Sadana (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 414

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-05-19

25 266429 S45 04 TLAB

Sadana (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 414

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

May 19, 2026

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

Appellant(s):

ROHAN SADANA

Applicant(s):

THE PLANNING AGENCY INC

Property Address:

52 Vernon St

COA File No.:

25 221756 STE 04 MV (A0728/25TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 266429 S45 04 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

01-05-2026

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

THE PLANNING AGENCY INC

Appellant

R. SADANA

I. Flett

Participant

M. SHENA

Participant

G. GUIDUCCI

Participant

S. RENTON

Participant

E. B. HELLREICH

Participant

C. HARVEY

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This matter deals with an appeal of a decision of the Toronto and East York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment which denied a minor variance application for the development of two-storey detached ancillary building containing one garden suite in the rear yard of the property located at 52 Vernon Street (the “Subject Property”). The proposal will result in a total of five residential dwelling units on the Subject Property, four units in the main dwelling and one unit in the garden suite. The main dwelling – i.e. the fourplex - received approval for three minor variances at the Toronto and East York Committee of Adjustment on August 7, 2024. A proposal for a garden suite with six variances went before the Toronto and East York Committee of Adjustment on August 13, 2025, and was denied. A new application went before the Committee of Adjustment for a garden suite with modified plans on November 19, 2025, and it is this denial which is before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”).

2The Subject Property is located on the north side of Vernon Street, between Runnymede Road to the west and Gilmour Ave to the east. The Subject property is south of St Johns Road and north of Annette Street.

3The appeal is being allowed subject to the conditions of approval outlined at the end of this decision.

4Prior to the hearing I visited the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.

5Five (5) exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”):

a. Exhibit 1: Expert Witness Statement, Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, and Curriculum Vitae of Christian Chan

b. Exhibit 2: Appellant Document Disclosure Book

c. Exhibit 3: Appellant’s Proposed Conditions of Approval

d. Exhibit 4: Proposed plans for the garden suite dated October 22, 2025 and appended to this decision

e. Exhibit 5: Participant Statements filed by each of the five participants

6I will now review the legal framework guiding this matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

7Provincial 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.

8Provincial Policy – S. 3

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

9Variance – 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.

10The requested variances are as follows:

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

A minimum of 50% (55.20 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, 39.34% (43.43 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.

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

The minimum permitted rear setback of an ancillary building containing a garden suite is 1.5 m.

The ancillary building containing one garden suite will be located 1.0 m from the rear (north) lot line.

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

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 one garden suite will be located 6.5 m from the residential building.

4. Chapter 150.7.60.30(2)(A) By-law 569-2013

No part of an ancillary building containing a garden suite may penetrate a 45-degree angular plane projected towards (i) the rear lot line, beginning at a distance of 7.5 m from the rear main wall of the residential building on the same lot; (ii) the front lot line, beginning at a height of 4 m the required rear yard setback; (iii) towards the opposite side lot lines, beginning from a height of 4 m from the required side yard setback.

In this case, the ancillary building containing one garden suite will penetrate all angular planes.

5. 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 containing a garden suite is located a minimum of 5 m to less than 7.5 m from the residential building on the lot.

The ancillary building containing one garden suite will have a height of 6.3 m.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Mr. Chan

11Christian Chan was qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Chan is the owner-operator of The Planning Agency Inc., which he has operated since 2011. Mr. Chan is a Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners’ Institute, and a Registered Professional Planner. Mr. Chan is experienced with various planning matters, including garden suite applications.

12Mr. Chan testified that there have been no concerns expressed from Community Planning or any other City division with regards to the garden suite proposal before the Tribunal. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the variances are required because the Zoning By-law does not take into account the particular context of a site.

13Mr. Chan discussed the City’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (“EHON”) initiative, opining that garden suites are a component of the gentle intensification initiative since 2018 in low rise residential neighbourhoods. Mr. Chan referenced to the Final Report for EHON Garden suites dated December 21, 2021, which stated that “Garden suites are a new form of rental housing, multi-generational housing, and an option for aging in-place, for current and future residents of Toronto. In Mr. Chan’s opinion, the intent of the staff reports for garden suites and the OPA amendments is to facilitate the construction of garden suites for rental purposes. This is because a garden suite cannot be severed from the main property. No staff reports advocated or stated that garden suites have to be affordable rental housing, however, the hope is that having garden suite development or rental tenure will address the lack of rental housing supply whether it is affordable or not. Mr. Chan stated that all EHON initiatives are addressing gentle residential intensification in the interior of neighbourhoods and on major streets. Mr. Chan noted that the City has deferred development charges for garden suites since 2018 to stimulate their development.

14Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, and meets the four tests for a minor variance under section 45(1) of the Planning Act. I will review Mr. Chan’s evidence in further detail throughout this decision.

