Wheller (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 404

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2026-03-19

24 214901S45 03 TLAB

Wheller (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 404

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: March 19, 2026

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

Appellant(s): B. WHELLER

Applicant(s): ACMENG ENGINEERING CONSULT

Property Address: 186 Thirtieth St

COA File No.: 24 151677 WET 03 MV (A0218/24EYK)

TLAB Case File No.: 24 214901 S45 03 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): January 17, 2025, May 7, 2025, August 11, 2025, September 19, 2025, March 03, 2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member A. Brown

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Owner/ Appellant	B. WHELLER	M. MAZIERSKI
Party	CITY OF TORONTO	M. LAFORTUNE
Participant	T. TEKAVCIC

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This an appeal from a decision of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) dated August 29, 2024, in which the Committee denied a request for variances on the subject property.

2In attendance on March 3, 2026, were Mr. Mazierski, legal counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Igelman, Expert Witness for the Appellant, and Ms. LaFortune, legal counsel for the City.

3The subject property is located at 186 Thirtieth Street in the City of Toronto. The Official Plan designation for the property is “Core Employment Area” as shown on City of Toronto Official Plan Map #15. The property is zoned Employment Industrial E.1.0 under Zoning By-law 569-2013.

4The proposed development is to construct a warehouse on the property. A warehouse is a permitted use (without conditions) under the Zoning By-law. The site is currently occupied by a legal non-conforming residential dwelling that will be demolished.

5The Appeal was heard on January 17, 2025, May 7, 2025, August 11, 2025, September 19, 2025 and March 3, 2026. After the hearing day on September 19, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision on October 7, 2025. (Wheller (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 360). In that decision, the Tribunal denied the request for a variance to permit a front yard loading space. The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s request for two variances to the north side yard setback (for the side wall and exterior stairs) and for a reduced driveway width along the south side of the proposed warehouse meets the four tests in s.45(1) of the Planning Act. However, the Tribunal directed the Appellant to file with the TLAB a revised site plan showing the elimination of the front yard loading space.

6Upon submitting a revised plan to the City Zoning Examiner, the Appellant was informed that the width of the access to the loading space at the rear of the warehouse did not conform to the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Appellant now seeks approval of an additional variance.

7Variance

8The Zoning By-law 220.5.20.1.(1) states that the minimum width of access to a Loading Space is 6.0m. The proposed access width is 3.65m.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

9Provincial 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.

10Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS).

11Variance – 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.

12Planning Act. S.45(18.1.1)

s.45(18) The Tribunal may dismiss the appeal and may make any decision that the committee could have made on the original application.

(18.1) On an appeal, the Tribunal may make a decision on an application which has been amended from the original application if, before issuing its order, written notice is given to the persons and public bodies who received notice of the original application under subsection (5) and to other persons and agencies prescribed under that subsection.

(18.1.1) The Tribunal is not required to give notice under subsection (18.1) if, in its opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

13There were nine exhibits filed with the Tribunal in this Appeal, as noted in the Interim Decision of October 7, 2025. The Appellant filed an additional Exhibit (Exhibit 10), namely an Expert Witness Statement Addendum from Mr. Igelman. Exhibit 10 included the Revised Plans and Drawings, Revised Site Plan, a Swept Path analysis dated January 14, 2026, and the Zoning Examiner’s Notice dated November 26, 2025.

14Mr. Igelman was duly affirmed to give evidence. The Tribunal had previously qualified him to give expert evidence in this Appeal.

15The Tribunal has had the benefit of comprehensive evidence from the Appellant and the City about the proposed development and the study area in the course of hearing this matter. That evidence is described in detail in the Interim Decision of October 7, 2025.

16Planning Act s.45(18.1.1)

17Mr. Igelman testified that, in his opinion, the proposed change to the Application is minor within the meaning of s.45(18.1.1) and does not require a new Notice under s.45(18) of the Planning Act. The City did not oppose this position.

18The proposed variance is in respect of the access to the loading space. Mr. Igelman testified that the loading space is within the rear yard. He explained that the loading space will be accessed by the driveway, a portion of which is 3.65m wide.

19I agree with the Appellant that the proposed change to add a new variance is minor and that no new Notice is required under s.45(18) of the Planning Act. The plans have always shown a rear loading space that will be accessed by a substandard driveway on the south side. The Application was recirculated to the neighbours as required by the Tribunal on January 24, 2025 in Weller (Re) 2025 ONTLAB 298.

20Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion under s.45(18.1.1) not to require a new Notice under s.45(18).

21Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

22Mr. Igelman stated that, in his opinion, the proposed variance is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024). The proposed use of the land is consistent with the designation of the land for employment uses and optimizes existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The warehouse supports and adds to the economic activity in the area. It also represents an intensification of employment uses, in accordance with the PPS, including “Paragraph 2.8.2 Employment Areas”.

23General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

24Mr. Igelman referred to Section 2.2. of the Official Plan, which addresses the need to create employment opportunities. The proposed development maintains the intent of the City’s Official Plan in that the warehouse is a permitted use within the Core Employment Area designation. The development expands business within the Employment Area. Given the diminishing supply of vacant land for employment purposes, development must take place in a more intensive form. Mr. Igelman stated that the warehouse, on an undersized lot, is an infill and redevelopment site that fits in with and improves the surrounding area. The subject lot is 15.24m wide and 41m deep. The lot was created prior to the current zoning requirement of 20m lot width.

25Further to Official Plan Chapter 3, the proposal minimizes the width of the driveway and curb cut across the public sidewalk. In addition, the proposal includes landscaped open space within the front yard, with plantings and vegetation that will serve to screen the warehouse from the street, and the rear loading space itself will be screened from public view.

26In Mr. Igelman’s opinion, the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

27General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

28Mr. Igelman testified that the intent of the access provision in the Zoning By-law is to ensure adequate access into and out of a loading space, as well as to facilitate internal site circulation. In his opinion, the proposal will provide adequate access. The driveway varies in width. It is 8.56m wide at the front and it is 9.79m wide at the rear. In the area in front of the overhead doors at the rear of the warehouse where the loading space is located, the access space will exceed the required minimum of 6m. Mr. Igelman stated that the requirement of 6m is for a “two-way access and driveway standard”. The proposed access will function as a one-way access and driveway. Only one loading vehicle will be accommodated at any one time.

29Mr. Igelman stated that, within the immediate study area (primarily Thirtieth Street) there are examples of accesses and driveways that do not meet the By-law requirement of 6m. He referred the Tribunal to photographs that were filed in the Appellant’s Disclosure. Industrial uses in the Employment Area can function with a driveway and access that is less than 6m. He referred the Tribunal to his Witness Statement filed as Exhibit #3 that provides details about the side yards and driveways along Thirtieth Street, where lots are narrower than those found on other lots in the Employment Area.

30The Appellant retained a Traffic Engineer to create a Swept Path analysis (turning diagram) to illustrate how a vehicle would be able maneuver to and from the rear loading space (filed as part of Exhibit #10). This analysis was obtained to address concerns raised by the City. Loading will take place outside the rear overhead door, and a Type C loading space is shown on the Revised Site Plan. The City is not opposing the proposed variance.

31In Mr. Igelman’s opinion, the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

32Minor in Nature

33Mr. Igelman stated that the driveway/access and warehouse will not be open to the public. In his opinion, the reduced access width will have no impact on adjacent properties or the public, and will not have an unacceptable impact of a planning nature. In practice, it will function as a one-way access. It meets the By-law standard for a one-way access. There will be no simultaneous two-way traffic.

34In Mr. Igelman’s opinion, the proposed variance is “minor” in nature.

35Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land

36Mr. Igelman explained that the target design width in the City’s own Design Guidelines for the evaluation of lane widths on public roads is 3m, indicating (by comparison) that 3.65m is acceptable for one way traffic on a portion of the driveway. There are similar accesses and driveways on properties along Thirtieth Street. The variance will permit an employment development allowing for a reasonable building footprint and size.

37In Mr. Igelman’s opinion, the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

38Mr. Igelman’s expert conclusion is that the requested variance has regard for the matters of Provincial interest in s.2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and meets the four tests outlined in s.45(1) of the Planning Act.

39City of Toronto

40Michelle LaFortune, legal counsel, appeared on behalf of the City. Ms. LaFortune advised the Tribunal that the City has examined the Swept Path analysis (turning diagram) and is not opposed to the requested variance. A “Type C” loading space has been marked on the Site Plan.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

41The requested variances to the side yard setback and to the driveway width were addressed in the Interim Decision of October 7, 2025 (the “Interim Decision”). Accordingly, the Tribunal will focus on the variance pertaining to the access to the loading space.

