Sedlasek (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 402

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-03-18

23 238684 S45 03 TLAB

Sedlasek (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 402

INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

March 18, 2026

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s):

V. SEDLASEK

Applicant(s):

V. SEDLASEK

Property Address:

29 Lake Promenade

COA File No.:

23 193714 WET 03 MV (A0347/23EYK)

TLAB Case File No.:

23 238684 S45 03 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

February 10, 2025, February 25, 2025, March 24, 2025, April 14, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member B. Gallaugher

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

V. SEDLASEK

I. FLETT

Appellant

V. SEDLASEK

I. FLETT

Party

LONG BRANCH NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION (LBNA)

J. GIBSON

Party

CITY OF TORONTO

U. GAUTAM

Participant

S. PEARSON

Participant

A. CHOLES

Participant

C. MERCADO

Participant

B. NEMOY

Participant

A. HUTKA

Participant

H. TWOMEY

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This appeal is from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, issued December 7, 2023, to refuse an application for twelve variances (see paragraph [12] below) that would bring a proposed house at 29 Lake Promenade into compliance with the Zoning By-law.

2This application has a long history which I will summarize as briefly as possible.

3The applicant had previously made two applications to the COA: in 2017 (approved May 4, 2017) and 2019 (approved October 24, 2019), seeking approval for a new house to be constructed on the site. These applications were made using the "Zoning Waiver" approach, in which the Applicant determined what the necessary variances were, rather than having a City Zoning Examiner review the plans for conformity with the Zoning By-law (ZBL). Under this system, the Applicant acknowledges that the list of necessary variances is not conclusive and may require further applications to the COA before a Building Permit can be issued, if the Plans Examiner discovers additional variances. In both instances the variance applications were approved and a Building Permit was issued for the building permitted by the variances. (In his evidence Mr. Litavski, expert witness for the Applicant, reviewed the May 4, 2017 and October 24, 2019 decisions of the COA.)

4The Applicant then proceeded to demolish the previous dwelling and construct a new building. However, the building was not in accordance with the plans upon which the Building Permit was issued, and not in conformity with the variances that were granted. That non-conforming building is the dwelling that exists today.

5When this non-conformity with the Building Permit was discovered during an inspection, the owner was prosecuted by the City of Toronto and paid a $10,000 penalty. On March 8, 2022, the owner was ordered by the City to comply with the ZBL, necessitating another application to the COA (2023).

6For the COA application heard on December 7, 2023, a list of twelve necessary variances was compiled by the Zoning Examiner on February 23, 2023, from "as-built" drawings provided by the Applicant, purportedly reflecting the actual building that was constructed.

7The Committee of Adjustment considered the twelve variances and issued a decision on December 7, 2023, refusing all of them, as they did not meet any of the four tests of the Planning Act. The Applicant appealed the COA's decision to the TLAB, resulting in the present hearing.

8However, after the COA had issued its December 7, 2023 decision, the Applicant engaged a planning consultant, A. Litavski. He concluded that the "as-built" drawings submitted by the Applicant for Zoning Review did not accurately represent the proposed structure, and therefore the list of variances considered at the December 7, 2023 hearing might not be complete or accurate.

9The Applicant then authorized the creation of a new set of "as-built" drawings, dated April 19, 2024, that would accurately represent the dwelling that was built. These drawings were submitted to the City's Zoning Examiner, resulting in a list of 14 variances needed to bring the building into conformity with the ZBL. That list was issued August 20, 2024 and is reproduced below.

VARIANCES UNDER APPEAL

10The variances requested are as follows:

1. Section 10.20.40.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 9.5 metres.

The proposed height of the building is 9.62 metres.

2. Section 10.5.40.60.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

(A)(i) Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no longer than 1.5 horizontal units for each 1.0 vertical unit above grade at the point where the stairs meet the building or structure.

The proposed front porch stairs are 3 horizontal units for each 1.0 vertical unit above grade at the point where the stairs meet the building or structure.

(A)(ii) Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no wider than 2.0 metres.

The proposed stairs are 2.9 metres wide.

3. Section 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A lot with a residential building, other than an apartment building, must have a

minimum of 50 percent of the rear yard for soft landscaping (183.3 square metres), if the lot frontage is greater than 6.0 metres.

The proposed rear yard landscaping area is 34 percent (123.8 square metres).

4. Section 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a parapet is 0.3 metres above the permitted main wall height.

The proposed height of the parapet is 2.62 metres above the permitted main wall height.

5. Section 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0 metres or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 metres.

The proposed building length is 23.1 metres.

6. Section 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 metres.

The proposed building depth is 23.2 metres.

7. Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.35 times the area of the lot (219.8 square metres).

The proposed floor space index is 1.22 times the area of the lot (764.4 square

metres).

8. Section 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0 square metres.

The proposed area of the rear platform at the second storey is 10.2 square metres.

9. Section 10.20.40.70, By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum front yard setback is 25.1 metres.

The proposed front yard setback is 23.46 metres.

10. Section 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all main walls is 7.0 metres above established grade.

The proposed height of all main walls is 8.6 metres above established grade.

11. Section 10.5.80.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

For a lot with a detached house or a semi-detached house and a minimum required lot frontage is less than 24.0 metres, the maximum combined width of all vehicle entrances through the front main wall of the residential building is 6.0 metres.

The proposed combined width of all vehicle entrances through the front main wall is 7.4 metres.

12. Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 metres where the required minimum lot frontage is 12.0 metres to less than 15.0 metres.

The proposed side yard setback is 0.8 metres to the east side lot line and 0.9 metres to the west side lot line.

13. Section 5.10.40.1.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, if a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, no building or structure may be located on the portion of the lot below that shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank.

The proposed building is partially located on the portion of the lot below the

shoreline hazard limit.

14. Section 5.10.40.70.(6), By-law No. 569-2013

If the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority determines that a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, a building or structure on that lot must be set back a minimum of 10 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank.

