1001292121 Ontario Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 405

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-03-23

25 249060 S45 12 TLAB

1001292121 Ontario Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 405

Issuance Date:

March 23, 2026

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

Appellant(s):

1001292121 ONTARIO INC

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

404 GLENHOLME AVE

COA File No.:

25 144716 STE 12 MV (A0280/25TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 249060 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 13, 2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member G. SWINKIN

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

Appellant

1001292121 ONTARIO INC

Party

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

It was inevitable that cases like this one would be coming to the Tribunal. In fact, this isn’t the first.
Toronto City Council launched a dramatic change to its planning regime for lands within the Neighbourhoods land use designation by expressly authorizing what are now known as multiplex dwellings. Preceding this initiative was Council’s specific endorsement of garden suites and laneway suites. Each of these policy changes were accompanied by corresponding amendments to Zoning By-law 569-2013, which detailed new regulations applicable to these forms of housing.
Those regulatory amendments, in keeping with the policy intent to achieve greater density on Neighbourhoods designated lands, authorize structures which can be obviously larger than the traditional forms of housing in the historically low density residential neighbourhoods.
This appeal is a case in point.
The property under appeal in this hearing is municipally known as 404 Glenholme Avenue (the “Property”).
The Property is presently developed with a one and a half storey detached dwelling. It is subject to a mutual right-of-way driveway which leads to a semidetached garage in the rear yard.
The Property is flanked north and south by one and a half storey detached dwellings.
The redevelopment proposal for the Property involves demolition of the structures presently on the Property and construction of a three storey multiplex dwelling containing four dwelling units as well as a two storey garden suite containing one dwelling unit.
In this hearing, the Tribunal heard professional planning evidence adduced by the Appellant through Christian Chan, an experienced land use planner with much prior involvement with multiplex projects. The Tribunal also heard evidence from the abutting neighbour to the south, Ms. S. Kessel, who resides at 402 Glenholme Avenue, and from the abutting neighbour to the west, Ms. K. Spiwak, who resides at 471 Lauder Avenue.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Provincial Interest - Section 2, Planning Act

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (“the Tribunal”) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in Section 2 of the Planning Act.

Provincial Policy – Section 3, Planning Act

A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS).

Variance – Subsection 45(1), Planning Act

In considering an application for variances from the Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application meets all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. The tests are whether the variances:

maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The Variances Requested

As explained by Mr. Chan, the redevelopment proposal requires various heads of variance relief, which are as follows:

Multiplex Variances:

Chapter 10.80.40.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building height is 11 m.

The new fourplex dwelling will have a height of 11.53 m.

Chapter 10.5.40.70.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback is 4.86 m.

The new fourplex dwelling will be located 3.01 m from the front (east) lot line

Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a fourplex dwelling is 1.2 m.

The new fourplex dwelling will be located 0.45 m from the side (north) lot line.

Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% (60.81 m²) of the rear yard must be maintained as soft landscaping.

In this case, 34.41% (41.84 m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.

Chapter 10.80.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage is 12 m. The lot frontage is 7.62 m.

Chapter 10.80.30.10.(1)(C), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 360 m². The lot area is 278.71 m².

Garden Suite Variances:

Chapter 150.7.50.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% (60.81 m2) of the area between all rear main walls of the fourplex and an ancillary building containing a garden suite and extending parallel to the rear lot line across the full width of the lot from the point where the rear main wall of the residential building meets the residential building's side main walls closest to the respective side lot lines, must be for soft landscaping. In this case, 34.41% (41.84 m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building on the lot and the rear lot line will be maintained as soft landscaping.

Chapter 150.7.60.20(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required rear setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.5 m.

The ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 1.1 m from the rear (west) lot line.

Chapter 150.7.60.30.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

Despite regulation 10.5.60.30(1), an ancillary building containing a garden suite must be no less than 7.5 m from a residential building on the same lot if the height of the ancillary building is greater than 4 m.

The ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 6.5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 6.3 m.

Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(i), (ii) and (iii), By-law 569-2013

No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45-degree angular plane projected towards the rear lot line, beginning from a height of 4.0 metres at a distance of 7.5 metres from the rear main wall of the residential building on the same lot.

In this case, the new ancillary building containing one garden suite penetrates the angular plane towards the rear (west), front (east) and sides (north and south) lot line.

Chapter 150.7.60.40(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

Despite regulation 10.5.60.40(2)(B), the maximum permitted height of an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 4 m if the ancillary building is located a minimum of 5 m to less than 7.5 m from the residential building on the same lot.

The ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 6.5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 6.3 m.

Mr. Chan did explain that during the pursuit of the application and this appeal, there was a further amendment to the Zoning By-law (by By-law 849-2025) which eliminated the requirement for building the garden suite within the stipulated angular planes. This is addressed in Variance #10 above. As such, presumably that variance could be abandoned but he advised that since that deficiency was an item on the Zoning Examiner’s Notice, they wished to keep it in in order to dispose of it.
As well, in the interest of softening the massing in relation to the abutting properties, the design does apply some adjusted angular plane controls. The garden suite is proposed with rear and side angular planes beginning at a height of 5.0m and a front angular plane beginning at a height of 5.0m.
The Committee of Adjustment refused the application. The Appellant appealed that refusal decision and thus the matter is now before the Tribunal.

