Armstrong (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 411

Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2026-05-05 25 247090 S45 11 TLAB Armstrong (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 411

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: April 28, 2026 Revised Date: May 5, 2026

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

Appellant(s): C. A. ARMSTRONG Applicant(s): WND ASSOCIATES Property Address: 2 OLD GEORGE PL COA File No.: 25 126308 STE 11 MV (A0190/25TEY) TLAB Case File No.: 25 247090 S45 11 TLAB Hearing Date(s): March 24, 2026

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. BASSIOS

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type Applicant Appellant Participant

First Initial. Last Name WND ASSOCIATES C. A. ARMSTRONG G. SMITH

Representative R. UUKKIVI J. EVOLA

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This Appeal arises from the Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of an application for variances to alter an existing two-storey detached dwelling by adding a third storey, balconies and a patio.

2The subject property is located at 2 Old George Pl, in the Rosedale neighbourhood of the former City of Toronto.

3The property is designated Neighbourhoods and zoned RD (f15.0;d0.35) (x1351) under City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013.

4The property is located within the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District (NRHCD) and subject to the Heritage Conservation District Plan (HCD Plan). In July 2025, City Council approved, with conditions, the proposed alterations to the existing building in accordance with Subsection 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

5Following the filing of the Appeal to the TLAB, the Appellant submitted an Applicant Disclosure identifying changes to the application that was before the COA. The proposed development has been reframed as a duplex (previously a detached house) by defining the previous staff quarters as a separate unit, and a previously proposed balcony on the third floor has been removed.

6The effect of the changes to the development proposal is to reduce the number of variances required. Notably, under a 2023 Official Plan Amendment (OPA 649) to facilitate multiplex buildings, no floor space index variance is required for the duplex building type now proposed.

7The TLAB is requested to approve the following variances:

1. Chapter 900.3.10 Exception RD 1351 (A), By-law 569-2013 Any addition or extension above the first storey of the lawfully existing detached house must comply with the minimum building setbacks required by this By-law: 1.5 metres. In this case, the proposed setback for the third floor addition is 0.9 metres from the east side lot line.

2. Chapter 900.3.10 Exception RD 1351 (B), By-law 569-2013 Despite Regulation 10.5.40.60 (1), in a front yard, a platform with a floor higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may not encroach into the required yard setback. In this case, the proposed front second floor balcony is encroaching into the required front yard setback.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.10 (4), By-law 569-2013 If a permitted residential building in the RD Zone has a roof with a slope of less than 1.0 vertical units for every 10.0 horizontal units for more than 50% of the total horizontal roof area despite regulation 10.20.40.10 (2), the permitted maximum height of all main walls is 8.5 metres. In this case, the proposed main wall height of the third floor is 8.80 metres.

4. Chapter 5.10.40.1 (3), By-law 569-2013 On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, if a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, no building or structure may be located on the portion of the lot below that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank. In this case, the proposed basement walkout will be located below the stable top-of-bank.

5. Chapter 5.10.40.70 (6), By-law 569-2013 If the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority determines that a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, a building or structure on that lot must be set back a minimum of 10 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank. In this case, the proposed building is set back 0.0 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank.

6. Chapter 5.10.40.80 (1), By-law 569-2013 On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, a building or structure on a lot must be no closer than 10 metres from a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank not on that lot. The proposed building or structure is 0.0 metres from a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank not on that lot.

8Two motions were filed by the Appellant prior to the scheduled Hearing date. The request for both Motions was that they be held via a Written Hearing.

9The first motion to convert the scheduled Remote Hearing to an Oral Hearing was granted. TLAB staff issued a revised Notice of Hearing stipulating that the Hearing on March 24, 2026, would take place at 40 Orchard View Boulevard. No submission deadlines were amended in the revised Notice.

10At the time that the revised Notice of Hearing was issued, submission deadlines for Notice of Intention to be a Party, and Notice of Intention to be a Participant had passed. Three notices of intention to be Participants were received on February 19 and 20, 2026, approximately a month after the deadline set in both Notices (January 21, 2026). The potential Participants seeking status were C. Moore-Ede, G. Smith and S. Richardson.