The proposed building is set back 0.0 metres from the shoreline hazard limit.

11When an application is amended, subsection 45(18.1) of the Planning Act (Act)

requires written notice of that amendment to be given to those who received notice of the original application. This notice requirement can be waived if the TLAB is of the opinion that the amendment is minor. No objection was raised to the substitution of this set of variances for that considered by the COA. I find the waiver of notice requirements contemplated by subsection 45(18.1.1) of the

Act applies and further notice of the revised Application is not required.

12As noted, the variances are needed to legalize a building that exists. Despite that, my consideration of the variances in relation to the four tests (see below) has been conducted as if the building was not constructed. In other words, the possibility that a confirmation of the Committee of Adjustment's decision could result in the necessity for physical alteration of the building has played no part in my decision.

To reinforce this approach and avoid confusion, I have referred to the building which was constructed as the "proposed" building, and the building it replaced as the "previous" building, even though the "proposed" building is existing.

13Similarly, my decision has not been influenced by any thought of "punishing" the applicant for failing to follow the law and established procedure in the planning and building approval process.

14I have visited the site and its neighbourhood, as required by City Council.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

15Provincial 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.

16Provincial Policy – S. 3

A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.

17Variance – 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

18A summary of evidence is presented here for the purpose of providing context for the subsequent sections of this Decision. All the evidence and testimony in this matter have been carefully reviewed and the omission of any point of evidence in this summary should not be interpreted to mean that it was not fully considered, but rather that the recitation of it is not material to the narrative in the Issues and Analysis section below.

Applicant / Appellant

19The Appellant's solicitor, Mr. I. Flett, introduced three exhibits:

Exhibit 1 - Expert Witness Statement of Adrian Litavski dated August 26, 2024

Exhibit 2 - Document Book of Adrian Litavski dated August 26, 2024

Exhibit 3 – City of Toronto Zoning Examiner's Notice dated August 20, 2024

20Mr. Flett called his Expert Witness, Mr. A. Litavski, to the stand. After a review of his qualifications as a land use planner, I qualified him as an Expert Witness in land use planning and he was affirmed. The other Parties did not contest the witness's qualifications. Mr. Litavski agreed that he is bound by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute's Code of Conduct.

21Mr. Litavski told the TLAB that he was engaged by the Applicant in December 2023. He had not been involved in this case prior to his engagement.

22He indicated that he was confident that the "as-built" drawings that he had commissioned on behalf of the Applicant were accurate and that the list of variances was conclusive. He also said that he could support these variances as being in conformity with the four tests of the Planning Act. He urged the TLAB to approve the variances and overturn the decision of the COA.

23The property is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan (OP) and zoned RD (Residential Detached).

24Mr. Litavski described the area as a mature residential neighbourhood containing mostly detached dwellings. The dwellings display an eclectic mix of ages, designs and appearances, including flat roofs. There have been a number of replacement dwellings built in the area.

25The subject property is on the south side of Lake Promenade and backs directly onto Lake Ontario. The property slopes down from the street to the lake shore, such that the proposed dwelling appears from Lake Promenade to be a two-storey building but reads as a three-storey building at its south end, as the basement is exposed at the rear.

Immediate and Neighbourhood Study Areas

26Mr. Litavski's Neighbourhood Study Area extends from the lake north to Lake Shore Blvd. W. (excluding properties fronting on Lake Shore Blvd. W.) and from 23rd St. in the east to 31st St. in the west, including both sides of 31st St.

27In Mr. Litavski's view the Immediate Study Area included both sides of Lake Promenade from 23rd St. in the east to just west of 31st St. in the west. During cross examination, it was pointed out that the OP defines the Immediate Study Area as both sides of the block that the site is located in. His Immediate Study Area included seven blocks on the north side of Lake Promenade and three blocks on the south side (the actual length of both sides is the same). This seemed appropriate, in his opinion, as Lake Promenade forms a cohesive area from one end to the other. Also, he noted that the OP does not define "block".

28Mr. Litavski said the properties on the south side of Lake Promenade are "special" because they back onto the lake, even though the zoning is the same on both sides of the street.

The Four Tests

29In the next section I have summarized Mr. Litavski's testimony with regards to the four tests of the Planning Act.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (OP)?

30In the Neighbourhoods designation, buildings four stories and less are permitted. Buildings are required to respect and reinforce the existing built form. Neighbourhoods are intended to be stable, but not static, and new housing is encouraged.

31He reviewed OP policies in Chapters 3.1 and 4, especially 4.1.5.

32On cross-examination by the City, Mr. Litavski agreed that the OP directs that new development should reflect the "prevailing" character of the neighbourhood and that "prevailing" means most frequently occurring. But he commented that he looked at all the relevant sections of the OP to determine its general intent and purpose.

33He concluded that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (ZBL)?

34Mr. Litavski grouped the variances into categories when testifying on this test.

35Landscaping – Variance 3 - he said the purpose of the ZBL was to ensure an acceptable level of greenery and infiltration on the property. He is of the opinion that the variance is "modest", especially as it replicates the previous condition

36Vehicle Entrances – Variance 11 - the garage entrances are split into two openings, positioned on either side of the front door, which reduces the visual impact of the garage doors

37Building Envelope – Variances 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 – the purpose of the height of main walls standard is to encourage sloped roofs. He argued that the proposed building does appear from the street as a two-storey building. The immediate and geographical neighbourhoods contain a variety of large homes displaying eclectic building styles.

38Mr. Litavski said there were eight buildings in the geographic area that had variances granted for a height greater than 9.5 m and three of them were on Lake Promenade. He argued the proposed height does not overwhelm the area. The requested variance of 9.62 m would be the smallest variance requested within the study area.

39On cross-examination by Ms. Gibson of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA), Mr. Litavski indicated that the height of the lowest floor was 3.4 m, the middle floor was 3.5 m and the top floor was 2.7 m. He said these could result in above average ceiling heights.

