Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date:

2026-04-28

25 242260 S45 14 TLAB, 25 242163 S45 14 TLAB

Cole, Valter (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 410

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

April 28, 2026

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

Appellant(s):

M. COLE, V. ELLEN M

Applicant(s):

GTA PERMITS

Property Address:

9-11 RIVERDALE AVE

COA File No.:

25 208768 STE 14 MV (A0605/25TEY) 25 208781 STE 14 MV (A0609/25TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 242260 S45 14 TLAB 25 242163 S45 14 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

April 21, 2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant Appellant Participant Participant

GTA PERMITS M. COLE E. VELTER P. HILTY A. HILTY

E. VALTER

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This matter deals with an appeal of two decisions of the Toronto and East York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment which denied one minor variance application from each of the properties municipally known as 9 and 11 Riverdale Avenue (the “Subject Properties”). The proposal calls for the construction of a semi-detached ancillary building with a partially cantilevered second storey, which will be placed on each property, and will contain a one car garage on the ground level and storage and loft space on the second level. There will be no habitable space. The proposal for 11 Riverdale Ave has both front and rear juliette balconies, while the proposal for 9 Riverdale Ave calls for a rear juliette balcony only.

2Each property has a different owner, and has a different set of minor variance relief that is being requested.

3The Subject Properties are located on the south side of Riverdale Avenue, east of Broadview Avenue and west of Logan Avenue. The proposed semidetached garage is accessed through a private laneway which is accessed from Langley Ave, which is south of Riverdale Avenue.

4The appeal is being allowed subject to the condition of approval outlined at the end of this decision.

5Prior to the hearing I visited the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.

6Ten (10) exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”):

a. Exhibit 1: Expert Witness Statement Form of Gregorii Davidovich

b. Exhibit 2: Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty Form 6 for Gregorii Davidovich

c. Exhibit 3: Email correspondence between Matthew Cole and City of Toronto from March to April 2018

d. Exhibit 4: Email correspondence between Matthew Cole and City of Toronto from February 2022

e. Exhibit 5: Email correspondence between Matthew Cole and Landscape, a private group which develops laneway housing and garden suites from April 2022 to June 2024

f. Exhibit 6: Geospatial photograph dated Sept 29, 2025

g. Exhibit 7: Photographs from Private Laneway

h. Exhibit 8: Party Witness Statement Form 12 of Matthew Cole

i. Exhibit 9: Party Witness Statement Form 12 of Ellen Valter

j. Exhibit 10: Laneway & Garden Suites dataset prepared by Mr. Cole

7I will now review the legal framework guiding this matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

8Provincial Interest - S. 2

A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.

9Provincial Policy – S. 3

A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.

10Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet 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.

11The requested variances are as follows:

9 Riverdale Avenue

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

A minimum of 25% (33.53 m²) of the rear yard must be maintained as soft landscaping.

In this case, 13.32% (17.87 m²) of the rear yard will be maintained as soft landscaping.

2. Chapter 10.5.60.70.(1), By-law 569-2013

The total area of the lot covered by all ancillary buildings and structures may not exceed 10% of the lot area (24.19 m2).

The new ancillary building will cover 18.9% of the lot area (45.67 m2).

3. Chapter 10.5.60.40.(3), By-law 569-2013

An ancillary building or structure is permitted a maximum height of one storey.

The new ancillary building will have a height of two-storey.

4. Chapter 10.5.60.40.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building is 4 m.

The new ancillary building will have a height of 6.1 m.

5. Chapter 10.5.60.50.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures on the lot is 40 m².

The new ancillary building will have a total floor area of 85.53 m².

11 Riverdale Avenue

1. Chapter 10.5.60.40.(3), By-law 569-2013

An ancillary building or structure is permitted a maximum height of one storey.

The ancillary building will have a height of two storeys.

2. Chapter 10.5.60.40.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building is 4 m.

The ancillary building will have a height of 6.14 m.