11A second motion, for the TLAB to refuse Participant status to Ms. Richardson, Mr. Smith and Ms. Moore-Ede, was not immediately granted, and submissions on the issue of the status of three individuals were heard as a preliminary matter in person at the commencement of the scheduled Hearing day on March 24, 2026.

12A few days before the scheduled Hearing, Ms. Richardson emailed the TLAB a completed Form 5, naming Mr. Smith as her authorized representative.

13I advised those present at the Hearing that, in accordance with Council direction, I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their evidence.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

[14] Provincial 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.

[15] Provincial 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.

[16] Variance – 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

17A summary of evidence is presented here for the purpose of providing some context for the following sections of this Decision. All of the evidence in this matter has been carefully reviewed and the omission of any point of evidence in this summary should not be interpreted to mean that it was not fully considered, but rather that the recitation of it is not material to the threads of reasoning that will be outlined in the Issues and Analysis section below.

MOTION EVIDENCE

18This motion sought the effective exclusion of the potential Participants on the grounds of a) their failure to comply with the Notice of Hearing and the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure and b) the remote interest of Mr. Smith and Ms. Moore-Ede.

19The motion materials of the Appellant were marked as Exhibit 9 in the record.

20Mr. Smith and Ms. Moore-Ede were in attendance remotely. I afforded both the opportunity to explain their interest in the matter and to advise me of any consideration they wished me to take into account for the lateness of their request to be instated as Participants.

[21] The evidence of the Appellant was that:

• The TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) state that the TLAB is committed to fixed and definite deadlines. The individuals being considered for Participant status did not file statements within the deadlines and offered no explanation for the lateness.
• Ms. Moore-Ede had not filed any Witness Statement at all and therefore the Appellant had no notice of her intended evidence.
• The TLAB’s Rules expect that a participant should have a valid interest and connection to the subject matter of the proceeding. Ms. Moore-Ede resides in a neighbourhood some distance from Rosedale, as does Mr. Smith.
• Mr. Smith was seeking to take on multiple roles in the Hearing contrary to the TLAB Rules and contrary to basic legal rules that protect procedural fairness. Mr. Smith originally sought status as a Participant, indicated in his Witness Statement that he would provide expert evidence and was, in addition, identified as Ms. Richardson’s representative.

22I asked Ms. Moore-Ede if there was anything she wanted me to take into account as an explanation for why she had not notified the TLAB and the Appellant of her interest in participating in the Hearing by the deadline.

23Ms. Moore-Ede was under the impression that she had only been a day late in filing her intent to be a Participant in the proceedings. While I was explaining that she was approximately a month late in notifying of her intent, her online connection to the WebEx platform was severed.

24Mr. Smith explained that the first Notice of Hearing was issued by the TLAB on December 22, 2025, and this may have been a factor in why he missed it, and why there was little response. He became aware of the Hearing only when the second Notice (advising of an Oral Hearing) was issued.

25Mr. Smith was not familiar with tribunal proceedings. He was not aware that the Rules do not allow him to provide expert opinion evidence on his own behalf. To be relied upon, expert opinion must be fair, objective and non-partisan.

26He was also not aware that he could not give Ms. Richardson’s evidence for her and that her evidence could only be admitted if she was present to be cross-examined.

27Mr. Smith had indicated in his Witness Statement that he had been the architect on the renovations at 4 Old George Pl. He mentioned at the Hearing that it is his parents that reside at that address. (He did not say that he was authorized to speak on behalf of his parents).

28The Witness Statement that Mr. Smith had submitted was brief and contained little detail of his intended testimony. I explained that in legal proceedings it is necessary to give the other parties fair notice of one’s intended evidence so that they may prepare a response.

MOTION DECISION

29Ms. Richardson was not in attendance and had identified Mr. Smith as her representative. Ms. Richardson was not present to give her evidence under oath or to be cross examined and therefore, even had she been granted Participant status, her Witness Statement would not be admitted as evidence.

30Ms. Moore-Ede had not submitted a Witness Statement and therefore the Appellant had no notice of her intended evidence. She also did not reconnect to the Hearing. For these reasons, she was not recognized as a Participant.