40He said that the proposed side yard setbacks are only marginally smaller (0.1 m) than that approved in the previous COA decisions and are consistent with the neighbouring properties.

41FSI / Density – Variance 7– Density (or FSI) is calculated as the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the building divided by the area of the lot. Mr. Litavski noted that the part of the lot included in the TRCA's Shoreline Hazard area (40%) is excluded when calculating the lot area. The latest version of the TRCA's Shoreline Hazard line cuts through the lot and the proposed dwelling.

In addition, because of the calculation of established grade, the lowest floor (basement) is included in GFA, excluding the two vehicle parking spaces.

If the entire lot area was included the FSI would be 0.73. To clarify, if the proposed building on a lot of the same size was to be constructed on the north side of Lake Promenade, the density calculation would be 0.73.

He said, in his Witness Statement, that "four properties were approved through the variance process above one times the area of the lot, and all of these properties were on the south side of Lake Promenade, illustrating how the TRCA's shoreline hazard limit inflates FSI numbers on these properties".

He goes on to say that "FSI approvals in and around the 0.52 mark are very common within the neighbourhood and [the requested variance] is entirely in keeping with the existing densities approved along Lake Promenade and within the broader neighbourhood."

42On cross-examination by Ms. Gautam, she pointed out that 94% of the properties in the Geographic Study Area have an FSI of 0.35 or less. This represents the prevailing, or most common, condition. Mr. Litavski agreed that it is prevailing, but the test is whether or not the variance meets the intent of the OP and ZBL. Ms. Gautam also pointed out that only six properties have an FSI of 1.22 or higher. Mr. Litavski responded that all six are on the south side of Lake Promenade. This area exhibits special characteristics.

In Mr. Litavski's opinion the density is not out of keeping with the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

43Platforms and Projections - Variances 2 and 8 - Mr. Litavski noted that a portion of the proposed deck (platform) is actually within the building envelope. He said that the projecting balcony at the rear of the building would create an overlook condition on the adjacent properties but argued that the neighbours are in the same situation. In the December 7, 2023 COA hearing the City Planning Division suggested that a condition be imposed requiring screening on the east and west sides of the platform. The Applicant is willing to accept such a condition.

The stair condition at the front of the dwelling is mitigated by the front yard setback.

44Shoreline Hazard Limit – Variances 13 and 14 - the TRCA has submitted a letter indicating that they have no concerns regarding the encroachment of the building into the Shoreline Hazard limit.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

45Mr. Litavski was of the opinion that the proposed building was appropriate and reflected the eclectic nature of the area, which is undergoing renewal. Of special note is the large density number, which is "inflated" by the TRCA Shoreline Hazard line. The overall height variance is minimal (0.12 m).

Are the variances minor?

46Mr. Litavski said that this test is not related to the magnitude of the numbers themselves but rather of impact. He thought that all the variances would have only a minor or no impact on the adjacent neighbours and the neighbourhood.

47Mr. Litavski told the TLAB that, in his expert opinion, all the variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act and the Appeal should be allowed.

Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (LBNCG)

48The LBNCG were approved by City Council in 2018.

49Mr. Litavski reviewed the LBNCG as they apply to the variance application. He noted that the LBNCG cover the totality of Long Branch, a large area. He also said they are "guidelines" without the same force and effect as the ZBL and OP.

50On cross-examination, he agreed that his client did not submit a "performance standard checklist" as suggested by the LBNCG. He did not provide a reason for this omission.

51Mr. Litavski provided a review of the relevant guidelines of the LBNCG and his expert opinion as to how the variances met them, which I have summarized below in point form:

a. 3.2.1 – height - the height of the proposed building is similar to other houses in the neighbourhood

b. 3.2.2 – front wall setback – this condition is improved by the proposed house, which provides a transition between the setbacks of the two neighbouring houses

c. 3.2.3 – building depth - the rear wall is in the same location as the previous building

d. 3.2.4 – ground floor height – no variance is required for the height of the ground floor above established grade. It is not out of keeping with the neighbourhood and is well screened from the street.

e. 3.3.1 – design of roof – the building does have a flat roof whereas neighbouring buildings have sloped roofs. However, there are other flat roofs in the neighbourhood and the roof is well screened from the street

f. 3.3.2 – front entrance design – the entrance design does meet this guideline in that it reinforces the rhythm of the street and the horizontal reference lines.

g. 3.3.3 – windows – the windows do not overwhelm the street

h. 3.3.4 – facade elements and 3.3.5 – materiality - the building exhibits eclectic design elements, as do other buildings in the neighbourhood.

i. 3.4 – driveway and garage – the garage doors are recessed and do not overwhelm the street

j. 3.5.1 – front yard setbacks – the setback is in keeping with others in the neighbourhood and an improvement over the previous house

k. 3.5.2 – front yard landscaping – the front yard contains trees and room for landscaping

l. 3.5.3 – side yard setbacks – the side yard setbacks provide adequate separation from the neighbours. There is no driveway at the side of the house.

m. 3.5.4 – rear yard setbacks – no variance is required for this development standard. The rear wall of the proposed building is the same as that of the previous house.

City of Toronto, in opposition to the Application/Appeal

52The City's solicitor, Ms. U. Gautam, introduced three exhibits:

Exhibit 4 – City's Revised Table of FSIs, dated Feb. 12, 2025

Exhibit 5 – City of Toronto Document Disclosure Book, dated June 14, 2024

Exhibit 6 – Expert Witness Statement of Alyssa Hawley, dated March 10, 2025

53Ms. Gautam called her Expert Witness, Mr. B. Mascioli, to the stand. He reviewed his qualifications as an expert land use planner. Mr. Flett objected to Mr. Mascioli being qualified as an expert in land use planning. All the details of the issues raised in the qualification process are provided in my Interim Decision, issued March 3, 2025.