3. Chapter 10.5.60.70.(1), By-law 569-2013

The area of the lot covered by all ancillary buildings and structures may not exceed 10% of the lot area (24.33 m²).

The ancillary building will have a lot coverage of 20.5% (49.7 m²).

4. Chapter 10.5.60.50.(2)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structure on the lot is 40 m².

The ancillary building will have a total floor area of 90.02 m².

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Mr. Davidovitch

12Mr. Davidovitch is a Building Code Identification Number qualified professional under the Ontario Building Code holding qualifications in Small Buildings, House, and Plumbing. Mr. Davidovitch has over 12 years of experience in residential building design, zoning analysis, and building code compliance. Mr. Davidovitch’s professional experience includes the preparation of design drawings, coordination with municipal planning departments, and the representation of applicants before Committees of Adjustment. Mr. Davidovich was qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of residential building design and building code compliance for the matter before the Tribunal.

13Mr. Davidovitch reviewed the neighbourhood context. In addition, he explained that the height of the proposed semi-detached two-storey garage varies due to the slope of the properties. The height is 6.14 m at the front and 5.61 m at the rear of 11 Riverdale Ave, and 6.1 m at the front and 5.83 m at the rear of 9 Riverdale Avenue. Mr. Davidovitch provided his opinion that the lot coverage for both properties is consistent with and lower than the approved precedents across Toronto, and is not an overdevelopment of the rear yard. The laneway is private property, however, it is not included in the soft landscaping calculations.

14Mr. Davidovitch indicated that another option would be to have a mezzanine in the garage. However, this does not change the physical characteristics of the building such as height, footprint, or massing. The difference would be purely internal to the structure, and terminological. Mr. Davidovitch asserted that there are no adverse impacts, that the proposal provides functional parking and storage consistent with the laneway context and usability of properties. Mr. Davidovitch referenced the Official Plan and noted that the proposal allows for liveability and the efficient use of space without introducing additional residential units, and that pursuant to the intentions of the Zoning Bylaw, the ancillary structures remain subordinate to the main dwellings.

15Mr. Davidovitch indicated that the distance from the rear main wall of the dwelling to the ancillary building at 9 Riverdale Ave is proposed to be 10.84 m, and at 11 Riverdale Ave it is proposed to be 13 m. There is an existing wood deck at 9 Riverdale Ave which is not connected to the rear of the house.

Mr. Cole

16Mr. Cole provided testimony regarding 9 Riverdale Avenue. The main semi-detached dwelling originally had storage space in the basement. Both 9 and 11 Riverdale Avenue have had the height of the basement ceilings raised through underpinning. This has increased the living space in these properties to accommodate changing multigenerational family situations. Mr. Cole communicated with City of Toronto (“City”) planning staff about the potential for a laneway suite to be built, however, the laneway at the rear of the property is privately owned and is viewed as a right-of-way, and not as a laneway. Mr. Cole subsequently investigated the possibility of building a garden suite, however, however, the width between the main dwellings and their neighbouring properties to the east and to the west is too small by approximately 10 cm for access by emergency services.

17Mr. Cole referred to a coach house within the vicinity of the private laneway that is 2-storeys in height, and approximately 6.06 m in height, located at 14 Langley Ave. Mr. Cole conducted this measurement himself using a measuring tape. Mr. Cole also provided a Geospatial photograph dated September 29, 2025 (Exhibit 6) where he used his own measurements to identify approximately 16 properties in the immediate vicinity of the private laneway which he believes could build as-of-right garden suites. Mr. Cole focused on emergency services access and the City’s tree bylaw in reaching his conclusions, and used a tape measure to determine access to the rear of properties. Mr. Cole also noted that 19 Riverdale Ave has a new, wider and deeper garage.

18Mr. Cole also noted that 9 Riverdale Ave has a Japanese maple tree which is not under any City protection rules, but which will be protected. There is also a locust tree on the property which will be protected.

