22-24 Vanley Cres Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 408

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-04-21

25 245690 S45 06 TLAB

22-24 Vanley Cres Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 408

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

April 21, 2026

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

Appellant(s):

22-24 VANLEY CRES INC

Applicant(s):

GTA DESIGN & ENGINEERING

Property Address:

22-24 Vanley Cres

COA File No.:

25 169800 NNY 06 MV (A0236/25NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 245690 S45 06 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 05, 2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member B. Mullock

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

22-24 VANLEY CRES INC

M. NEMANIC

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 60.20.20.10.(1)) does not list “Vehicle Dealership” as a permitted use in an Employment Industrial Zone.

2On October 9, 2025, The City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused a variance to permit a Vehicle Dealership use for Unit B at 24 Vanley Cres (subject property).

3On October 28, 2025, the Appellant, 22-24 Vanley Cres Inc, appealed the decision of COA, resulting in this TLAB Hearing.

4The property is designated Core Employment Areas in the City of Toronto Official Plan Map 16, and zoned Employment Heavy Industrial Zone (EH) under Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013. It is located north of Sheppard Avenue West, east of Chesswood Drive and west of Dufferin Street.

5The requested variance before TLAB is:

a. Chapter 60.30.20.10 (1), By-law 569-2013.

A vehicle dealership is not a permitted use.

A vehicle dealership (for used cars) is proposed.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6Provincial 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.

7Provincial 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.

8Variance – 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

9Peter Kulkarni, RPP, MCIP, was qualified as an Expert Witness to provide evidence in support of the appeal.

10The expert witness testified that the existing business in Unit B, M&R Automotive Ltd, is owned and operated by three brothers, who have experience in car repair, service and sales. Their objective is to expand the existing permitted service and repair business, by adding the sale of used cars as an ancillary business. Used cars would be purchased, and worked on at the property to improve their market value, in readiness for sale.

11Mr. Kulkarni gave evidence that the Official Plan permits small scale ancillary uses, while Zoning By-law 569-2013 does not permit Vehicle Dealerships or retail ancillary uses, despite such permissions having existed in the Former North York Zoning By-law No. 7625.

12It was the expert witness’s opinion that TLAB should allow the appeal and approve the variance as proposed, with conditions applied. The Appellant is proposing conditions, specifically those applying to the hours of operation, customer visit by appointment only and the maximum number of vehicle spaces allotted to cars offered for sale.

13Mr. Kulkarni gave evidence that M&R Automotive Ltd. itself is proposing limits on the proposed expanded use. Customers would come on an appointment-only basis between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. The number of cars offered for sale is proposed at not more than 10.

14In his Expert Witness Statement, Mr. Kulkarni asserted that these three proposed conditions were formulated in collaboration with M&R Automotive Ltd. and with reference to the commonly occurring practices of other used car dealerships in the immediate and broader context, including Eight8 Alpha Auto Sales Inc.; A2Z Motors Wholesale; Superb Auto Sales Inc.; Prime Auto Collection; Paramount Fine Cars Inc.; Carka Inc.; Auto Rev Inc. and Westminster Motor Corporation.

15Mr. Kulkarni gave evidence that the application applies only to the business located in Unit B of 24 Vanley Cres, which occupies a space of 197m². The lessee of Unit B is M & R Automotive Ltd. He clarified that the application does not apply to Unit A at 24 Vanley Cres, which has a much larger floor area. It is a non-related business under different lessee ownership. Neither does the application apply to 22 Vanley Cres, next door, which again is an unrelated business.

16Mr. Kulkarni made reference to the letter of opposition submitted by S. Beamish, President of AMP across the street at 7 Vanley Cres. The letter provided photos, in support of its argument that already, there are parked cars, “on the front lawn and all over the street”, limiting AMP’s ability to ship product. Mr. Kulnarni gave evidence that the photos actually illustrate another property,that at 22 Vanley Cres, and not 24 Vanley, the subject property, which is next door.

17The expert witness noted that the local City Councillor and several other businesses on Vanley Cres had submitted letters of support.

18The witness gave evidence that sufficient parking does exist on site to park the proposed ten vehicles displayed for sale. Ten parking spaces are now designated to unit B, he noted.