42The Appellant has the onus of proving that the proposed variance meets all four statutory tests in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. That is, does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law? Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land? Is it minor in nature? The proposal must also have regard for the matters of Provincial Interest in s.2 of the Planning Act and be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024).

43Planning Act and Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

44I accept the evidence of Mr. Igelman that the proposed variance is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024). The variance to the access width will still allow a viable one-way access to the rear of the building for a warehouse that will support and add to the economic activity in the area. The warehouse represents an intensification of employment uses, in accordance with the PPS, in particular “Paragraph 2.8.2 Employment Areas”. I also find that the proposed variance is consistent with the Provincial Interest specified in s.2(k) of the Planning Act, namely, the adequate provision of employment opportunities.

45General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

46I agree with the expert evidence of Mr. Igelman that the variance to reduce the width of the access from the required 6m to 3.65m is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, within the overall context of the proposal as shown on the Revised Site Plan. The Official Plan Policies about Employment Areas are intended to encourage and intensify industrial and commercial activity within the City limits.

47General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

48In its Interim Decision, the Tribunal made the following finding in respect of the reduced driveway width and the side yard setbacks:

An important factor in considering the proposed variances for the north side yard setbacks and the south side driveway is that the lot frontage of the subject property is comparatively narrow, compared to those on most streets in the study area. In Mr. Igelman’s view, some allowance should be made for the fact that the zoning requirements for the side yard setbacks and the driveway would leave little room to construct a warehouse on the lot because it is 15.24m. wide. Under the Zoning By-law, the minimum driveway width is 6m. and the side yard setback minimum is 3m. Some flexibility is required to allow narrower and shallower lots to be used for a warehouse, which will intensify the use of the employment area, with the associated economic benefits. (at para. 141)

I find that similar considerations apply to the request for a variance to the access width. The Zoning By-law permits a warehouse, without conditions. The Swept Path analysis shows that a one-way access/driveway is viable. There are similar accesses and driveways along Thirtieth Street. The public will not use the access, and the curb cut is compliant with City requirements.

49The City is not opposed to the proposed variance, having been satisfied by the Swept Path analysis that shows how a vehicle can maneuver in the rear loading area. The area in front of the rear overhead doors actually exceeds the By-law requirement for access width.

50I find that the proposed variance meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

51Is the Variance Desirable for the Development or Use of the Land? Is it Minor?

52The test for “minor” focuses on the scale and nature of the perceived impact caused by the variance. The test is not merely a matter of mathematical calculation. The courts have established that the test is not that there be no impact, but that the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature.

53In Mr. Igelman’s expert opinion, the proposed variance to the required access width is desirable from a planning perspective and is minor. I agree. The evidence is that the access width of 3.65m will be viable. It will not be open to the public, only one vehicle will be in the driveway at a time, and there is no evidence that the proposal will have an adverse impact of a planning nature.

54I find that the proposed variance is appropriate for the development of the land and that it is minor.

CONCLUSION

55I have found (in the Interim Decision) that the proposed variances pertaining to the side yard setbacks (to the exterior stairs and the north side yard) and to the driveway width maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and that they are minor and desirable for the development and use of the land. I have also found that the variances meet the requirement of s.2 of the Planning Act and are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024).

56I find that the proposed variance to the width of the access to the loading space maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and that it is minor and desirable for the development of the land. The variance meets the requirement of s.2 of the Planning Act and is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024).

DECISION AND ORDER

57The Appeal is allowed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment dated August 29, 2024, is set aside.

58The variances listed in Appendix “A” are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

A. BROWN

Panel Member

APPENDIX “A”

Approved Variances

(1) Section 60.20.40.70.(2) By-law 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 3.0 metres. The proposed north side yard setback is 1.21 metres.

(2) Section 60.20.40.70.(2) By-law 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback for the stairs is 3.0 metres. The proposed stairs will have a setback of 0.3 metres.

(3) Section 60.5.100.1(1) By-law 569-2013 A driveway must have a minimum width of 6.0 metres. The proposed driveway width is 3.65 metres.

(4) Section 220.5.20.1.(1) By-law 569-2013 The minimum width of access to a Loading Space is 6.0 metres. The proposed access width is 3.65 metres.

No other variances are approved.

Conditions

1. The Owner shall submit a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, Development Review Division.

2. The Owner shall submit a financial security to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, Development Review Division.

3. 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.

4. The proposed warehouse shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the site plan, plans and elevations dated January 28, 2026, attached as Exhibit A to the Expert Witness Statement Addendum dated February 2, 2026, as attached.