The Property, the Proposal and the Context

The Property has a frontage of 7.62m, a lot depth of 36.58m, and a lot area of 278.71m2. The Property is located on the west side of Glenholme Avenue, between Hanson Road and Amherst Avenue. The parcel is generally flat with limited variation in topography.
The fourplex (now defined as a “detached houseplex” in the Zoning By-law) is proposed with a total gross floor area of 419.04m2, with each three-bedroom unit comprising 104.76m2. The proposed height is 11.53m and the proposed building length is 17.60m. A rear basement unit walkout is proposed, with a wheel chair lift to enable access to that unit, providing an accessible unit in the multiplex. Exterior stairs and platforms are required by the Building Code at the rear of the building to enable a second egress for all above-grade units. The rear stairs and platforms are proposed to be constructed of porous metal grating to enable groundwater absorption by the soft landscaped areas beneath them. Soft landscaped areas are proposed in the front and rear yards, and all walkways are proposed with permeable paving.
A two-bedroom garden suite with a gross floor area of 98.73m2, having a height of 6.3m (with front, side and rear angular planes) is proposed in the rear yard, as the fifth rental unit on the Property. Two bicycle parking spaces are proposed in the rear yard between the garden suite and the fourplex. There is an area in the rear yard for the storage of waste bins.
In keeping with the direction in Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Mr. Chan has delineated a Geographic Neighbourhood for this area, as well as an Immediate Context.
The Geographic Neighbourhood is bounded by Rogers Road to the south, Dufferin Street to the west, Oakwood Avenue to the east, and the north lot lines of the properties backing onto the Eglinton Avenue West properties to the north
The Immediate Context is Glenholme Ave. between Amherst Ave. and Hanson Road, addressed as #377 – 451 Glenholme Ave.
Mr. Chan advises that generally, the entire Geographic Neighbourhood is zoned as the Residential Multiple RM (f12.0; u4; d0.8) (x252) Zone and has a height limit of maximum 11m and 3 storeys for a residential building (no limit on storeys for a multiplex), a maximum FSI of 0.8x for detached and semi-detached homes. Garden suites are permitted with a height of one storey (4m) if between 4-7.5m from the residential building on the lot, and two storeys and 6.3m if beyond 7.5m from the residential building on the lot, and a maximum floor area of 120m2, pursuant to the 2025 Garden Suite Monitoring By-law Amendment
Mr. Chan further advises that the Geographic Neighbourhood is located within City Neighbourhood #107 (Oakwood Village). He then relays that based on the 2021 census information available from the City’s Neighbourhood Profiles, Oakwood Village has: A) a higher percentage of households with inadequate housing and unsuitable housing than the City of Toronto at large; B) a higher percentage of 3 and 4 person families than the City at large; and C) a higher percentage of rental households and transit usage in comparison to the City at large.
Mr. Chan was apparently taken to task at the Committee with respect to the characterization in Item A above. He explained to the Tribunal that this statement was not meant to be deliberately disparaging but that it reflected that much of the housing stock in the area is relatively old and would profit from rehabilitation or upgrade.
Mr. Chan takes these findings from the neighbourhood profile as important and relevant as, in his opinion, the above statistics are important to consider from a housing perspective, because the proposal will provide additional transit oriented, purpose built rental housing in the neighbourhood. This is a City planning goal.
In that latter regard, the Property is in walking distance to a number of Major Streets and Avenues, being Eglinton Avenue West, Dufferin Street, Rogers Road and Oakwood Avenue, all of which provide transit services and commercial services.
He explains that existing development for low-rise residential buildings within the Geographic Neighbourhood is characterized by one-to three storey detached residential buildings of up to 11.53m in height, limited rear yard and front yard soft landscaping, limited side and front yard setbacks, generally on lot frontages of 7.62m (25ft).
In the Immediate Context development is characterized as lower-scale one-to three storey detached and semi-detached residential buildings with smaller side yards, front and side yard paving and front parking pads, on lot frontages generally of 7.62m (25ft.).
In his opinion, the planned context and the existing characteristics of development in the Immediate Context are materially consistent with those factors in the Broader Context within the Geographic Neighbourhood.
Mr. Chan points out to the Tribunal that based upon his review of data from the Committee of Adjustment in this Geographic Neighbourhood, in recent years the Committee has approved variances for four garden suites and eight multiplexes.
He specifically refers to a project with which he was involved at 484 Westmount Avenue, whose characteristics were essentially the same as those proposed for this property.
In that regard, the Tribunal is also aware of a further proposal not in this Geographic Neighbourhood but just to the west of it at 6 Kirknewton Road, also a project in which Mr. Chan was involved and which also is a combination of a three storey multiplex dwelling and a garden suite of similar characteristics as that proposed here. That proposal was also before this Tribunal, differently constituted, and was approved, Deng (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 397.