54Mr. Mascioli was not qualified as an Expert Witness in land use planning. Given that the City now had no Expert Witness, an adjournment was granted to allow the City to procure another Expert Witness. That person would then require time to become familiar with the case and file an Expert Witness Statement by the deadline specified in the Interim Order.

55When the hearing resumed on March 24, 2025, Ms. Gautam called her Expert Witness, Ms. A. Hawley, to the stand. Ms. Hawley's professional qualifications and experience were reviewed. After some questioning by Mr. Flett, no objections were raised. I then qualified Ms. Hawley as an Expert Witness in land use planning and she was affirmed. Ms. Hawley agreed that she is bound by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute's Code of Conduct.

56Ms. Gautam explained that the City was primarily concerned with four of the variances: No. 1 - height, No. 4 - parapet height, No. 7 – FSI and No. 10 – height of all main walls.

57Ms. Hawley told the Panel that, after she was assigned to the case, she reviewed all the relevant documents, visited the site twice and reviewed previous decisions of the COA in the area. She formed her own opinions on the merits of the variance applications. She noted that City Planning had written to the COA at the 2023 hearing, recommending that the variances be refused.

58Ms. Hawley said that, in her opinion, none of the variances met the four tests of the Planning Act. She also said that the variances did not follow the guidelines in the LBNCG. She acknowledged that conformity with the Guidelines is not required of property owners or developers but considered them a useful tool in evaluating development proposals.

Immediate and Neighbourhood Study Areas

59She defined the Geographic Study Area in the same way as the Appellant. She said the area contains 630 properties, and while 85 variances were granted within it, only 38 were approved after the LBNCG came into effect.

60Her Immediate Study Area was defined in the OP as comprising both sides of the block on which the site is located. This block has 20 properties, all zoned RD and designated Neighbourhoods.

The Four Tests

61In the next section I have summarized Ms. Hawley's testimony with regards to the four tests of the Planning Act.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of (1) the Official Plan (OP) and of (2) the Zoning By-law (ZBL)?

62Ms. Hawley cited various sections of the OP:

a. S. 2.3 defines Neighbourhoods as areas that experience gradual change, where new development must respect the existing prevailing character of the area

b. S. 4.1.3 says that new development should fit the existing character of the Neighbourhood and reinforce its general physical patterns

c. S. 4.1.5 requires new development to respect the prevailing height, massing, scale and density of the neighbourhood.

63Upon cross-examination by Mr. Flett, Ms. Hawley agreed that the only subsection of Policy 4.1.5 not met by the variances was subsection (c), which addresses the elements set out above (prevailing height, massing, scale and density of the neighbourhood). She agreed that all other subsections of Policy 4.1.5, (a) through (i), were met.

64Ms. Hawley noted the purpose of the Zoning By-law (ZBL) was to provide development standards which regulate development in order to implement the policies of the OP.

65For Variances 1, 4 and 10, Ms. Hawley explained that the purpose of these height-related controls is to reduce the impact of the visual massing of a building. There have been variance applications for heights greater than 9.62 m and main wall heights of more than 7.0 m but those buildings have included setbacks to break up the impact of the height. There have been no variances approved for the height of a parapet.

66All three variances must be considered together. For example, the height variance of 0.12 m by itself does not seem to be large but when combined with the other variances, which work to permit the proposed dwelling to have a flat roof, the building could exhibit a built form that would overwhelm the neighbourhood and set a precedent. The proposed building makes no attempt to mitigate the visual impact of its massing.

67On cross-examination, Mr. Flett pointed out that both 11 and 23 Lake Promenade have flat roofs. Ms. Hawley agreed but responded that both dwellings employ articulation and/or step backs in their facades to reduce the visual impact. Mr. Flett then asserted that the proposed house also exhibits articulation in its facade and Ms. Hawley agreed.

68Mr. Flett also cross-examined Ms. Hawley on her characterization of the proposed dwelling as a two and a half or three-storey house when his expert witness, Mr. Litavski, said it was a two-storey house. Ms. Hawley responded that she perceived the lower level to be a full storey. Mr. Flett noted that the level of the first floor lines up with that of the neighbouring house and Ms. Hawley sees the neighbouring house as having two storeys.

69There were no variance applications where an FSI approaching 1.22 was approved, except on the south side of Lake Promenade, which contains 54 properties. Three FSI variance applications on the south side of Lake Promenade were approved at greater that 1.22 FSI, but none were in the Immediate Study Area (i.e. the same block) and all had a lower Gross Floor Area (GFA) than the proposed dwelling. Approval of such a high density for this dwelling would set a precedent which does not reflect the massing of the buildings in the area.

70Ms. Hawley indicated that "individually and holistically" the variances do not meet any of the criteria of the OP. They do not respect the prevailing character of the neighbourhood and therefore the first test is not met. Similarly, there have been few or no variances granted that would create a building with such massing. Therefore, it would create a precedent in height and density and does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, failing the second test.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

71In Ms. Hawley's opinion, the variances are not appropriate for the development of the land as they will have significant negative impacts and would be precedent setting. They make no effort to mitigate impacts, do not respect the LBNCG and would accelerate undesirable development in the area.

Are the variances minor?

72Ms. Hawley maintained that the variances would create a significant visual impact, which can be seen from the street. The dwelling would have the highest FSI (except for three other examples on the south side of Lake Promenade) and highest Gross Floor Area (GFA) in the Geographic Study Area.

73Mr. Flett noted that Ms. Hawley had said that the proposed dwelling would have the largest GFA in the area, but she didn't correlate that with the lot size. He asked her if a passerby, or even a trained city planner, would be able to tell what the GFA of a building would be simply by looking at it. She agreed that an observer would probably not be able to estimate the numbers but would perceive the massing of the building.