19Mr. Kulkarni gave evidence that the motor vehicle dealership use was permitted under the old By-law 7625, but is not listed under the current Zoning By-law 569-2013. He gave evidence that car dealerships have operated on Vanley Cres. historically and still do so today.

20Mr. Kulkarni gave evidence that there are eight businesses along Vanley Cres and Chesswood Dr. with current Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) dealership licenses. He listed these businesses and made reference to a map locating them in relation to 24 Vanley Cres.

21He testified that today Vanley Cres. is a street comprising low-rise commercial and industrial uses, including automotive-related and metal fabrication businesses. A dozen automotive-related businesses are located along Vanley Cres, in close proximity to the subject property. He gave evidence that uses include auto body shops, used car dealerships and car detailing shops.

22The witness cited the example of Eighty8 Alpha Auto Sales, along the street at 70 Vanley Cres., as a nearby example of a nearby operating automotive dealership. Questioned by the Tribunal as to how Eighty8 Auto Sales had dealt with the zoning permission issue, he replied that he was simply unsure.

23In the broader context of the larger Chesswood Drive area, Mr. Kulkarni gave evidence that a significant number of used car dealerships were currently operating. His conjecture was that perhaps they were operating under legal non-conforming status, grandfathered from the old by-law. He opined that perhaps some could be operating without licences.

24With respect to the Provincial Policy Statement, Mr. Kulkarni opined that the proposed used vehicle dealership represents an employment-generating use within an existing building, and so makes efficient use of existing infrastructure. It could involve one or two new jobs, he opined.

25He opined that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, by supporting economic vitality without introducing sensitive or incompatible uses to the area.

26Test #1. With respect to the Official Plan, Mr. Kulkarni opined that the proposal aligns with the intent of Sections 2.2.4.1 and 4.6, by maintaining the employment character, economic function, and long-term viability of the Employment Area. He gave evidence that the proposal would achieve these outcomes by making use of an existing employment building for an employment-generating business and maintaining the lands in an active employment use, without introducing sensitive or residential uses.

27Test #2. With respect to the Zoning By-law, Mr. Kulkarni noted that 24 Vanley Crescent, Unit B is zoned EH. He explained that vehicle repair shop, vehicle service shop uses and open storage uses are permitted with conditions, while vehicle dealerships are not listed.

28Despite this, he gave evidence that the proposed use shares functional characteristics with permitted uses such as warehouse, industrial sales and service, and vehicle-related employment uses, and the proposed conditions will maintain its ancillary character, consistent with M&R Automotive Ltd.’s intended primary car repair and service operations.

29He opined that the prior permissibility of a vehicle dealership use on the site under the former Zoning By-law 7625 should be relevant. In his view, it demonstrates that the proposed dealership use was historically considered appropriate for the site.

30Mr. Kulkarni made reference to Toronto Local Appeal Body decision in 155 Champagne Drive (TLAB Case No. 18 132160 S45 08, Decision and Order dated July 17, 2018). He opined that this decision provides relevant and persuasive precedent for the current appeal.

31He gave evidence that TLAB had found that, where a use was previously permitted and continues to function in a manner consistent with employment objectives, the inclusion of a vehicle dealership permission under the current by-law can be considered minor and consistent with zoning intent.

32Mr Kulkarni gave evidence that the proposed use at 24 Vanley Crescent would not amount to a conventional, high-volume new automobile dealership. It would not be characterized by large showrooms, frequent walk-in traffic, large outdoor car display areas. Rather, he described the proposal as an ancillary use, limited to a used car dealership with vehicles displayed only on designated parking spaces and with the principal use remaining as car repair and service.

33He opined that, consistent with the reasoning in 155 Champagne Drive, permitting a vehicle dealership in this context does not undermine the intent of the Zoning By-law.

34Test #3. Mr. Kulkarni opined that the variance is desirable, in that it would allow for the enhanced use of an existing building for an employment-generating business. The proposal could generate one or two jobs, contributing to the economic vitality of the area.

35Test #4. The witness opined that the proposal is minor in nature, in that it seeks permission for a specific use within an existing employment building, with no physical changes being involved.