31Mr. Smith was not permitted to act for Ms. Richardson. He was not qualified to give expert opinion on his own behalf. As he had provided a Witness Statement and had offered an explanation of the circumstances contributing to the lateness of his notice of intent to participate in the proceedings, Mr. Smith was granted Participant status with the proviso that his testimony be limited to the substance of his submitted Witness Statement.

EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT

32Mr. McGaffey was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.

[33] Mr. McGaffey provided policy context for the proposed development as follows:

• The subject site is located at the southern end of Old George Pl, a north-south oriented cul-de-sac accessed from Roxborough Drive. It is sited at the crest of the Yellow Creek Ravine, and the southern portion of the site is located within the ravine system.
• Through the Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) program of City Council, amendments have been made to the Zoning By-law that permit intensification such as the duplex proposed in this application.
• The lots on Old George Pl are unique, with a unique character, and so a statistical analysis of the neighbourhood is not of particular use.
• The subject site and immediate surrounding area are subject to RD Exception 1351 of the Zoning By-law. The proposal requires variances to two of the provisions of this exception: a) any addition or extension above the first storey of the existing detached house must comply with the minimum building setbacks and b) in a front yard, a platform with a floor higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may not encroach into the required setback.
• The property is located within the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. City Council approved in principle, with conditions, the proposed alterations to the existing building in accordance with Subsection 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

34Mr. McGaffey identified a geographic neighbourhood in accordance with the direction of OP Policy 4.1.5. (It is generally reflective of the “Ravine Lands” character area identified in the Heritage Conservation District Plan.) He included the properties at the foot of Old George Pl (with Highland Ave. addresses) as part of the immediate context.

35In describing the varying character of the neighbourhood and the immediate context, Mr. McGaffey referenced some larger homes in the neighbourhood. In response to my question regarding the comparative floor areas, Mr. McGaffey referred me to the advice he had provided through the COA process with respect to floor space. The relevant COA documents have been marked as Exhibit 11.

36The pattern of streets and blocks with the neighbourhood are predominantly curvilinear and follow the varied topography of the area. Mr. McGaffey noted the existing condition in his defined immediate context where the façades facing the public realm are predominantly “secondary” façades.

[37] Mr. McGaffey described the proposed development as follows:

• All of the alterations and additions to the existing building will occur within the existing building footprint.
• The alterations will facilitate conversion of the existing (single) detached dwelling into a duplex, with a separate dwelling unit provided for live-in care staff in the future.
• The proposal includes a partial demolition of the existing second floor, including the removal of a false “wing wall” at the second floor to restore views to the ravine from the public realm, and the construction of a new partial third floor to house additional living space and a home office area.
• Careful design has been undertaken to mitigate the apparent height of the third-floor element, through the use of building stepbacks, with the 10.50 metre building height applying only to a small portion of the building atop the apse element. The third floor apse, third floor primary wall, pitched roof and monitor roof all successively step back significantly from the face of the two-storey volume, itself stepped in at the east and west, reducing their visual perception from the public realm and therefore reducing the building’s apparent height.

Figure 1: Front Elevation. Ex 4 pg 23

38Mr. Bootsma was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on architectural design.

39Mr. Bootsma described the varieties of architectural characters in the area surrounding the subject property. Developed during the 1950’s and 1960’s, the modern style residences on Old George Pl. straddle the ridge of the ravine.

40During his description of the homes surrounding the subject property, Mr. Bootsma noted that many of those properties needed variances to the By-law to be built in their current form. I asked Mr. Bootsma to provide the spreadsheet he referenced, which has been added to the record as Exhibit 12.

[41] Mr. Bootsma identified the following features of the design:

• The west wing with double-height space extending down to the basement will function as an independent dwelling unit for live-in-care workers. It is opened to the basement to create a double-height dwelling unit with full width glazing extending down to the rear walkout.
• A landscaped roof with deep perimeter planter boxes at the third floor connects the house, when seen from the street to the wooded ravine beyond.
• Several existing accessory structures in the rear yard, including a retaining wall, stone steps, and southern terrace, are proposed to be removed and naturalised with native plantings in line with the TRCA guidelines for Flora Species Native to the TRCA Jurisdiction, including two new trees (an American beech and a sugar maple).
• The proposed design has received support in principle from the TRCA and is at a stage where an application may be made for a TRCA permit.