19From Mr. Cole’s perspective the proposal aligns with multigenerational housing policies, and the variances are needed due to the narrowness between houses. The proposal is modest and highly functional in response to the constraints of both 9 and 11 Riverdale Avenue, with human living space being placed in the basement of these properties, and storage in the upper space of the ancillary building. Mr. Cole indicated that this is the only viable solution to maintain the function of multigenerational homes within the context of the neighbourhood.

20Mr. Cole also provided additional testimony regarding laneway suite and garden suite applications from 2018 to 2025. He obtained the data from the City, and he stated that it demonstrates growth and adoption across the City, including in the Riverdale neighbourhood.

Ms. Valter

21Ms. Valter briefly provided testimony regarding 11 Riverdale Avenue. Ms. Valter noted that the proposal is an example of two neighbours working together to solve their mutual problem – i.e. the need for additional living space – which has resulted in the underpinning of the semi-detached properties, and now the proposal for storage space to be moved to the rear of the properties on the second storey of the proposed garage.

Mr. Hilty

22Mr. Hilty is a nearby residential neighbour. Mr. Hilty referred to the Committee of Adjustment hearing, and asserted that the proposal was opposed by City planning due to it having excessive variances. Mr. Hilty expressed concern that the variances could set a negative precedent for subsequent applications.

23With regards to 19 Riverdale Ave which has a new garage that was referenced in previous testimony, Mr. Hilty stated that no minor variances were required. Mr. Hilty suggested that there should be brainstorming regarding how storage space can be added to the Subject Properties within the existing framework of the Zoning By-law, while using the basements as living space. In addition, there are numerous storage facilities available within a 2 km radius of the properties. Mr. Hilty also referenced a green roof on the new garage at 19 Riverdale Ave. Mr. Hilty indicated his concerns with the visual impact of the proposal, the loss of nature, and the negative precedent for future building in the neighbourhood.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Geographic Neighbourhood per Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan

24Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, I consider the Geographic Neighbourhood to begin in the west with the properties immediately adjacent to the properties that abut Broadview Avenue, the properties on the south side of Withrow Avenue to the north, the properties on the west side of Logan Avenue to the east, and the properties on the south side of Simpson Avenue to the south. These properties are all zoned R (d0.6)(x736), contain similar residential dwelling types and scale, and contain similar street patterns and pedestrian connectivity. In this case, the immediate context contains a private laneway, and I consider this to be of greater relevance than the broader context.

Provincial Interest

25I find that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, including: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; and (p) the appropriate location of growth and development.

2024 Provincial Planning Statement

26The 2024 Provincial Panning Statement (the “PPS”) is a high level planning framework that outlines development criteria for planning matters. I have considered the PPS – in particular, Chapter 2: Building Homes, Sustaining Strong and Competitive Communities - and I find the proposal to be consistent with this document.

Section 45(1) Test for Minor Variances

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

27The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods on Map 18 of the Official Plan. I have considered Chapters 1 – 3, such as Health Neighbourhoods Policy 2.3.1, Built Form Policy 3.1.3, and Housing Policy 3.2.1. I find that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of these Chapters. My focus in this decision will be on Chapter 4.1.5. Garden suites are permitted in Neighbourhoods through Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) 554 which implemented Site Are and Specific Policy (“SASP”) 670, which has been amended by OPA 824. SASP 670 overrides Policy 4.1.5, and provides the relevant policies for garden suites. In this case, the proposal is for an ancillary building, meaning that Policy 4.1.5 still applies.

28Policy 4.1.5 outlines criteria a. through j. for which a development will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of a geographic neighbourhood. With regards to these criteria, the proposal maintains existing private laneway, and the existing size and configuration of lots. In addition, I find that within the immediate context, the proposal respects and reinforces the prevailing height, massing, scale, density and dwelling type. The ancillary building will be subordinate to the main dwelling of each property. There are newer garages on the private laneway, and there is an existing two-storey coach house with a similar height. I have considered all the 4.1.5 development criteria, and I find that the proposal meets this Policy of the Official Plan.

29In addition, I have also reviewed the criteria for Garden Suites in SASP 670, and find that the proposal would meet these requirements if the SASP 670 were to apply. I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

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

30The Subject Properties are zoned R (d0.6) (x736).