The Planning Policy

Mr. Chan addressed the matters of Provincial interest laid out in Section 2 of the Planning Act as well as the relevant policies set forth in the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 document. He was of the view that the proposal here was in keeping with these planning policy objectives.
Mr. Chan identified a number of applicable objectives within this material but put specific focus on the Settlement Area policies found in Section 2.3.1 of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024. Reference is made in particular to the following policies: Land use patterns within settlement areas should be based on densities and a mix of land uses which:a) efficiently use land and resources; b) optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities; c) support active transportation; d) are transit-supportive, as appropriate.
And further, that planning authorities shall support general intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities, including by planning for a range and mix of housing options and prioritizing planning and investment in the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities.
Of course, the key planning policy document on the municipal front is the City Official Plan (“OP”). Mr. Chan canvassed a number of sections of the OP, including the Healthy Neighbourhoods Policies of Chapter 2.3.1, the Built Form Policies contained in Chapter 3.1.3, the Housing Policies in Chapter 3.2.1, Multiplex OPA 649 (SASP 826), and Garden Suite OPA 554 (SASP 670) (as amended by OPA 824).
For the purpose of this Decision, his testimony will not be documented in each of those Sections but rather focus on the policies which primarily support multiplex development and garden suite development, and which lay out and circumscribe the development criteria which apply, being the Multiplex OPA 649/SASP 826 and the Garden Suite OPA 554/SASP 670 (as amended).
OPA 649 (which introduces SASP 826) was adopted by City Council on May 15, 2023 and its opening paragraph essentially amounts to the new mission statement of Council as it relates to intensification within Neighbourhoods.
That first paragraph reads as follows: “Low-rise residential buildings that contain more than one unit make more efficient use of land, and provide more ground-related housing choices for all residents at all stages of their lives, supporting the vitality of the city's Neighbourhoods. Multiplexes – residential buildings containing up to four units – can deliver additional dwellings while integrating with the general physical scale and development patterns of the neighbourhood. To accommodate the modest intensification needed to house more people, regulations for multiplexes may differ from single-unit buildings to ensure efficient and livable homes for Toronto's residents.”
The policy goes on to make clear that it is intended to operate outside of the development criteria otherwise applicable to Neighbourhoods lands as set out in Policy 4.1.5 of the OP.
It is worthwhile to transcribe here the criteria set forth in this Amendment:

“Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies:

a) For the purposes of this Site and Area Specific Policy, a "multiplex" refers to a duplex, triplex, or fourplex.

b) Development of multiplexes:

i. will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

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

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

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

d) maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard setbacks that is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy;

e) conserving heritage properties and heritage conservation districts;

and

f) special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood.

ii. is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit that contains multiple bedrooms;

iii. will provide entrances that are safely accessible from the street, which may be located at the front, side or rear of the building;

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;

v. is encouraged to salvage and/or reuse existing building materials and/or foundations;

vi. is encouraged to provide green roof areas, solar panels, and low carbon building materials, and to ensure any parking spaces are designed to permit future electric vehicle supply equipment;

vii. will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units;

viii. will integrate with existing grades at the property line; and

ix. is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a multiplex.