36He opined further that, similar to the finding by TLAB in 155 Champagne Drive, where a vehicle dealership operates in a manner similar to a warehousing and office use, as this proposal does, that the inclusion of a dealership permission becomes minor, when assessed in a land use planning context.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

37This proposal does not seek the expansion of an existing use, as vehicles are not currently, and have not previously been, sold from the site. The proposal is therefore considered under s.45(1) of the Planning Act as a variance, and not as an expansion of an existing use (s.45(2)).

38The evidence heard at hearing was neither opposed nor controverted. It consisted solely of evidence given by expert witness, Peter Kulkarni.

OFFICIAL PLAN

39The policies in Chapter 4.6 of the Official Plan aim to provide protection for Employment Areas within its Core Employment Area and General Employment Area policies to secure future economic viability. The intent of the policies is to protect established industries and the future use of employment lands from incompatible activities, which would negatively constrain employment uses.

40Official Plan Policy 4.6.1 permits manufacturing uses as well as warehousing, storage facilities, offices and vehicle repair and services, amongst others. The Zoning By-law, which implements Official Plan policies, does not include a Vehicle Dealership as a permitted use.

41If approved with conditions applied, the existing use at Unit B, 24 Vanley Cres would continue to be the primary use – that of a vehicle repair and service shop.

42Ancillary to that primary business, the Appellant proposes to service and to improve a limited number of used cars, and to offer those cars for sale on the site. This maintains the intent of the Official Plan. In s.4.6.2, it reads: “Small scale retail uses that are ancillary to and on the same lot as the principal use are also permitted.“

ZONING BY-LAW

43The use “car dealership” in a core employment zone is not listed as a permitted use. Any use not permitted is prohibited. I credit Mr. Kulkarni’s evidence that the car dealership use was permitted under the former By-law, 7625, and seen to be appropriate at that time, but is not a listed use under the current Zoning By-law 569-2013.

44I agree with evidence of Mr. Kilkarni that the proposed low intensity used vehicle dealership shares functional characteristics with permitted uses such as warehouse, industrial sales and service, and also with vehicle-related employment uses which exist both at 24 Vanley and at other businesses on Vanley Cres. These include 19 Vanley, 70 Vanley and 4 Vanley.

45An auto dealership permission applied to the subject property under the former North York by-law. The Appellant makes no claim that the auto dealership use has been continuous under the new By-law, 569-2013. In my finding, however, the proposed auto dealership use is not inconsistent with the Zoning By-law 569-2013, at the low intensity proposed and with conditions attached.

46The Staff Report of October 2, 2025 “continues to recommend refusal”, as did the Staff Report of July 3, 2025. The October 2 Staff Report expresses concern that the variance requested represents a change of land use, and as such, should be sought via an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) application. Should the scope of the permitted use, however, be limited to a low intensity through the application of conditions, then the OPA process need not be required, in my finding.

47Further, the Staff Report of October 2, 2025 expresses concern that a car dealership use could negatively impact the future capacity of these employment lands to house employment uses. According to that Staff Report, a car dealership would attract the general public into the core interior area of these employment lands. I do not agree that a limited ancillary use to the primary use of the property would generate traffic significant enough to impact the functioning of these employment lands.

48It is true that the intent of the OP is to locate uses which attract the general public to General Employment areas, those to the exterior of Core Employment Areas. In this case, however, the general public, in the form of prospective buyers, would be coming to the site on an appointment only basis. They would not be coming randomly or in large numbers, in the evidence of Mr. Kulkarni. I accept this statement of intent. In my finding, at such a limited scope of operation as that proposed, the proposal conforms with the intent of the uses permitted in the Zoning By-law.

49No change to the built form of 24 Vanley Cres is proposed. I find, as a result, that the viability of the site and the building to house future varied employment uses is protected.

DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMNNT OF THE LAND

50I accept the evidence of Mr. Kulkarni that the proposal is desirable, in that it allows the existing business to continue, while adding a limited ancillary use. A limited used car sales use would compliment the existing vehicle service and repair business, by using the interior shops as workspace for improving the used cars prior to sale.

51In my finding, the proposal involves a subject property which is located on a street with many automotive-related businesses clustered together. The proposal is compatible with those businesses, as demonstrated by the support letters from nearby business owners.