Ms. Shena

15Ms. Shena’s mother is an immediate neighbour to the Subject Property. This was the fourth hearing that Ms. Shena has attended in opposition to plans for the development of the Subject Property. The other three hearings were at the Committee of Adjustment, as outlined earlier in this decision. Ms. Shena believes that the current fourplex is quite consuming of the lot, and is three times the size of the previous house that occupied the Subject Property. Ms. Shena asserted that the fourplex is the longest and tallest structure on the street, and it completely blocks sightlines for neighbours on all sides.

16Ms. Shena believes that the cumulative impact of the fourplex along with the stairs at the rear of the fourplex which function as a fire escape result in a lack of distance between the fourplex and the garden suite that is not reasonable. The incremental additional of another two-storey dwelling (i.e. a garden suite) on top of the existing fourplex is an imposition on the neighbours and the neighbourhood. Ms. Shena asserted that not every lot is suitable for a combination of a multiplex and garden suite. This was stated by other participants as well, and they were citing the Committee of Adjustment panel from November 19, 2025. Ms. Shena asserted that the proposal needs to be looked at cumulatively, and that the individuals and families living in the fourplex would benefit more from a usable yard and green space.

17With regards to the garden and laneway suites approved or constructed in Mr. Chan’s geographic neighbourhood, Ms. Shena asserted that 168 Annette Street is a corner lot, meaning that the only impact of a garden suite is to the east of the property. In another example, 108 Maria Street is on the north side of Maria Street, and all properties on the north side of Maria Street front the railway tracks. From Ms. Shena’s perspective, this creates much less of an impact than the proposal before the Tribunal. Another example is the 569 Runnymede Road laneway suite at the corner of Maher Ave and Runneymede Road. This property is a corner lot and only impacts neighbours on one side.

18In addition, Ms. Shena stated that laneways have ancillary buildings as the purpose of a laneway is to access garages, and these garages are not a fair comparison to a garden suite. Ms. Shena stated that there are only small sheds on the north side of Vernon Street and that the Subject Property is a mid-block property. In addition, the rear fire escape is a superstructure which Ms. Shena believes would reduce the setback of the proposed garden suite if it were considered in the calculations.

19The fourplex is green friendly, meaning that there are dogs and they need space for recreation purposes. The rear setback variance should consider broader impact. This is an aggressive intensification of the lot, and the accumulative impact of the lot with a garden suite and fire escape should be considered.

Mr. Guiducci

20Mr. Guiducci is a neighbour with an architecture and construction industry background in lower rise development for 25 years. From a massing standpoint, Mr. Guiducci states that this seems like a heavy application. The owners of the Subject Property went through several applications with the City, starting from a fourplex requesting height variances, etc. From Mr. Guiducci’s perspective, the housing crisis does not need to be solved on others discomfort. Mr. Guiducci noted that not every lot is suitable for a multiplex and garden suite. This proposal is not appropriate for that use. There have been two Committee of Adjustment refusals with different committee panels and different chairs. Everyone agreed that the application was not minor. Mr. Guiducci asserted that accessory structures used to be garages and sheds, and are now creating living quarters in small backyards.

21Mr. Guiducci’s position is that impacting someone’s back yard privacy is not a good intent, and that the intent of the Zoning By-law is not to allow a structure to be built close to another backyard and then try to mitigate the impact with privacy screens. Mr. Guiducci asserted that the proposal is not helping with the issue of overlook of neighbouring properties.

22The proposed two trees in the rear yard are welcome, however, the proposed trees will need more for their flourishing than what is being provided in the green space around them. Mr. Guiducci also raised a privacy and permit issue of using drones to take photos of other people’s properties without their knowledge, which he asserted appeared to be the case with some of the applicant’s photographs.

23Mr. Guiducci posited that the original Committee of Adjustment decision approving the fourplex would have been different if the fourplex and garden suite proposal had been brought at the same time. The chair of the Committee of Adjustment panel made a comment during the November meeting that his position on the fourplex proposal may have been different.

24Mr. Guiducci stated that context is the biggest argument and conversation within the community. Two of the garden suites cited by Mr. Chan – at 168 Annette Street and 108 Maria Street – did not require a rear yard variance or a separation variance. These are completely different lots contextually-wise. 168 Annette Street only imposes on one property as it is a corner lot. 108 Mariah Street is midblock, however, it backs onto railway tracks. From Mr. Guiducci’s perspective, a laneway suite is irrelevant, and one cannot compare what is being proposed on the Subject Property to a laneway suite. A laneway suite falls under a completely different bylaw.

25Mr. Guiducci posited that the proposal does not meet the four tests under the Planning Act. Mr. Guiducci reviewed these tests during his witness statement. From Mr. Guiducci’s perspective, the Zoning By-law needs to be read together not individually – one cannot break down to pieces and puzzle a proposal together to make it look as though it is in compliance.

26Mr. Guiducci noted that the Subject Property already went through a soft landscaping variance for the fourplex approval, and that permeable pavers do not fix the damage of not providing soft landscaping. Permeable pavers are a condition to help mitigate but not a solution and they are difficult to enforce. It is hard for a building inspector or a neighbour to enforce if permeable pavers are installed.