42Mr. Smith was not qualified as an expert but was permitted to speak as a Participant in the Proceedings.

43Mr. Smith highlighted that the original design for a single-family detached house has not changed. He noted that the gross floor area is the same, the heights and floor space index have not changed; what has changed is the zoning lens (by redefining the proposal as a duplex).

44Mr. Smith asserted that the changes to allow multiplexes have not come into effect.

45He said that multiplexes are intended to be houses for people. This unit is in the basement, so there is no reason for the structure to be allowed to grow to three storeys.

46He said that the house at the subject property is already the most dominant house on the street and is the most exposed to the street. He said that anybody walking onto Old George Pl can only see garages, but for this dominant house.

47Mr. Smith said that he had never seen a three storey flat roof and that although three storey homes are common, the third storey is contained within the roofline.

48In summary, it was Mr. Smith’s opinion that if the development was permitted to proceed, it would not fit into the street at all; it barely fits now, and adding a third storey would make it dominate even more.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

49I accept Mr. McGaffey’s evidence that the proposal is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

50S.45(18.1) of the Planning Act permits the TLAB to make a decision on an application which has been amended from the original application if written notice is given to the persons who received notice of the original application, or if in the tribunal’s opinion, the amendment to the original application is minor (s.45(18.1.1)).

51In the Applicant Disclosure submission, the Appellant provided notice of the proposed changes to the application that was before the COA, in accordance with the TLAB Rules. The proposed development was reclassified as a duplex by defining the space for live-in staff as a separate dwelling unit and by removing the previously proposed north platform at the third floor.

52The footprint and exterior of the proposed building have not changed except for the elimination of one third floor balcony. The elimination of the one balcony reduces the magnitude of the previously required variances.

53I consider the changes to the previous proposal to be minor. I find that no further notice is required in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

THE FIRST TEST: DOES THE DEVELOPMENT MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

54OP Policy 4.1.5 provides direction for assessing the “fit” of development within a Neighbourhood. The policy contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.

55In May 2023, City Council adopted an amendment to the Official Plan that added Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (SASP 826) to permit multiplexes in all designated Neighbourhoods, subject to a set of regulations that differ from those for single-unit dwellings.

Figure 2: Comparison OP Policy 4.1.5 and SASP 826

[56] There are three Official Plan-related issue areas which require further discussion in this Decision. a. The Heritage Conservation District/ cultural heritage conservation. b. The redefinition of the proposal as a duplex and the consequent loosening of certain constraints that are imposed on detached (single) dwellings, including the requirement to respect the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties. c. Protection of a special landscape feature and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction and requirement to set development back from the stable top-of-bank.

HERITAGE CONTEXT

[57] Chapter 3.1.6 of the Official Plan contains policies on Heritage Conservation. The policies with respect to Heritage Conservation Districts direct how these districts will be identified and evaluated. The culminating policy on Heritage Conservation Districts is OP Policy 3.1.6.33: Heritage Conservation Districts should be managed and conserved by approving only those alterations, additions, new development, demolitions, removals and public works in accordance with respective Heritage Conservation District plans.

58Both OP Policy 4.1.5 and SASP 826 contain development criteria requiring the conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.

59The redevelopment proposal required a heritage permit under s.42 of the Ontario Heritage Act as the property is located within the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District.

60Heritage Planning staff recommended refusal of the alterations on the basis that the apparent height and form of the roof is incompatible with the streetscape and that the addition would not be compatible with heritage-rated buildings in the District “with regard to materiality”.

61In July 2025, City Council approved the proposed additions, subject to conditions, and in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act.

62While the Official Plan expresses that Cultural Heritage is an important component of sustainable development and place making, the regulatory tools to implement the heritage directions of the Official Plan are largely empowered under the Ontario Heritage Act. Development concerns such as architectural style compatibility in a Heritage Conservation District are decided through the issuance or denial of a permit under authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.

63Where there is some small degree of overlapping jurisdiction between the Planning Act and the Ontario Heritage Act with respect to the preservation of cultural heritage attributes, the authority to permit alterations to properties with a heritage significance derives from the Ontario Heritage Act, and the greater jurisdiction lies within that legislation.