MINOR

52One variance is sought. I find that the proposal is minor, in that it leaves the building intact and physically able to house employment uses now and in the future. It does not, through alteration, serve to remove a building from the stock of industrial buildings.

53I agree with the evidence presented that, similar to the finding by TLAB in 155 Champagne Drive, where a vehicle dealership operates in a manner similar to a warehousing and office use, the inclusion of a dealership permission may be viewed as minor, when assessed in land use planning terms.

54In my view, vehicles for sale should be displayed only within the designated outdoor parking spaces inside the gate and fence line. Curbside display of cars is not to take place. Being inside the gate, the general public would only have access to the display vehicles by appointment, as proposed. From the street, the vehicles would not be openly visible, as they commonly are in a traditional car dealership setting.

CONCLUSION

55The intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law is to locate full-scale car dealerships in General Employment Areas, rather than in Core Employment Areas. The proposed subject site is located in a Core Employment Area. I accept the Appellant’s stated intention, however, that the principal use would continue to be an automotive service and repair shop. To safeguard this intention, conditions must be attached to an approval.

56In my finding, Mr. Kulkarni built a sufficient foundation of evidence at hearing, to support the case that the proposal satisfies the four tests, with conditions.

57I find that the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained.

58While noting the Appellant’s insight in proposing that conditions to be attached to an approval, the tribunal sees the need to apply conditions which differ from those proposed by the Appellant. With appropriate conditions, the potential impact of this application would not disrupt industrial operations in the area. Neither, in my finding, would it undermine the employment planning objectives for the area. It would not draw substantial public traffic to Vanley Cres.

59Conditions are imposed, such that the ancillary car dealership use is limited in order to maintain the intent of the OP and the Zoning By-law. They include a limit on the maximum permitted number of outdoor display parking spaces.

60In my finding, since various automotive uses, some involving used car dealerships, already exist on Vanley Cres., this proposal does not represent the imposition of a sensitive new use on the immediate context. I find rather that it results in a development which can exist harmoniously in the immediate context and contribute to its economic activity.

61No changes are proposed to the building structure itself. In my finding then, the risk that changes to the building which would constrain its future capacity for housing employment uses, is avoided.

62At an ancillary level, a small number of used cars could be improved on site and offered for sale there, without transforming the operation into a traditional new car dealership. A key question is - how many cars? In my finding, considering the intent of the OP, the Appellant’s proposed ten car limit represents too high a threshold. At ten cars, over time, the important relationship between the principal auto repair use and the ancillary used car retail use would be at risk of being blurred or even reversed. The ancillary use could evolve to become the primary use. Such a future outcome would not support the intention of the OP.

63The conditions attached to an approval, therefore, should work to maintain the Appellant’s intentions, as stated at hearing. This can be achieved by restricting the number of outside parking spaces allowed for display of cars offered for sale. Only 6 parking spaces exist inside the fence and gate. In my view then, restricting the number to six vehicle spaces maximum will serve to maintain the relationship between ancillary sales and primary repair business. At six used cars displayed for sale inside the fence, the ancillary car dealership use becomes compatible with existing nearby automotive uses and harmonious with nearby non-automotive uses.

64S. 45(1) allows the tribunal to, “authorize such minor variances from the zoning by-law”, provided that the four tests of the Planning Act are satisfied.

65I find that the requested variance, limited by the conditions of approval attached, maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and is minor and desirable for the development and use of the land.

DECISION AND ORDER

66The Appeal is allowed in part.

67A variance to Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 60.30.20.10.(1)) to permit a “Vehicle Dealership” on the subject lands is authorized, subject to the following conditions:

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Variance Approval

1. Use - The vehicle repair shop and the used vehicle dealership will operate simultaneously on site, with the vehicle repair shop being the primary use and the used vehicle dealership being the ancillary use;

2. A maximum of 6 outdoor parking spaces may be used to display cars for sale. Specifically, the 6 permitted parking spaces are those immediately inside the front iron gate and fence line, as illustrated on the attached Site Plan, submitted by GTA Design & Engineering, Dwg. No. 25-0301-001;

3. Car showings will be conducted by appointment only, with prospective customers being received between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm.

B. Mullock

Panel Member