Mr. Chan addresses each of these criteria and explains how the proposal on the Property conforms.
There will be no change in the pattern of the street or block, nor will the proposal alter the prevailing size or configuration of the lot as the Property is a lot of record and it has a frontage and depth consistent with the lots in the neighbourhood,
The development standard with respect to setback of buildings from the street was a specific concern of Ms. Kessel. The building on the Property as it now exists is setback from the front lot line 4.87m. Ms. Kessel’s building at 402 Glenholme Ave. Is setback 4.86m. The building to the north of the Property at 406 Glenholme Ave. Is setback 4.84m. The Zoning By-law in this location does not prescribe a fixed setback standard but rather requires that the setback be the average of the setback distances of the properties abutting it. In this instance that By-law setback requirement would be 4.86m. With the redevelopment it is proposed to be 3.01m.
Mr. Chan made the observation in his filed evidence that the 3.01m front yard setback would be consistent with the prevailing setbacks of buildings in this neighbourhood. In the interest of testing this assertion, the Tribunal asked Mr. Chan to provide further details to back up the assertion. In response, Mr. Chan produced a table and map which was taken in as Exhibit 8 that provided front yard setback data for all of the lots in the Immediate Context and in the Adjacent Blocks North and South.
In addition to individual lot data, the data is organized to show an average for each of these three blocks and provides a categorization based upon one metre ranges. What the data reveals is that in the Immediate Context, the average front yard setback is 3.0m and the most frequent range is 2-3m. In the North Adjacent Block, the average is 1.63m and the most frequent range is 1-2m. In the South Adjacent Block, the average is 2.74m and the most frequent ranges are 1-2m and 2-3m.
Bare observation of the street does reveal that there is variation in front yard setback. The filed table backs up this observation.
Consequently, it is fair to say that the proposal on the Property will be in keeping with the prevailing front yard setbacks in this neighbourhood.
That having been said, Ms. Kessel’s assertion that due to the height and massing of the proposed multiplex, with this lesser setback than that of its neighbours, it is likely to dominate and appear out of keeping with the built form now in place. That opinion does carry some weight but the Tribunal sees this as one of the consequences of Council’s decision to encourage a more dense building form in the Neighbourhoods. The proposal fulfills the spirit of Council’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) initiative and thus results in a departure from the historic built form of this neighbourhood, which new built form has been endorsed by the new development standards applicable to multiplexes and garden/laneway suites. Unquestionably, Neighbourhoods lands will begin to look different as time moves on and this form of development makes further inroads into the neighbourhoods.
To the extent that the EHON initiative continues to be taken up, Neighbourhoods lands will go through an evolution and in the same way that the prior wave of gentrification altered the physical appearance of many Toronto neighbourhoods, so too will this initiative change the face of these neighbourhoods.
Coming back to the criteria, Mr. Chan points out that the extent of soft landscaping on the Property will increase in both the front and rear yards. In the rear yard, the soft landscaping will not meet the by-law standard, and thus variance relief is required, but it will increase from its current state. The current condition has 22.82m2 (15.99%) rear yard soft landscaping and the total soft landscaping on the Property as it exists is 29.34m2 (10.53% of the lot). The proposed rear yard landscaping is 41.81m2 (34.41%) and total soft landscaped areas are 66.03m2 (23.69% of the lot). In addition, although it is not treated as included soft landscaping because of its location, the approximate 7m2 area underneath the rear fire escape is proposed to be soft landscaping. As such, there will be a material increase in the soft landscaped area on the Property, as proposed.
The development policy of SASP 649 encourages the inclusion of large units, including at least one unit with multiple bedrooms.
The evidence in this appeal, as borne out by filed floor plans, indicates that all four of the multiplex units will have three bedrooms. The garden suite will have two bedrooms. This came about during the course of the processing of the application as originally the multiplex units were to have two bedrooms. It is fair to say that these unit provisions are in keeping with the policy encouragement.
In response to this fact, both Ms. Kessel and Ms. Spiwak harbour reservations about whether the resultant population will put excessive demands on municipal services. If that were to be the case, the Tribunal would have expected the City Engineering Division to have provided cautionary comment but no such caution was signalled by that Division.
Similarly, there was concern expressed by Ms, Spiwak that these households may have automobiles and that that will put further demand on street parking spaces even though this area is subject to permit parking. Again, it has to be observed that City Council has made the policy decision to not require on-site parking spaces for residential uses here. The area is served by transit and there are other transportation options such as walking, bicycling, car-share and ride services.
The multiplex has a front entrance which is safely accessible from the street as well as a rear entrance to each unit by way of a metal stairwell provided to meet Building Code requirements for secondary egress in the event of fire. Furthermore, the design of the lowest level unit anticipates barrier-free access by the provision of an elevator to the patio area and rear door.
With respect to trees, there is a tree in the front yard which the Tribunal understands is not by-law protected due to its small diameter trunk and is proposed to be removed as it lies in the path of the front entrance. However, in keeping with the policy, the plans show an intention to plant a new tree in the front yard as well as two new trees in the rear yard, thereby expanding the prospect of tree cover over time.
With respect to by-law protected trees, Ms. Spiwak indicated in her evidence that persons apparently retained by the Appellant took down the rear lot boundary fence and made entry on her property with what appeared to be an intention of damaging or removing a by-law protected tree in her rear yard. They were warned away from taking any such steps. Ms. Spiwak advises that she has arranged for restoration of that fence. She continues to harbour concern though for her tree. If indeed her tree is potentially subject to injury as a result of any activity on the Appellant’s land, the Appellant will have to seek a tree injury permit from the City and the Urban Forestry Division will rule on what can and cannot be done.
With respect to privacy, Mr. Chan points to the limitation of privacy impacts by not having windows on the north main wall and implementing privacy screening on the rear exit stair landings.
And with reference to integrating with existing grades at the property line, this came up tangentially through Ms. Kessel’s evidence and concern about the elevation of the Property being higher than her lot and that this could result in drainage from the Property to her lot.
Although he was not on the witness list, the project manager for this proposal, Mr. Sheinen, was present through the proceeding and was called upon by the Tribunal to confirm that as part of the building permit process, a consulting engineer would be retained to prepare a lot grading and stormwater management plan and that it would be the obligation of the Appellant to avoid directing stormwater onto the neighbours’ lands and to install any drains necessary to achieve that objective.
The other planning policy front engaged by this application is related to garden suite development and its code is found in SASP 670.
Without setting out the policy elements distinctly, the Tribunal will here reproduce Mr, Chan’s response to those elements so that the subject will be clear along with his opinion.
Mr. Chan asserts as follows in that regard:

“In my opinion, the proposal meets the intent of the relevant SASP 670 policies, being that the proposed garden suite:

Policy a): is subordinate to the primary dwelling and is a self-contained residential unit;

Policy b) i: meets fire and emergency service requirements having a minimum 1.0m width walkway from the front lot line/sidewalk;

Policy b) ii: limits privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties by proposing upward facing skylights, instead of rear-facing second storey windows;

Policy b) iii: maintains the majority of the rear yard as open space (being hard and soft landscaped elements), and maximizes soft landscaping over the existing condition that contains a very limited amount of soft landscaping, and provides more soft landscaping than the existing character of rear yard landscaping on residential lots in the Geographic Neighbourhood;

Policy b) iv: does not result in the removal of a by-law protected tree on the property and adjacent properties;

Policy b) vii: is less than the floor area of the residential building (fourplex) on the lot; (which policy is no longer in effect, but was.in force at the time of Committee Application)

Policy b) vii (formerly b) viii): maintains stormwater management on site by providing soft landscaping, permeable walkways and appropriate drainage in the sunken patio areas for the fourplex’s lower level unit – the proposed areas of soft landscaping on the Site, as a total, is maintained from the pre-existing development, and the City boulevard improved to substantially increase the soft landscaping on the public realm;

Policy b) viii (formerly b) ix.): expands the urban tree canopy through the proposed planting of new trees in the rear yard, and generally as part of the redevelopment of the entire Site by replacing the mostly hardscaped front yard and City boulevard with soft landscaping, providing opportunities for the expansion of the tree canopy on the City right-of-way.

Policy d) iv: the location and massing and design of the Garden Suite preserves existing trees (however, there are none impacted by the Garden Suite).”

With respect to Mr. Chan’s closing comment, as noted above in light of Ms. Spiwak’s concern, it will fall to the City’s Urban Forestry Division to determine the likelihood of injury to the tree on her property and if they anticipate injury to that tree, to establish the terms for any tree injury permit that might issue. The Appellant will have to address this and potentially implement any design changes to the garden suite which may be necessary as a consequence.

