actually better respects the neighbourhood, than do the existing size and configuration. He gave evidence that the frontage proposed, 9.14 m, is actually the same frontage as that already existing at 58 Huntington and 56 Huntington, the two properties to the immediate south.
47Referring to his LOT FRONTAGE chart, Mr. Benczkowski gave evidence that the frontages proposed are more representative of the geographic neighbour hood than is the existing frontage. The witness gave evidence that the intent and purpose of the ZBL was also maintained with respect to lot frontage. The proposal does not introduce a frontage dimension which does not already exist in the neighbourhood, he gave evidence. The two properties to the immediate south have the same frontage as that proposed for 60 Huntington Ave, he noted.
48He asserted that the proposed 9.14 m frontages fall into a category representing 5.83% of lots in the geographic area, while by comparison, the existing frontage of 18.29 m is to be found in a category representing fewer lots. This frontage figure category represents 3.89% of lots in the geographic area.
49Similarly, referring to his LOT AREA chart, Mr. Benczkowski gave evidence that the areas proposed are more representative of the geographic neighbourhood than is the existing area.
50He asserted that the proposed 383.22 m2 areas fall into a category representing 8.43% of lots in the geographic area, while by comparison, the existing area of 766.44 m2 lay in a category representing fewer lots. This area category represented 2.53% of lots in the geographic area, in his evidence.
51Mr. Benczkowski gave evidence that SASP 826 provides guidance on the development of Multiplexes, with respect to existing trees. He noted that development,
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;
He opined that the key word in this phrasing is “should”.
52With respect to the Zoning By-law, Mr Benczkowski opined that its intent and purpose were maintained by the proposal. The built form of the proposed dwellings would be substantially by-law compliant, he asserted, adding that no built form variances are sought. He noted that the rear yard setback proposed was longer than required, measuring 15.85 m, where only 13 m is required.
53While the garage parking triggers a variance, he asserted, the space is designed to accommodate a compact car. It will have EV charging. Each of the two proposed properties will accommodate three vehicles on site, he gave evidence. This on-site parking capacity will be available, even though not required by the ZBL, he noted.
54Mr. Benczkowski gave evidence that the proposal meets the test of being minor.
55No variances are sought with respect to height, depth or width, he pointed out. By design, privacy is safeguarded for neighbours, in his view, through window placement. No platforms are proposed, he noted.
56The witness gave evidence that the proposal is desirable. It would implement the planning framework provided by the City, in his opinion, by delivering eight quality family dwelling units at a site close to the LRT.
57Mr. Benczkowsi gave his opinion that for these reasons, the proposal represents good planning and should be approved.
58Ms. Jean Lee, a registered party, spoke in opposition to the proposal on behalf of her parents who live next door at 58 Huntington Ave.
59She gave evidence that this is a stable, low-rise neighbourhood of one and two-storey dwellings. In her opinion, the proposal would represent a significant change to the immediate area. It would adversely impact her parents’ use and enjoyment of their home, by creating overlook, garbage storage and parking problems right next door.
60She opined that the three-storey nature of the two dwellings would alter the character of the immediate area. It was Ms. Lee’s opinion that, being sure to stand out as the tallest buildings, and sitting directly adjacent to her parents’ property, the proposed dwellings would adversely impact her parents’ enjoyment of their property.
61She expressed her concern that overlook issues would arise on her parents’ property, by way of the rear windows of the proposed dwellings.
62Ms. Lee asserted her parents’ concern about potential damage to their 58 Huntington Ave dwelling during construction.
63Ms. Lee opined that street parking would become a problem, if the proposal were to be approved. With eight units in total, there would be a number of cars needing spaces to park. Street parking would be the inevitable result in her view. Fire trucks regularly use Huntington Ave accessing the fire hall which is sited up the street, she noted. Cars parked on the street would now pose a problem, in her view, potentially blocking these emergency vehicles.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Consent to Sever
64I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required, since the application requests a division of one existing lot into two, in a long-established urban neighbourhood with existing municipal services and infrastructure.
65In considering a consent, TLAB must also determine that "regard shall be had" to a number of general and specific criteria, pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
66In considering this case, my focus will be on whether the application demonstrates regard for two applicable listed criteria:
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; and
(f) the dimensions and shapes of existing lots.
67Since the Official Plan contains policy about the dimensions of lots, I have folded consideration of both criteria c) and f) above, into the discussion of the Official Plan.
Official Plan
68Policy 4.1.5 of the OP requires development in established neighbourhoods to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including in particular:
c) prevailing size and configuration of lots; and
g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks
69The three variances requested line up in two categories. Two are specifically consent related, dealing with the sub-standard area and frontage dimensions of the lots proposed by the severance. The other variance relates to the internal parking space inside the garage of each proposed dwelling.
70It should be noted that the variance relating to the parking space becomes of consequence, if and only if, the consent to sever itself is deemed to merit approval. That variance becomes moot if the severance is not approved.