74In cross-examination by Mr. Flett, Ms. Hawley agreed that there are a variety of frontages along the south side of Lake Promenade and, because of the uneven nature of the shoreline, lot depths also vary, such that there is no "prevailing" lot frontage or lot area. She also agreed that the size and configuration of a lot can affect how a passerby might perceive a dwelling. She agreed that the front yard setback of the dwelling is "generous", the proposed dwelling is well set back from the street and therefore it could appear smaller.

75Ms. Hawley acknowledged that whether or not a variance is minor is not a mathematical calculation but pointed out that a variance to allow an FSI of 1.22 is not minor from a quantitative or qualitative view.

Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (LBNCG)

76Ms. Hawley acknowledged that built form in Long Branch exhibits a variety of characteristics but she was of the opinion that the variances are not consistent with the Guidelines. The Guidelines call for houses with peaked roofs; instead, the proposed house is a large box. The Guidelines also call for houses that address overlook, shadowing, consistency and transition. The proposed dwelling accomplishes none of these.

Long Branch Neighbourhood Association, in opposition to the Application/Appeal

77Ms. J. Gibson was representing the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA). She said the LBNA is not opposed to intensification and, in fact, the population of Long Branch had increased 13% from 2016 to 2021. They rely on policy and the LBNCG to protect the special character of the community.

78Ms. Gibson entered three exhibits into the record:

Exhibit 7 – Witness Statement of Christine Mercado (Long Branch Neighbourhood Association), dated August 12, 2024

Exhibit 8 – Reply Witness Statement of Christine Mercado, dated January 9, 2025

Exhibit 9 – 27 Lake Promenade photos, date stamped February 13, 2025

79Ms. Gibson called her Witness, Ms. C. Mercado, to the stand. Ms. Mercado was not testifying as an Expert Witness and therefore will not give opinion evidence. She was affirmed. Ms. Mercado has served as the Chair of the LBNA since 2018.

80Ms. Mercado takes the position that none of the variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act and that the COA decision should be upheld. The size and contemporary architecture of the proposed dwelling would overwhelm the neighbourhood.

81Ms. Mercado stated that while there are other "boxy" buildings in the neighbourhood, they respect the character of Long Branch, which is one of the reasons people are drawn to the area. She noted that the Applicant could have built a reasonably sized dwelling without the need for variances, or at least variances of a lesser magnitude.

82Ms. Mercado noted that the impact on the immediate neighbours was also important. She pointed out that both 27 and 33 Lake Promenade are good examples of how articulation can be used to make a large house appear less obtrusive. She illustrated her point with a slide of the east wall of the proposed dwelling as it is seen from 27 Lake Promenade (Exhibit 9). The almost blank, full two-storey height wall was "very imposing", particularly compared to the finely articulated and detailed facade of 27 Lake Promenade.

The Four Tests

83In the next section I have summarized Ms. Mercado's testimony with regards to the four tests of the Planning Act.

84Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of (1) the Official Plan (OP) and of (2) the Zoning By-law (ZBL)?

85Ms. Mercado noted that there was room in Long Branch for contemporary design. She reviewed other recently built houses on the south side of Lake Promenade, noting that most have significant articulation on their façades, which reduces the impact of the massing. She commented that 67 and 93 Lake Promenade are "boxy".

86Ms. Mercado noted that the FSI, height, and massing of the proposed dwelling did not meet the OP requirement that these elements should reflect the prevailing (most common) context in the neighbourhood. For example, of the 20 lots in the Immediate Study Area, 12 have an FSI of less than 0.35. An FSI of 1.22, or even 0.73, is not close to the prevailing density in the area. There are three lots on the south side of Lake Promenade that have an FSI higher than 1.22 but these are on narrow lots. She also noted that the proposed dwelling would have the largest GFA of any dwelling in the neighbourhood.

87With regard to length and depth, the proposed dwelling will be the longest in the area. The perception of the length and depth is further accentuated by the boxy nature of the proposed dwelling.

88She echoed the evidence of the City's Expert Witness on the height variances. She noted that only one percent of the properties in the Geographic Study Area had been granted a variance for a height 9.62 m and some of those approvals predated the adoption of the LBNCG.

89Ms. Mercado noted that the variance for reduced soft landscaping in the rear yard was of concern to the LBNA. Green space is becoming scarcer in Long Branch, and it is needed to provide room for tree planting and storm water infiltration.

90Ms. Mercado reviewed the size of the rear balcony and the width of the garage door openings. She that large balconies have been refused in the past (73 27th St.) and that two garage doors openings were unusual.

91For these reasons the variances do not uphold the general intent and purpose of the OP and the ZBL.

Are the variances (1) desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and (2) are the variances minor?

92Ms. Mercado said that the variances do not take the City's environmental policies into account. The massing of the proposed building will be an outlier and set a negative precedent. The variances are not desirable for the use of the land and are not minor.

Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (LBNCG)

93She stated that the LBNCG use the same development standards as the OP and work to clarify its requirements in order to create a customized vision of how Long Branch is to develop. It also provides strategies to minimize negative impacts. She noted that the Applicant did not submit a checklist demonstrating how the proposal meets the Guidelines. She also noted that the proposal does not fit with the Guidelines.

Participants

94Mr. Twomey resides at 27 Lake Promenade, abutting the subject property to the east. His dwelling was built in 1999. When designing it, his goal was a dwelling that would fit with the character of the neighbourhood. It was larger than its neighbours' dwellings, but he shared the plans prior to construction and there were no objections. The dwelling is his family's dream home. He expressed concern that his property value has been diminished by the construction of the proposed dwelling.

95Mr. Twomey noted that the almost blank two-storey wall abutting his driveway is imposing and casts a shadow over it such that it does not dry out. He stated that mould is now growing on the driveway, which he considers to be a health hazard.

96Mr. Flett introduced Exhibit 10 – Survey of 27 Lake Promenade, date stamped April 14, 2025.