64Mr. McGaffey provided expert opinion evidence with respect to the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan. He provided detailed evidence in support of his conclusion that the proposed development provides for a form that has regard for the guidelines set out in s. 7.3 of the HCD Plan and provides for “a high-quality and thoughtful architectural expression on the Subject Site that reinforces the architectural and streetscape character of the District.”

65Mr. McGaffey’s evidence was uncontroverted. City Council, under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act, has approved in principle, from a heritage perspective, the proposed alterations to the property. I therefore find that the proposal meets the Official Plan development criteria with respect to cultural heritage conservation.

DUPLEX TYPE AND HEIGHTS, MASSING, SCALE, DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS

66The development criteria in the Official Plan that apply to multiplex developments (SASP 826, extracted above in Figure 2) do not include the expectation that a development must respect and reinforce the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties.

67The original application to the COA was for a detached home, which required a set of nine variances, including a variance for floor space index (fsi). The City Zoning Examiner has issued an Examiners’ Notice that establishes that the proposal is for a “detached duplex”. As such, a variance for fsi is not required for a building permit to be issued. (Mr. Smith was incorrect in his assertion that the changes to allow multiplexes in neighbourhoods had not come into effect.¹)

68In the evolving set of policies to expand housing options in City Neighbourhoods, the distinction between staff quarters, secondary suites and a duplex has narrowed.

[69] The Zoning By-law defines these three types as follows: (215) Duplex means a building that has two dwelling units, with one dwelling unit entirely or partially above the other. A detached house that has a secondary suite, is not a duplex. (220) Dwelling Unit means living accommodation for a person or persons living together as a single housekeeping unit, in which both food preparation and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of the occupants of the unit. (735) Secondary Suite means self-contained living accommodation for an additional person or persons living together as a separate single housekeeping unit, in which both food preparation and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of the occupants of the suite, located in and subordinate to a dwelling unit.

70The Zoning By-law definition of a duplex specifically states that a detached house that has a secondary suite is not a duplex, yet there is no obvious difference between a secondary suite in a detached house and a subordinate unit in a duplex.

71The purpose of the EHON amendments to the City’s regulations is to provide more ground-related housing choices for all residents. Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (SASP 826) says as follows: “(t)o 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”.

72The Appellant acknowledges that the purpose for the smaller unit on the subject property is to accommodate live-in caregivers in the future so that the owner is able to age in place. Thus, while the physical form of the building meets the Zoning definition, will the contemplated duplex use ever be realized?

73The question for me is whether a defined second smaller unit within the structure, which may or may not be occupied as a separate dwelling in the future, can be legitimately considered to meet the purpose of the multiplex policies. The purpose of the Official Plan policy on multiplexes is to house more people through intensification. Does this proposal achieve that goal?

74If the proposal does not achieve the purpose of the Official Plan with respect to housing more people through intensification, may it nonetheless maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? If the proposal did not qualify under the SASP 826 multiplex policies, the standard criteria of OP Policy 4.1.5 would become applicable, and that shift would then trigger the criterion relating to prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties (as required by OP Policy 4.1.5 applying to detached houses).

75While heights, massing, scale and other built form characteristics are features of both heritage considerations and planning considerations, they are evaluated from different perspectives. From a heritage perspective, architectural style, consistency of materials and other historical references are of primary importance. The planning consideration seeks a general respect for the prevailing massing, height or density etc. in a neighbourhood without requiring consistency of style or architecture.

76While clearly stating that it is SASP 826 that applies to the proposal, Mr. McGaffey stated in his Expert Witness Statement that the development proposes a building massing configuration that respects and reinforces the built character of the Immediate Context and Geographic Neighbourhood. His opinion was that the overall scale and built form is consistent with the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood (OP Policy 4.1.5).

77In response to my questioning, Mr. McGaffey identified his response to the issue of massing and density by referring me to the materials he used in his presentation to the COA (Exhibit 11).

78Mr. McGaffey, in his Expert Witness Statement, included drone aerial photography that shows the scale and massing of the existing building at 2 Old George Place and the immediate context around it.