71Each of the two proposed lots would be sub-standard with respect to lot area and lot frontage. I agree with the evidence of Mr. Benczkowski, however, with respect to the existing large lot. It is of sufficiently large dimensions that, were it to be severed as proposed, the frontage and size of the new lots would align well with the prevailing size and configuration of adjacent lots in the immediate context.
72I accept the evidence of Mr. Benczkowsk that, despite the zoning deficiencies in the frontage and size, the proposed lots do respect and reinforce the pattern of lot sizes in the geographic neighbourhood. Other similarly-sized lots are present in the geographic neighbourhood.
73The general intent and purpose of the lot area and frontage provisions in the Zoning By-law, is to prevent overbuilding on a lot. I agree with Mr. Benczkowski that the two proposed multiplex dwellings, situated on the lots proposed, would be compatible with the character of the immediate context. The proposal does not request built-form variances. They would not represent overbuild, in my finding.
74In view of the evidence that the lot sizes and frontages proposed align with nearby lots in the immediate context of Huntington Ave, I agree with the evidence of Mr. Benczkowski that the two four plexes proposed do implement City policy, by providing family-sized units with two and three bedrooms in close proximity to high order transit.
75The proposed lots would be materially consistent with nearby existing lots on Huntington Ave. In my finding, the proposed lots are sensitive to the physical character of the immediate context and the geographic area.
Zoning By-law
76I accept Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence with respect to the importance of the fact that no built form variances are sought. The two multiplex dwellings proposed are compliant with the ZBL with respect to height, width and depth. In my finding, they are not inconsistent with the general scale of the recently-built single dwellings which exist on Huntington Ave.
77I agree with Mr. Benczkowski ‘s evidence that intentional design features incorporated in the proposal, like the recessed third floor and the window placement, help reduce adverse impacts. In my finding, undue adverse impacts are not created.
Minor
78I do not agree with the evidence of Ms. Lee that the proposal would give rise to undue overlook issues impacting her parents’ property. I prefer the evidence of Mr. Benczkowski in this regard. In my finding, the side wall facing Ms. Lee’s parents’ property contains only a bathroom window with a high transom. Decks are often associated with overlook issues. No front or rear decks, however, are proposed for the four plexes.
79Ms. Lee asserted that the proposal, if approved, would represent a significant change for her parents to get used to, right next door. This is understandable. At probable play in the background here, is the fact the public is only gradually becoming aware that the planning context for multiplexes has changed in Toronto, now permitting them in all neighbourhoods.
80I accept the evidence of Mr. Benczkowski , to the effect that the Appellant has made a genuine attempt to exclude various features from the proposal which could give rise to undue adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. This effort is born out, in my finding, by the fact that no decks or setback variances are proposed, while the proposed height is less than that permitted as of right.
Desirable for the Development of the Land
81I accept the evidence of Mr. Benczkowski that SASP 828 does not preclude the removal of healthy trees. Rather, it cautions that effort “should” be made to avoid it.
82This proposal, if approved by TLAB, would still be subject to Urban Forestry review. In my view, drawing from the Arborist’s Report of December 12, 2025, viable options may exist for a combination of some replacement trees planted on site along with some payments made to compensate for the private trees removed. In the light of this potential, I find that the Urban Forestry Memorandum of May 21, 2025 should not, of itself, stand as the basis for refusal of this appeal by TLAB.
83Without, in my view, introducing undue adverse impacts to the immediate context or the geographic neighbourhood, the proposal would deliver 8 large family-style units to the site, contained in two four plexes which are largely Zoning By-law compliant. These would be two and three-bedroom units. They would be located in good proximity to high order transit, the Eglinton LRT.
CONCLUSION
84I find that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
85I find that the requested variances meet 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.
DECISION AND ORDER
86The Appeal is allowed.
87The application for consent to sever is approved, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A, Appendix C and Appendix D.
88The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix B are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.
B. Mullock Panel Member
APPENDIX A
Schedule A: Standard Consent Conditions
The Consent Application is approved on Condition
The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB therefore consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, on the condition that before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 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:
(1) 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.
(2) Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.
APPENDIX B
Approved Variances:
Chapter 10.20.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot area is 464 m². The new lot area will be 383.22 m².
Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013 The minimum required lot frontage is 12 m. The new lot will have a frontage of 9.14 m.
Chapter 200.5.1.10.(2)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013 A parking space must have minimum required dimensions of 3.2 m in width The new parking space will have a width of 2.7 m.
APPENDIX C
This approval is subject to Urban Forestry conditions, as follows:
Condition #2. 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.
Condition #3(x2). Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu o 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.
APPENDIX D
Construction shall be substantially in accordance with the Part 1 and Part 2, Site Plans and Elevations submitted, prepared by Sol-Arch and dated 2024-09-03.