97Mr. Flett asked Mr. Twomey if his house has a balcony at the back. Mr. Twomey answered that there was a full width balcony off the main floor, which is above a sunken terrace accessed from the basement. He wanted the basement level to be lower in order to create the sunken terrace. Stormwater drains to the lake.

98Mr. Flett asked Mr. Twomey about the City's suggestion that a privacy screen on the proposed building's balcony be required to provide some privacy for the neighbours. Mr. Twomey responded that a screen might be more useful on the west side of the balcony and that he is ambivalent on the issue.

99Ms. Nemoy lives on the south side of Lake Promenade, west of the site. She agrees with the LBNA. She is concerned that the LBNCG are not being followed. The relatively massive building will set a negative precedent for the area.

100Mr. Flett asked her if she could see the site from her house. She responded that she could not but sees it when walking along Lake Promenade.

101Three other Participants submitted written statements, which I reviewed.

Summations

102I have recounted below how each party's representative summed up his or her witness' testimony.

103Mr. Flett (for Applicant/Appellant) submitted that the four tests have been met, the variances are site specific and they do not disrupt the neighbourhood. He noted that "Fit" is a visceral feeling, not a numerical exercise.

104The City's policies call for respect and reinforcement of the existing neighbourhoods but not for uniformity. The four tests require the variances to maintain the general intent of the OP and ZBL, not strict adherence.

105He said 91 and 93 Lake Promenade did not set precedents, even though the FSI of each of those properties is larger than the variance requested here. Every application must be judged on its own merits.

106Mr. Flett submitted that the overall height is consistent with the neighbourhood and that the massing is mitigated by the setbacks from the street and architectural features. He noted that there are other buildings in the area with flat roofs, and that Ms. Hawley acknowledged that the articulation of those buildings addresses their massing. He further noted that Ms. Hawley agreed that the proposed dwelling also exhibits articulation.

107Ms. Gautam (for the City) said the variances related to height and FSI should be refused. The proposed dwelling would be the largest in the area and would set a negative precedent.

108Although Ms. Hawley agreed that the proposed dwelling was consistent with all except one of the subsections of OP Policy 4.1.5, Ms. Gautam maintained that it must be consistent with the section as a whole, otherwise the first test is not met.

109She noted that 91 Lake Promenade did not require a height variance and is not a comparable project. Some of the variances referred to by the Applicant were granted prior to the LBNCG were approved by City Council and OP Amendment 320 (OPA 320), which introduced the "prevailing" conditions requirement into the OP, came into effect.

110The permitted FSI of 0.35 is combined with the height, depth and other standards to ensure compatible development. The proposed dwelling exceeds all these standards and is not appropriate for the development of the lot.

111The quantitative and qualitative impacts of the variances are such that they cannot be considered minor.

112Ms. Gibson, on behalf of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA), submitted that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the variances meet the four tests. She further submitted that his Expert Witness provided no evidence from previous variance applications establishing that the variances satisfy Tests 1 and 2.

113Ms. Gibson echoed the submissions of Ms. Gautam, except she urged the TLAB to refuse all 14 variances on the basis that none of them met the four tests.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

114From the City's evidence, it appears that the variances of most concern are those related to height (Variances 1, 4, and 10) and the FSI (Variance 7), which would together permit a dwelling with a flat roof and "boxy" appearance. It is submitted that these variances would cause the proposed dwelling to not fit with the character of the neighbourhood, and that it would fail to respect and reinforce the prevailing (most frequently occurring) built form. As such, it would not be "materially consistent" with other neighbourhood dwellings.

115The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) objected to all of the variances, although its evidence focused on the same elements as the City's case.

116The Appellant provided some analysis of variance applications in the Geographic Study Area, which showed that the height of the building, main walls and parapet, and the FSI applied for in this case are not prevailing in the neighbourhood. However, there are cases where similar or even greater height variances have been granted, especially on the south side of Lake Promenade in the area the Appellant defined as the Immediate Study Area.

117The Appellant submitted that, although the proposed dwelling would not fully comply with the Zoning By-law, it would appear as a large dwelling, not out of scale with other large, boxy flat-roofed dwellings on the lots within the Immediate Study Area. It would also be well screened from Lake Promenade.

118The Appellant made the point that using density or FSI to judge how well the proposed house fits the neighbourhood context is not appropriate, as FSI is a product of the area of the properties on the south side of Lake Promenade, which vary. This area is an eclectic streetscape with properties and houses of many shapes and sizes. The Appellant also suggested that the FSI was inflated by the fact that 40% of the lot is with the TRCA's Shoreline Hazard Area. If the same building on the same lot was on the other side of Lake Promenade, in other words not subject to a Shoreline Hazard Area, it would have an FSI of 0.73.

119Mr. Litavski suggested that the proposed building facade presents an articulated appearance to the neighbourhood. The visual impact of the massing of the house from the street will be mitigated by this articulation and will reinforce and respect the existing character of the area. The variances will have little to no negative impact on the neighbourhood or the immediate neighbours.

120The Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (LBNCG) seek to condition new development so that it reflects the size and style of built form already present in the area. However, the Guidelines recognize that the south side of Lake Promenade is a "special" area. It must be noted that the Guidelines are not legally binding but are a useful tool in discerning Council's intent for the area.

CONCLUSION

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

121Section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan states:

4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the

existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in

particular:

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby

residential properties;

d) prevailing building type(s);

e) prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways

and garages;

f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open

space;

h) continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to

the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and

i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes

122I did not hear any evidence from the City's or the LBNA's witnesses, expert and otherwise, that the variances would permit a dwelling that fails to satisfy the criteria in OP Policy 4.1.5, except with respect to subsections (c) and (g).