Figure 3: Drone Aerial Photograph. Ex 2 page 66.

Figure 4: Drone Aerial Photograph. Ex 2 page 66.

79Bearing in mind that the development on the subject site will be maintained within the footprint of the existing building with the addition of a third storey, the photographs show that the overall massing and scale of the proposed development would not be inconsistent with the houses in the immediate context.

80The subject property, along with others backing onto the ravine, is limited by regulations that require that building be set back from the stable top-of-bank. The Zoning By-law requires that the lot area located below the stable top-of-bank may not be used in the calculation of the permitted floor space index (fsi) for that lot. The fsi as calculated per the Zoning By-law is 1.03². If the entire lot area was factored in, the fsi would be 0.65 fsi.

81Since most lots in the neighbourhood would not be subject to this lot area subtraction adjustment, it is more helpful in this case to use the gross floor area (gfa) statistic to assess the scale and density of the proposal in relation to other houses in the neighbourhood.

82In the table of Variance References submitted by Mr. Bootsma (included in the record as Exhibit 13) total gfa is included along with fsi statistics. There are numerous examples in the table of properties that were granted variances for fsi where the gfa is higher than the 449.86 m² that is proposed in this development. Mr. Bootsma calculated the average gfa associated with these variance approvals as 465.76 m².

83As a comment, I will note that the smaller of the two dwelling units in the proposed duplex does not contribute to the identified total gfa of the property as the Zoning By-law does not count floor space contained in the basement of a residential building towards the calculation of fsi. All of the 449.86 m² gross floor area³ (gfa) noted in the statistics is contained within the main part of the structure, on the three floors above the basement.

84The table of Variance References also includes a number of height variances, some of them significantly over the permitted By-law maximum.

85I acknowledge that the existing house has a prominent presence on Old George Pl, while the other houses on the cul de sac are screened by vegetation and set back from the street, some with modest garage structures facing on to the street. The siting of the building towards the front lot line is unique on the cul de sac, but it is a longstanding condition. Apart from its visibility, however, I do not find that it is unique in the geographic neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale, or density.

86The proposal has been described as a duplex, although the small separate unit in the basement is not intended to be occupied until such time as it may be needed for in-home care for the occupants of the primary dwelling. In this circumstance, does the proposal meet the general intent and purpose of the multiplex policies even though the physical building meets the criteria set by the Zoning By-law?

87The policies in SASP 826 are framed as an exception to the otherwise operating policies for Neighbourhood designations, beginning with the words “Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods…” I find that the proposed structure does not offend the development criteria for OP Policy 4.1.5. So, if, indeed, the smaller unit is never actually used as a separate dwelling, the building as proposed would fulfil the stricter Official Plan criteria for a single unit detached house.

88On balance, I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan for development in Neighbourhoods as it maintains both the existing physical character in the neighbourhood and the low-rise built form of the neighbourhood.

PROTECTION OF SPECIAL LANDSCAPE FEATURE

89Chapter 3.4 of the Official Plan contains policies regarding the Natural Environment. Part b) in SASP 826 sets criteria for the development of multiplexes in Neighbourhoods. Criterion f) requires that development maintain landscape or built form features of the neighbourhood. (This criterion reflects a similar one in OP Policy 4.1.5).

90The subject property is located at the top of a ravine slope. Mr. McGaffey advised that he and the Appellant’s team had worked closely with TRCA staff, and that the existing condition of the ravine edge (at the rear of the property) would be improved through rehabilitation and re-naturalization efforts developed with TRCA staff input. The proposed development will not encroach into the ravine area beyond the current existing limits and will not negatively affect the slope condition.

91The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regulates the encroachment of habitable space within proximity of stable top-of-banks. The TRCA provided comments to the COA, indicating that TRCA had no objections to the approval of the variance application. The TRCA confirmed this position with respect to the revised plans before the TLAB.

92I shall rely on the jurisdiction and expertise of the TRCA and agree that the special landscape of this ravine lot has been maintained.

THE SECOND TEST: DOES THE DEVELOPMENT MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW

93The high-level purpose of the Official Plan is to outline a vision for growth and general policies for future land use. The high-level purpose of the Zoning By-law is to implement Official Plan policy, and it contains numerical site standards for matters such as building type and height, density, lot sizes, lot depths, lot frontages, parking, building setbacks and other performance standards. (OP Policy 4.1.8).