The Zoning By-law

Mr, Chan addresses the test of whether the application is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law by responding to each variance request with an analysis.
Regarding the multiplex height variance, he takes the position that OPA 649 notes in the sidebar ii that: “To compensate for this loss of living space in multiplexes, zoning variances such as modest increased height or reduced setbacks may be considered where their impacts are deemed to be minor.”
In furtherance of this OP guidance, he takes the position that relief of 0.53m above the maximum permitted 11m height is requested is in order to provide sufficient fenestration and light to the lower-level unit, as well as minimizing concrete use in foundations and basement. To support this, he points to an 11.53m tall fourplex which has been approved by the Committee at 484 Westmount Ave. with a similar design and side yard setbacks.
To further support this, he says that the minor increase in height is offset by compliance with the minimum south side setback, and compliance with the permitted building depth and length for a multiplex. Angular planes and dormers are also being incorporated in the design at the uppermost storey in order to reduce the impact of the additional height requested.
His concluding opinion on this head of relief is that the implementation of upper-storey angular planes at the front and rear of the fourplex limits the massing of the building onto the streetscape and to the adjacent properties and meets the intent and purpose of the height regulation
The front yard setback variance has been discussed at length above. His final opinion on this head of relief is that the proposed front yard setback, being closer to Glenholme Avenue, is more in line with the existing physical character of the prevailing front yard setbacks in the Immediate Context, and therefore meets the intent of the front yard setback regulation.
Variance relief is sought for the north side yard setback. Mr. Chan declares that the purpose of a side yard setback is to limit built-form impacts to adjacent buildings, to provide adequate separation between buildings, and to provide side yard access for maintenance of buildings and structures.
In this instance, by way of background, he says that the Geographic Neighbourhood is characterized by smaller side yard setbacks than the minimum permitted in the Zoning By-law. He asserts that the most common variance requested in applications to the Committee are for side yard setbacks, with almost every Committee application for new residential building and additions in the Geographic Neighbourhood requiring side yard setback variances.
With respect to the Property, the existing north side yard setback is 0.37 metres. Thus the proposed north side yard setback of 0.45m is an improvement over the existing condition. It is also reflective of the existing and approved side yard setbacks along Glenholme Avenue and in the Geographic Neighbourhood, with specific reference to the building on the adjacent property at 406 Glenholme Avenue which has a south side yard of 0.31m.
There is a variance request here for rear yard soft landscaping. Mr. Chan bundles up his explanation on this by considering the combined effect of the two structures and the overall site. He asserts that the purpose of regulating the rear yard soft landscaping area is to allow for sufficient open space and greenspace, and to assist with on-site storm water management.
He concludes that the totality of the new development on the Property, being the multiplex and the proposed garden suite, will provide an increased quantity of soft landscaping than currently exists, while increasing the number of dwelling units and he adds that the Property currently has no permeable paving.
The proposed rear yard soft landscaping doesn’t meet the minimum 50% soft landscaping standard as a result of the necessary hard landscaping in the rear yard designed to achieve minimum walkway widths for accessibility requirements to the sunken patio for the rear entrance to the lower level multiplex unit. This sunken patio will include a wheel-chair elevator, enabling the lower level multiplex unit to be wheelchair accessible.
Another fact that Mr. Chan urges the Tribunal to take account of is that the area underneath the rear fire escape for the multiplex building is proposed to be soft landscaping. The rear exit stairs will be made of metal grating, and allow 100% of rainfall to go through them into the soft landscaped areas below the exterior fire exit stairs. The area underneath the rear fire escape is approximately 7m2. Although the treatment of this area would be characterized as soft landscaping, as it is below what the zoning examiners treat as a structure, it is not included in the soft landscaping calculation. The area will nonetheless function to absorb rainwater.
Mr. Chan again turns to comparison between the existing state of the Property and its condition post-development. In that regard, he calculates that the current site condition has 22.82m2 (15.99%) rear yard soft landscaping and the total soft landscaping on the Property is 29.34m2 (10.53% of the lot). The proposed rear yard landscaping is 41.81m2 (34.41%) and total soft landscaped areas are 66.03m2 (23.69% of the lot). As such, there is a substantial increase in the soft landscaped area on the Property, as proposed.
As a supplementary point, Mr. Chan advises that the Appellant will be conducting improvements to the City boulevard whereby the City boulevard, which is now almost entirely comprised of hard landscaping, is proposed to be soft landscaping and permeable walkways with the opportunity to plant new boulevard trees.
There is a request for variance relief for lot frontage. The Property has a frontage of 7.62m. Mr. Chan points out that most of the lots in the local neighbourhood and on Glenholme Avenue have 7.62m frontages and even the development of a detached house would not comply with the minimum lot frontage for a detached house (8m) due to RM exception x252.
This issue was briefly referenced in the OP discussion. Frontages of 7.62m are the norm in this area and these lots are all lots of record. The lot frontage is not changing as a result of this application. The OP is not encouraging lot assemblies.
Mr. Chan further advised that on this point and relating to lot area, apparently the practice of the zoning examiners varies among them. Some examiners appear to treat these lots as legal non-conforming and therefore not in need of variance relief, and they do not identify this condition as a zoning deficiency. The examiner on this review did identify it as a deficiency.
This panel of the Tribunal inclines to the view that the lot would be legal non-conforming both as to lot frontage and lot area. As such, the granting of variance relief may be unnecessary but as they have been identified as items which require approval, that will be dealt with in this Decision.
This then takes us to the variances related to the proposed garden suite.
Mr. Chan suggested that the purpose of the angular plane regulation is to limit the impact of a garden suite’s second storey massing on adjacent properties. He advised that at the time of the Zoning review and Committee application, the Zoning By-law required that no part of a garden suite penetrate 45-degree angular planes on all four sides of the building. He further advised that in response to Provincial Regulation O. Reg. 462/24. this requirement has since been deleted from Chapter 150.7, pursuant to the Garden Suite Monitoring Program Amendment. Angular planes applied to the roof of a garden suite are no longer required. However, as these were identified as zoning deficiencies at the time of review, a request is being made to address them in this Decision.
Nonetheless, despite the elimination of the obligation to design in keeping with the angular plan restrictions, Mr. Chan tells the Tribunal that in order to mitigate any potential massing impact on the neighbours, the Appellant has decided to implement a modified angular plane control on the garden suite.
Specifically, the garden suite is proposed with rear and side angular planes beginning at a height of 5.0m (as opposed to 4.0m under the previous by-law standard) and a front angular plane beginning at a height of 5.0m. In order to build this into the approval, Mr. Chan and Mr. Flett have recommended to the Tribunal that it should be incorporated as a condition of any approval.
There is a request for a rear yard setback variance. The 2025 by-law amendment requires that the massing of a garden suite be setback 1.5m from the rear lot line if there are no openings on a rear main wall at and above 4m height. If there are openings, then the required rear setback is 3.0m.
The request here is to permit a 1.1m rear setback.
Mr Chan explains that the the purpose of a rear yard setback of 1.5m under By-law 101-2022 and an increased rear setback of 3.0m for a garden suite with openings above 4.0m main wall height under By-law 849-2025 is to reduce impacts related to privacy and overlook to adjacent neighbouring properties from upper-storey windows in proximity to a rear lot line, and to other potential garden suites facing each other.
He points out that as seen on the rear elevations and noted on the floor plans, this garden suite utilizes upward-facing skylights on the rear portion of the roof to allow for natural light infiltration. In his opinion, that sufficiently addresses and mitigates any impacts of overlook and intrusion on privacy on the adjacent rear yards, buildings, and-potential garden suites in adjacent rear yards, and therefore, maintains the intent and purpose of the original and updated development standards
Mr. Chan did not address any potential impact that this setback variance may have on the integrity of the maple tree in Ms. Spiwak’s rear yard. As no arboricultural evidence was called in the proceeding by anyone, the Tribunal cannot draw any conclusions about any such impacts. However, the Tribunal understands that this is a by-law protected tree and that application will have to be made for a tree injury permit. As such, it will fall to the City’s Urban Forestry Division to make that determination and deal with the issue. This may involve special care in undertaking work within any tree protection zone or even possibly drawing back the rear wall of the garden suite to achieve by-law conformity under the rear setback requirement.
The Zoning By-law contains a minimum separation distance requirement between the garden suite and the multiplex building. Mr. Chan advises that the purpose of a separation distance is to address built form impacts and privacy impacts to the residential building on the lot. For a one-storey garden suite, the minimum separation distance is 4.0m, and for a two-storey garden suite it is minimum 7.5m. The proposed separation distance on this proposal is 6.5m from the fourplex.
Mr. Chan advances the view that the proposed garden suite implements a front angular plane to reduce the built form impact upon the multiplex and In terms of privacy, the front main wall contains one window facing the multiplex, within a dormer. That window is for the primary bedroom. His rationale is that since this is a bedroom window, it is not for a room on the second floor that would be used for gatherings producing impacts of overlook into the multiplex units.
The final garden suite variance relates to height. By-law 849-2025 now permits garden suites of up to 6.30m height above average grade provided that they are separated from the main building on the site by 7.5m. This garden suite is proposed with a height of 6.30m, in line with the amended maximum height permissions in Chapter 150.7 but not in keeping with the minimum separation distance.
In his opinion, the height meets the general intent and purpose of the maximum height regulation as it conforms with the stipulated maximum height and any height impact due to the reduced separation is mitigated by the implementation of the proposed front angular plane.