123With respect to subsections (c) and (g), the OP does not prescribe numerical values to be met. I do not consider the magnitude of the variances relating to height of the main walls, height of the building and the GFA to compromise the physical character of the area. There are many dwellings on the south side of Lake Promenade within the Immediate Neighbourhood, as defined by the Appellant, that present similar massing and architectural styles. The articulation of the street facing wall, as outlined by the Appellant's witness and confirmed by the City's witness, serves to soften and mitigate the appearance of the proposed dwelling.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

124According to the Official Plan, the purpose of numerical and performance standards of the Zoning By-law is to provide standards for the implementation of the policies of the OP.

125As the Zoning By-law divides an area into aggregations of a number of properties, the same standards apply to a variety of lot shapes and sizes within each zone, which can create differences in the effect of the those zoning standards on lots that do not conform with the norm. Put another way, one size does not fit all when it comes to zoning. One of the purposes of the variance process is to address this issue. The By-law's objective can be maintained, even when variances are granted, on lots that can accommodate additional height and/or density (FSI).

126In conducting my analysis of this test, I have examined each group of variances with a view to determining whether they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

127The first group of variances relate to the height and built form of the proposed building:

1. Section 10.20.40.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 9.5 metres.

The proposed height of the building is 9.62 metres.

4. Section 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a parapet is 0.3 metres above the permitted main wall height.

The proposed height of the parapet is 2.62 metres above the permitted main wall height.

7. Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.35 times the area of the lot (219.8 square metres).

The proposed floor space index is 1.22 times the area of the lot (764.4 square

metres).

10. Section 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all main walls is 7.0 metres above established grade.

The proposed height of all main walls is 8.6 metres above established grade.

Mr. Litavski noted that height and density restrictions in the By-law are among the development standards used to control the size, built form, and Floor Space Index of proposed dwellings.

The actual height variance is only 0.12 m. This difference would be imperceptible from the street and to neighbouring properties.

However, the City and the LBNA submitted that the overall effect of these variances, particularly Variance 10 relating to the main wall height, is to permit a building with a "boxier" appearance than would be possible without the variance, due to the elimination of a sloped roof. This can also allow a building to contain additional Gross Floor Area (GFA), which translates into a greater Floor Space Index (FSI). This has been the result here. The proposed dwelling has a flat roof and an FSI almost 3.5 times that permitted by the Zoning By-law.

The Appellant submitted that the proposed FSI of 1.22 is inflated by the fact that the portion of the lot included in the Shoreline Hazard Area cannot be included in the area of the lot used in the FSI calculation (FSI = GFA of the building / area of the lot). If the full area of the lot were included, the FSI would be 0.73, just over double that permitted by the Zoning By-law.

Yet the proposed dwelling reads from the street as a two-storey building, albeit with a flat roof. The Appellant referred to a number of dwellings in the Geographic Study Area that appear from the street to have flat roofs: 29 and 87 Ash Crescent, 6 Crystal Crescent, 15 Elton Crescent, 34 27th Street and 11, 23, 67, 85, 93 and 171 Lake Promenade.

An excerpt from Mr. Litavski's Witness Statement (Exhibit 1) summarizes his opinion on the "boxy" built form of the proposed dwelling: "although the [LBNCG] speaks to gabled and hipped roofs, and other more traditional roof forms, more modern flat roofs are increasingly common in the neighbourhood. The as-built home does not present an inappropriate mass that is out-of-scale with its neighbours."

I accept Mr. Litavski's evidence that the proposed overall height, parapet height and main wall height do not overwhelm the neighbouring dwellings or introduce an incompatible element into the streetscape and that there are numerous examples of dwellings in the Immediate and Geographic Study Areas with flat roofs. The resulting FSI is a result of the height variances and is therefore not inappropriate in this context.

Although variances are required to permit the proposed dwelling, it will "fit" and not be incompatible with the existing built form in the area.

128The second group of variances relate to required setbacks and building length and depth:

5. Section 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0 metres or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 metres.

The proposed building length is 23.1 metres.

6. Section 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 metres.

The proposed building depth is 23.2 metres.

9. Section 10.20.40.70, By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum front yard setback is 25.1 metres.

The proposed front yard setback is 23.46 metres.

12. Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 metres where the required minimum lot frontage is 12.0 metres to less than 15.0 metres.

The proposed side yard setback is 0.8 metres to the east side lot line and 0.9 metres to the west side lot line.

The proposed dwelling has a greater length and depth than the Zoning By-law permits. However, no variance is required for the rear yard setback and the rear wall of the proposed dwelling is in the same location as the previous building. I find that the impact of this greater length and depth is minimal and does not undermine the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Mr. Litavski noted that, although a small variance in the front yard setback is required (1.64 m), the front wall of the proposed dwelling creates a transition between the two abutting properties, which is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Mr. Litavski also testified that the side yard setbacks proposed for the dwelling are the same or very similar to those of the two abutting properties. I find that the side yard setback variances will allow access to the side of the dwelling and therefore are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

I agree with Mr. Litavski's evidence with respect to these variances.

129The third group of variances relate to stairs, garage openings and size of platforms:

2. Section 10.5.40.60.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

(A)(i) Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no longer than 1.5 horizontal units for each 1.0 vertical unit above grade at the point where the stairs meet the building or structure.

The proposed front porch stairs are 3 horizontal units for each 1.0 vertical unit above grade at the point where the stairs meet the building or structure.

(A)(ii) Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no wider than 2.0 metres.

The proposed stairs are 2.9 metres wide.

8. Section 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0 square metres.

The proposed area of the rear platform at the second storey is 10.2 square metres.

11. Section 10.5.80.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

For a lot with a detached house or a semi-detached house and a minimum required lot frontage is less than 24.0 metres, the maximum combined width of all vehicle entrances through the front main wall of the residential building is 6.0 metres.

The proposed combined width of all vehicle entrances through the front main wall is 7.4 metres.

I heard no evidence that the width or configuration of the front stairs is of concern. I find that Variance 2 will allow stairs that are not out of scale with the proposed dwelling, taking into account its generous setback from the street.