94The Zoning By-law serves as an articulation of community development standards within the policy context provided by the Official Plan and although it serves to implement the Official Plan, it serves a different function and is therefore a distinct and separate statutory test.

95Development in the City of Toronto that proposes to go beyond the By-law maximums and minimums is generally required to obtain authorization for variances from the COA or, on appeal, from the TLAB. In most instances, a Zoning Examiner, employed in the Buildings Department, will review the specifics of the development proposal against the provisions of the Zoning By-law and identify each instance in which a proposal exceeds the parameters specified in the By-law.

96The task of the Zoning Examiner is to review the literal letter of the By-law and identify the variances which are required prior to the issuance of a building permit. It is not the duty of the Toronto Building Department to contemplate the intent of the By-law nor to consider the proposal in the context of the Official Plan. As a matter passes into the jurisdiction of the COA and the TLAB, evaluation of the proposal broadens from the Zoning Examiner’s consideration of applicable law under the Building Code to a broader land use planning consideration under the four tests mandated by s.45(1) of the Planning Act.

97In this case, the Zoning Examiner has determined that, under the in-force Zoning By-law, the building type proposed is that of a duplex, being “a building that has two dwelling units, with one dwelling unit entirely or partially above the other”. The immediate effect of this change in building type from a single-unit detached house to a duplex is to liberate the development, as of right, from the limitations of the floor space index maximum provision in the Zoning By-law.

98The intent and purpose of the multiplex policies having been resolved with my finding on the Official Plan test above, the duplex building type in this case does not require a variance from the fsi provision of the Zoning By-law.

REQUIRED VARIANCES

VARIANCE 1: SIDE YARD SETBACK (EAST)

99The minimum building side yard setback required is 1.5m. In this case, the third floor addition is proposed to replicate the existing setback of the first and second storeys on the east side of the building.

100The general intent and purpose of the side yard setback provision in the zoning By-law is to provide sufficient access from front to rear, and to maintain a degree of separation from activity on the adjacent lot.

101Given that the proposed setback for the third floor is consistent with the ground and second floor setbacks, and that there are no windows to be located facing east, I find that the requested side yard setback maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

VARIANCE 2: FRONT YARD PLATFORM

102The second floor balcony proposed at the front of the building encroaches into the required front yard setback.

103Mr. Bootsma advised that the encroachment is less than a metre and the proposed balcony would provide “visual and elemental relief” to the front façade. It would also serve to provide some weather protection for the entrance below.

104I find that the variance to permit an encroachment into the front yard for a second floor balcony maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

VARIANCE 3: MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MAIN WALLS

105The proposed development does not require a variance for overall height the proposed height of 10.5 m is permitted as of right. The variance required is for the maximum height of the main walls. In the case of the proposal, the permitted maximum height of all main walls is 8.5 m. The proposed height is 8.8 m, which is 30 cm higher than permitted.

106Mr. Bootsma advised that the impact of this small height increase over the maximum permitted is minimal and mitigated by the varied massing of the front façade and through significant setbacks at the third storey.

Figure 5: Variance 3 Diagram. Ex 2 page 83.

107I find that the proposed height variance to be minor and largely imperceptible given the overall scale of the building and the design which steps the third floor back from the front of the lower two floors.

108I find that the main wall height variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

VARIANCES 4, 5 AND 6: 10 M SETBACK FROM TOP-OF-BANK

Figure 6: Top-of-bank and related variances

109Figure 6 shows the ravine top-of-bank and indicates the parts of the proposal that require variances in relation to it.

110The TRCA has confirmed that they have no objection to these three variances.

111Variance 4 relates to the walkout for the studio dwelling (the smaller unit in the duplex) which is located below the Long Term Stable Top of Slope (top-of-bank) line. Mr. McGaffey advised that the proposed basement walkout makes use of the existing rear foundation wall. The building footprint is not being increased.

112Variances 5 and 6 relate to the required setback from a stable top-of-bank line. This variance is required to recognize the existing condition on site and there are no proposed further incursions towards the top-of-bank beyond what already existed.