31Garden suites are permitted (with conditions) in the R zone through By-law 101-2022. O. Reg. 462/24 under the Planning Act, contains five standards that prevail over municipal zoning by-laws where there is a conflict: (1) no requirement for angular planes; (2) 4 m separation distance; (3) maximum 45% lot coverage for all buildings and structures; (4) no floor space index (“FSI”) limitations; and (5) minimum lot area maintained in the implementing zoning by-law. In addition, By-law 849-2025 modified the Zoning By-law Chapter 150.7 regulations pursuant to O.Reg.462/24.

32The intent of rear yard soft landscaping area is to allow for sufficient open space and greenspace. There is an existing wooden deck in the rear yard of 9 Riverdale Avenue. In addition, I note that the private laneway is not considered in the calculation of the rear soft landscaping area. I find that there is sufficient open space and greenspace that the intent of this provision of the Zoning Bylaw is met for 9 Riverdale Avenue.

33A lot coverage variance is required for both properties. If the ancillary building were treated as a garden suite, the lot coverage requirement in the Zoning By-law (Chapter 150.7.60.70 Lot Coverage) is 20%, instead of the 10% requirement for an ancillary building. In this case, there would be no variance requirement for 9 Riverdale Avenue, and a variance for 20.5% (i.e. an additional 0.5%) lot coverage for 11 Riverdale Avenue. It is a technicality that requires this proposal to be treated as an ancillary building under the Zoning By-law, and there are properties in the immediate context which can build garden suites. I find that the ancillary structures will be subordinate to the main dwellings, and that the general intent and purpose of this provision of the Zoning By-law is met for both properties.

34In addition, a variance is required for the maximum permitted floor area of the ancillary buildings. If the proposal were treated as a garden suite, this variance would not be required. The requirement would be for the interior floor area of the garden suite to be less than the gross floor area of the main dwelling. I adopt the reasoning noted above regarding the proposal being treated as an ancillary building and find that the general intent and purpose of this provision of the Zoning By-law is met for both properties.

35There are two height variances required for each property. One is for the number of storeys, and the other is for the height of the building, which as I noted above, is slightly different for each property due to the slope of the properties (6.1 m for 9 Riverdale Ave, and 6.14 m for 11 Riverdale Ave). The maximum height for a garden suite that is located 7.5 m or more from the residential building on the lot is 6.0 m. Mr. Davidovitch testified that the distance from the rear main wall of the dwelling to the ancillary building at 9 Riverdale Ave is proposed to be 10.84 m, and at 11 Riverdale Ave is proposed to be 13 m. In addition, a garden suite is permitted to have a maximum of 2 storeys in height. In other words, if the proposal was treated as a garden suite, the only height variance required would be for 6.1 m (a 0.1 m variance) for 9 Riverdale Ave, and 6.14 m (a 0.14 m variance) for 11 Riverdale Ave. I adopt my previous reasoning regarding the proposal being treated as an ancillary building and find that the general intent and purpose of this provision of the Zoning By-law is met for both properties.

36I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

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

37I find that the proposal will contribute to the existing housing supply in a compatible manner. It is a clever solution to allow for multigenerational housing in the main dwellings while maintaining storage capacity in an ancillary building. I find that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.

Are the variances minor?

38I find that the resulting proposal generates similar impacts to what would otherwise be an as-of-right garden suite. Due to emergency services requirements, a garden suite is not permitted on the Subject Properties. In order to deal with this situation, there is a condition of approval that neither ancillary structure can contain habitable space, or be used for residential living space. I find that the proposal does not result in any undue adverse impacts of a planning nature, and is minor.

CONCLUSION

39In conclusion, I find that each of the requested variances individually and cumulatively meet the four statutory tests outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

40The Appeals are allowed and the variances requested are approved, subject to the following condition:

a. That the semi-detached two-storey garage will not contain habitable space and will not be used for residential living space on either 9 Riverdale Ave or 11 Riverdale Ave.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member