The proposed rear platform is large but not out of keeping with the deck on the adjacent property to the east. Although Mr. Twomey, the property owner to the east, did not express concern regarding potential overlook of his property, the City recommended privacy screening panels 1.5 metres high along the full depth of the east and west sides of the rear platform as a precautionary measure.

This will allow this variance to meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Mr. Litavski noted that the garage doors are divided into two sections, one on either side of the front door. I agree that this arrangement reduces the impact of a wide garage entrance and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law has been maintained.

130The fourth variance group relates to the rear yard soft landscaping:

3. Section 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A lot with a residential building, other than an apartment building, must have a

minimum of 50 percent of the rear yard for soft landscaping (183.3 square metres), if the lot frontage is greater than 6.0 metres.

The proposed rear yard landscaping area is 34 percent (123.8 square metres).

The rear yard, including the amount of soft landscaping, has not been altered from that which existed with the previous dwelling. As both Mr. Litavski and Ms. Mercado pointed out, one of the purposes of soft landscaping requirement is to allow rainwater to infiltrate into the ground, thereby reducing storm water runoff. Mr. Litavski testified that excess stormwater would drain directly into the lake. That aspect of the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is therefore maintained. I do not find that the reduced soft landscaping will have an undue negative impact on the neighbouring properties or the neighbourhood.

131The final group of variances relates to the location of the proposed dwelling in relation to the Shoreline Hazard Limit:

13. Section 5.10.40.1.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, if a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, no building or structure may be located on the portion of the lot below that shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank.

The proposed building is partially located on the portion of the lot below the

shoreline hazard limit.

14. Section 5.10.40.70.(6), By-law No. 569-2013

If the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority determines that a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, a building or structure on that lot must be set back a minimum of 10 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank.

The proposed building is set back 0.0 metres from the shoreline hazard limit.

The TRCA has confirmed in writing that they have no concerns about the incursion of the structure into the Shoreline Hazard Limit. I must conclude that, on the basis of their expertise, the general intent and purpose of this provision have been maintained.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

132The variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. A large, single detached dwelling is proposed, very similar in appearance and impact as the others on the street and in the neighbourhood.

Are the variances minor?

133The variances are minor. The impact of the building the variances will permit is acceptable in relation to privacy and shadowing impacts on the immediate neighbouring properties. It presents an appearance to the street that fits the eclectic nature of similar buildings in the neighbourhood and especially on the south side of Lake Promenade.

134The Committee of Adjustment considered 12 variances. This Appeal considered 14 variances. The difference is explained in paragraph 9 above. I find that all 14 variances, individually and collectively, satisfy the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER

135The Appeal is allowed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 7, 2023, is set aside.

136The variances listed in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

B. Gallaugher

Panel Member

APPENDIX A

APPROVED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL

VARIANCES:

1. Section 10.20.40.10.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is 9.5 metres.

The proposed height of the building is 9.62 metres.

2. Section 10.5.40.60.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

(A)(i) Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no longer than 1.5 horizontal units for each 1.0 vertical unit above grade at the point where the stairs meet the building or structure.

The proposed front porch stairs are 3 horizontal units for each 1.0 vertical unit above grade at the point where the stairs meet the building or structure.

(A)(ii) Exterior stairs providing pedestrian access to a building or structure may encroach into a required building setback if the stairs are no wider than 2.0 metres.

The proposed stairs are 2.9 metres wide.

3. Section 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

A lot with a residential building, other than an apartment building, must have a

minimum of 50 percent of the rear yard for soft landscaping (183.3 square metres), if the lot frontage is greater than 6.0 metres.

The proposed rear yard landscaping area is 34 percent (123.8 square metres).

4. Section 10.20.40.10.(5), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of a parapet is 0.3 metres above the permitted main wall height.

The proposed height of the parapet is 2.62 metres above the permitted main wall height.

5. Section 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0 metres or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 metres.

The proposed building length is 23.1 metres.

6. Section 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 metres.

The proposed building depth is 23.2 metres.

7. Section 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.35 times the area of the lot (219.8 square metres).

The proposed floor space index is 1.22 times the area of the lot (764.4 square

metres).

8. Section 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0 square metres.

The proposed area of the rear platform at the second storey is 10.2 square metres.

9. Section 10.20.40.70, By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum front yard setback is 25.1 metres.

The proposed front yard setback is 23.46 metres.

10. Section 10.20.40.10.(4)(A), By-law No. 569-2013

The permitted maximum height of all main walls is 7.0 metres above established grade.

The proposed height of all main walls is 8.6 metres above established grade.

11. Section 10.5.80.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013

For a lot with a detached house or a semi-detached house and a minimum required lot frontage is less than 24.0 metres, the maximum combined width of all vehicle entrances through the front main wall of the residential building is 6.0 metres.

The proposed combined width of all vehicle entrances through the front main wall is 7.4 metres.

12. Section 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 metres where the required minimum lot frontage is 12.0 metres to less than 15.0 metres.

The proposed side yard setback is 0.8 metres to the east side lot line and 0.9 metres to the west side lot line.

13. Section 5.10.40.1.(3), By-law No. 569-2013

On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, if a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, no building or structure may be located on the portion of the lot below that shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank.

The proposed building is partially located on the portion of the lot below the

shoreline hazard limit.

14. Section 5.10.40.70.(6), By-law No. 569-2013

If the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority determines that a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, a building or structure on that lot must be set back a minimum of 10 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank.

The proposed building is set back 0.0 metres from the shoreline hazard limit.

Any other variances not listed in this Decision are not authorized.

CONDITIONS:

1Privacy screening measuring at least 1.5 m in height from the floor of the rear balcony must be installed on the east and west sides of the rear platform. The screening must be installed within two months of this Interim Decision and Order. Failure to install the required privacy screening within the allotted time may result in the Panel Member issuing a Final Decision and Order refusing all variances, without further notice to the Parties.