113Variances 5 and 6 have the same purpose; variance 5 relating to a setback on the subject property from the top-of-bank on that property, and variance 6 requiring the same setback from the stable top-of-bank located on the adjacent lot(s).

114I rely on the jurisdiction and expertise of the TRCA and find that the variances to permit the basement walkout below the top-of-bank and the variances to permit a zero setback from the top-of-bank maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

THE THIRD TEST: MINOR

115The test for “minor” focuses on the scale and nature of perceived impacts caused by the variances. The courts have established that the test is not that there be no impact, but that the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature.

116I have heard no evidence that there would be privacy or overlook, shadowing or related impacts on nearby residents as a result of the proposed development.

117I do not find that there would be an adverse impact of a planning nature from the proposed development.

THE FOURTH TEST: DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND

118For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed development is desirable for the development of the land.

CONCLUSION

119This proposed development has engaged overlapping heritage conservation and natural heritage jurisdictions along with the required four tests mandated by the Planning Act. The requirements of the Official Plan with respect to development in Neighbourhoods and the more recent amendments to facilitate multiplex development have been addressed in this Decision.

120I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the four tests mandated by the Planning Act.

121To secure that the proposal is constructed as described and justified in these proceedings, variances will therefore be approved on condition that the building be constructed substantially in accordance with the drawings submitted to the TLAB.

DECISION AND ORDER

122The Appeal is allowed.

123The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

A. Bassios Panel Chair

APPENDIX A

APPROVED VARIANCES

1. Chapter 900.3.10 Exception RD 1351 (A), By-law 569-2013 Any addition or extension above the first storey of the lawfully existing detached house must comply with the minimum building setbacks required by this By-law: 1.5 metres. In this case, the proposed setback for the third floor addition is 0.9 metres from the east side lot line.

2. Chapter 900.3.10 Exception RD 1351 (B), By-law 569-2013 Despite Regulation 10.5.40.60 (1), in a front yard, a platform with a floor higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may not encroach into the required yard setback. In this case, the proposed front second floor balcony is encroaching into the required front yard setback.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.10 (4), By-law 569-2013 If a permitted residential building in the RD Zone has a roof with a slope of less than 1.0 vertical units for every 10.0 horizontal units for more than 50% of the total horizontal roof area despite regulation 10.20.40.10 (2), the permitted maximum height of all main walls is 8.5 metres. In this case, the proposed main wall height of the third floor is 8.80 metres.

4. Chapter 5.10.40.1 (3), By-law 569-2013 On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, if a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, no building or structure may be located on the portion of the lot below that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank. In this case, the proposed basement walkout will be located below the stable top-of-bank.

5. Chapter 5.10.40.70 (6), By-law 569-2013 If the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority determines that a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, a building or structure on that lot must be set back a minimum of 10 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank. In this case, the proposed building is set back 0.0 metres from that shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank.

6. Chapter 5.10.40.80 (1), By-law 569-2013 On lands under the jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, a building or structure on a lot must be no closer than 10 metres from a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank not on that lot. The proposed building or structure is 0.0 metres from a shoreline hazard limit or a stable top-of-bank not on that lot.

CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL

1. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following drawings prepared by Michael Bootsma dated January 12, 2026, and attached hereto:

• Proposed site, Grading, and Drainage Plan (A012)
• Proposed Roof Plan (A114)
• Exterior Elevation North (A210)
• Exterior Elevation East (A211)
• Exterior Elevation South (A212)
• Exterior Elevation West (A213) Any other variances that may appear on these plans that are not listed in this decision are NOT authorized

2. Two separate dwelling units, neither smaller than 55 m², shall be maintained in perpetuity as a condition of variance approvals.

Footnotes

1. 1Official Plan Amendment 649 enabled Site and Area Specific Policy 826 that permits multiplexes in all designated Neighbourhoods of the City. By-law 474-2023 amended the City-wide Zoning By-law (569-2013) so that maximum floor space regulations no longer apply to a duplex, triplex or fourplex.
2. 2Identified in the Cover Sheet to the submitted plans (A000), Exhibit 4 page 6.
3. 34,842 sq. ft.