The Tests of Minor and Desirable

Mr. Chan prefaces his view on whether the variances meet the test of minor by saying that, in his opinion, the variances sought will not have adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and the Immediate Context and, as such, are minor in nature and in impact. He says that “minor” is not simply an assessment of the numerical variance, it is also one of impact rising to the level of undue adverse impact of a planning nature. Cumulative impacts as well as individual impacts are considered.
Mr. Chan’s view in this regard is in keeping with how the planning profession and this Tribunal approach the test of minor.
On the basis of that presumption, his rationale in analyzing each of the variance requests on the minor test tracks his rationale as expressed above with respect to OP and zoning general intent and purpose. As such, his evidence on the test of minor will not be reproduced here.
With respect to whether the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate use or development of the land, he touches upon a number of grounds that were elaborated in his evidence.
Firstly, he says that the proposed development will contribute to a significant part of the reinvestment into the neighbourhood in providing additional residential units in a compact built form in the neighbourhood and on Glenholme Ave., and will add to the City’s “missing middle” rental housing stock
Secondly, he says that the proposed development is intended as purpose-built rental housing, and is designed as family-sized rental units, which adds housing options and unit mix to the neighbourhood. A multiplex and garden suite are among the “gentlest” intensification forms available: they are ground-related, low-rise, adding meaningful units to the neighbourhood’s and City’s rental housing supply.
Thirdly, he says that City Council has encouraged the development of multiplex and garden suite development by the multiplex development charge exemption (which was increased in 2025 to exempt up to six units in a detached houseplex), as well as the garden suite development charge deferral program. City Council has provided incentives to develop up to seven units on Residential Zone lots in the City that permit sixplexes and garden suites (TEY District and Ward 23).
Fourthly, he says that the proposed development represents appropriate development within its planned and existing context and supports gentle intensification advanced by the Garden Suite OPAs and Zoning By-law Amendments adopted by City Council. It is within close proximity (1 block) to two delineated Major Transit Station Areas and frequent transit on nearby major streets.
Finally, to the extent that there is value and justification in precedent, he turns to 484 Westmount Ave., a similarly designed redevelopment in the Geographic Neighbourhood consisting of an 11.53m tall fourplex and a 6.3m tall garden suite with a 6.5m separation distance, implementing angular planes, and with a lower percentage of rear yard soft landscaping (than the proposed development on the Property) was found by the Committee of Adjustment to meet the four statutory tests, and was approved. That property has the same lot frontage and a similar lot area, in an Immediate Context that is contextually similar to Glenholme Ave.
On the strength of all of the foregoing, Mr. Chan concludes that the requested variances meet the four tests set forth in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, represent good planning practice, are in the public interest and should be approved by the Tribunal.
That recommendation is coupled with a recommendation that the Tribunal subject that approval to six conditions which he sets forth as follows:

Conditions proposed:

All walkways on the subject lands, whether new or replacement, shall be constructed of permeable interlocking pavers.
The area beneath the rear exterior stairs of the three-storey structure on the subject site shall be constructed of permeable material.
Trees shall be planted as contemplated on the Site Plan Diagram “SP01” bearing the issue date of October 9, 2025. [Document Book, Exhibit 3, Tab 6c, Page 256]
Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.
Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance.
The garden suite shall be constructed to include 45-degree angular planes at the east and west facades beginning at 5 metres above the average grade. A dormer no wider than 1.83 meters shall be permitted to penetrate the angular plane at the east façade.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The evidence of Mr. Chan was comprehensive, careful and clearly and cogently set forth. On the merits, the Tribunal is persuaded that his conclusion that the four tests of Subsection 45(1) have been met on this application is warranted and sound.
That having been said, one cannot escape the observations which have been expressed in this hearing by the two neighbour Parties. The redevelopment of the Property will be different in built form than the general historic built form of this area. City Council essentially conceded that outcome in adopting the recent policy provisions governing multiplexes and garden/laneway suites by explicitly setting these policies despite the general development criteria which operate in the Neighbourhoods designation.
There are some useful further observations that should be acknowledged here. Firstly, renewal of the housing stock has been occurring in the General Neighbourhood and many of those new builds are of a size and massing which is in keeping with the City’s goal of achieving greater density.
Ms. Kessel is of the view that the new buildings will stand out. That is a fair statement but not necessarily a negative one, although that is clearly her anticipation. Although she referred to a property up the block where renovations have taken place to create additional units and asked why that couldn’t happen on this site, the Appellant has not chosen that route. The Tribunal has a duty to assess the proposal which this owner has chosen to advance and on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the variances from the Zoning By-law necessary to facilitate it are in keeping with current City policy and satisfy the four tests of Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
Ms. Spiwak asserts that this is not gentle density but rather aggressive density, a jamming in of people into every square inch. Such arguments are commonly heard by the Tribunal but do not take cognizance of the very laudable goal of City Council to address the insufficient supply of housing in the City and to take advantage of the opportunities which exist in the Neighbourhoods to positively respond to that need, which is also in keeping with the Provincial policy mandate of taking efficient advantage of servicing and community infrastructure and creating complete communities at greater density.
The evidence of Mr. Chan disclosed that he had engaged with the City Planning Department on this application and took their guidance. It was apparently at the urging of City staff that the multiplex units were modified to provide three bedrooms rather than two in order to ensure that there was more family housing available. It is also to be noted that the City took no position in this hearing in opposition despite the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment.
Ms. Kessel raised concerns about construction in the sense that the garages on the properties are presently semi-detached and no one has yet spoken to her about what is to be done regarding the demolition of the half on the Property while preserving her half. Mr. Flett properly acknowledged that that was a private matter. The Tribunal agrees. The Appellant or its representatives will have to engage with her on that in due course.

CONCLUSION

On the strength of all of the evidence adduced through the hearing and for the reasons expressed herein, the Tribunal is persuaded that the requested variances satisfy the four tests of Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and should be approved. The Tribunal will also take the recommendation of Mr. Chan as to the appropriateness of the proposed conditions and will impose them on this approval.
The proposal here is in the vanguard of change precipitated by Council’s direction to achieve greater density in the Neighbourhoods. It will mark a difference from the historic look of many neighbourhoods . As the OP says however, neighbourhoods should be stable but not static. The core of Toronto was once characterized by what was known as the bay and gable style, a form overtaken by time and events. We are simply in a further stage of neighbourhood evolution.

DECISION AND ORDER

The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the following variances are approved on the Conditions set forth below:

Multiplex Variances:

Chapter 10.80.40.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building height is 11 m.

The new fourplex dwelling will have a height of 11.53 m.

Chapter 10.5.40.70.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required front yard setback is 4.86 m.

The new fourplex dwelling will be located 3.01 m from the front (east) lot line

Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback for a fourplex dwelling is 1.2 m.

The new fourplex dwelling will be located 0.45 m from the side (north) lot line.

Chapter 10.5.50.10.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 50% (60.81 m²) of the rear yard must be maintained as soft landscaping.

In this case, 34.41% (41.84 m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.

Chapter 10.80.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot frontage is 12 m. The lot frontage is 7.62 m.

Chapter 10.80.30.10.(1)(C), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required lot area is 360 m². The lot area is 278.71 m².

Garden Suite Variances:

Chapter 150.7.50.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

Chapter 150.7.60.20(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required rear setback for an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.5 m.

The ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 1.1 m from the rear (west) lot line.

Chapter 150.7.60.30.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 6.5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 6.3 m.

Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A)(i), (ii) and (iii), By-law 569-2013

In this case, the new ancillary building containing one garden suite penetrates the angular plane towards the rear (west), front (east) and sides (north and south) lot line.

Chapter 150.7.60.40(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The ancillary building containing a garden suite will be located 6.5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 6.3 m.

CONDITIONS::

All walkways on the subject lands, whether new or replacement, shall be constructed of permeable interlocking pavers.
The area beneath the rear exterior stairs of the three-storey structure on the subject site shall be constructed of permeable material.
Trees shall be planted as contemplated on the Site Plan Diagram “SP01” bearing the issue date of October 9, 2025. [Document Book, Exhibit 3, Tab 6c, Page 256]
Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.
Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance.
The garden suite shall be constructed to include 45-degree angular planes at the east and west facades beginning at 5 metres above the average grade. A dormer no wider than 1.83 meters shall be permitted to penetrate the angular plane at the east façade.

G. Swinkin

Panel Member