27Mr. Guiducci noted that the degree of deviation is central to the test of minor in the Committee of Adjustment guidance. A big impact on street is the soft landscaping deficiency, which started with the fourplex, and now an additional variance is needed.

28Mr. Guiducci expressed concern regarding overlooking into someone’s privacy in their backyard, which may be their only retreat space. For example, a backyard may be used to debrief and to take a break from a home office, and to enjoy the seasons. It can be a place of rest and for meditation, including gardening and pure enjoyment of the outdoors. The proposal calls for reduced soft landscaping in an already congested rear yard and congested lot given the history of the proposal and context.

29Mr. Guiducci reviewed the comments from the Committee of Adjustment members, including that not every property can accommodate both a multiplex and a garden suite. The owners of the Subject Property had no intention to speak to the neighbours, and none of the neighbours understood what was being planned for the Subject Property, starting with the fourplex and continuing with the garden suite.

Ms. Renton

30Ms. Renton has family that lives near the Subject Property. Ms. Renton asserted that the proposal does not meaningfully contribute to the City’s housing objectives. For example, there is no affordability commitment. The housing crisis is affordability, not just unit count. From Ms. Renton’s perspective, one premium rental unit on Vernon Street with 5 requested variances does not address the housing crisis, but exploits the language of the crisis to benefit the applicants. If the proposal is approved, it will have real impacts for residents on the street. Ms. Renton asserted that the Zoning By-law is supposed to balance livability and development, and she requested that this balance be upheld.

31Ms. Renton stated that prior to the November Committee of Adjustment hearing, one of the property owners went door to door and was really discouraging to residents who thought they had no autonomy, authority, or oversight over what happens in their neighbourhood. Ms. Renton asserted that the result of the proposal is that more people will be living on the street, which will result in a privacy issue.

Ms. Hellreich

32Ms. Hellreich spoke in opposition to the proposal and stated that several of her neighbours who were not in attendance at the Tribunal are also in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Hellreich noted that it was stated by the Committee of Adjustment panel that not every property or neighbourhood is suitable to accommodate a garden suite of this scale, especially in light of the large footprint of the multiplex development.

33Ms. Hellreich noted that the existing fourplex has exterior green exit signs and large windows at the rear of the dwelling that results in light being shined constantly into her home. Ms. Hellreich believes she will experience additional light interference with a garden suite because the building is closer, and does not believe that any blocked light from the fourplex will compensate for this additional light.

34From Ms. Hellreich’s perspective, the garden suite would create a further lack of privacy and additional light pollution. Ms. Hellreich also referred to what she describes as the monstrous fire escape stairs at the rear of the fourplex. Ms. Hellreich asserted that a Committee of Adjustment member stated that had the developer made their intention known to build a garden suite at the time that the fourplex was before the Committee of Adjustment, he would have opposed the application because the impact is astronomical. From Ms. Hellreich’s perspective, the developer is not transparent, and there has been no effort to consider the needs of the local community or neighbourhood. Ms. Hellreich asserted that not every property is suitable for a garden suite and that you cannot squeeze people into every square inch on a lot.

Mr. Harvey

35Mr. Harvey is a neighbour who spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Harvey did not file a Form 4 electing to be a participant in this matter and he did not file a Form 13 Participant Statement. The Tribunal provided relief under its Rules of Practice and Procedure, using Rule 2.12 Relief and Exceptions to the Rules, to allow Mr. Harvey to provide a participant statement during this hearing. However, Mr. Harvey was required to file a written Participant Statement to allow Mr. Flett with the opportunity to review Mr. Harvey’s position prior to Mr. Harvey providing his testimony.

36Mr. Harvey stated that approving the proposal would set a negative precedent for the neighbourhood, allowing oversized garden suites that surpass the City By-laws, and which negatively impact the character of the neighbourhood. From Mr. Harvey’s perspective, the proposal calls for a structure that would loom over surrounding properties and significantly impact their privacy. There are privacy and overlook issues on the adjacent properties and there is also a need to maintain open space. Mr. Harvey asserted that the proposal does not call for minor variances, and that the applicant makes no attempt to comply with the letter and intent of the Zoning By-laws. Mr. Harvey noted that there was another Committee of Adjustment matter that he observed where the applicant made an effort to meet the City By-law requirements.

37Mr. Harvey asserted that the massing on the surrounding properties is much less than what is proposed in the garden suite, and stated that having contiguous green space is important. Mr. Harvey also stated that the windows on a structure can be changed. On cross examination, Mr. Harvey stated that he is not a professional planner but that he is very careful in reading the City Zoning By-laws and that they are clearly written. Mr. Harvey notes that there is currently privacy in the neighbourhood and that the neighbours respect each other, and that he is concerned about privacy based on the impact of the garden suite and its location with regards to surrounding properties. Mr. Harvey asserted that based on the behaviour of the neighbours, the majority of the neighbours would choose to expand their property within the bounds of the City Zoning By-laws in a manner which would minimize the impact on the surrounding areas. Mr. Harvey stated that the translucent windows protect privacy to a limited extent but they do not point to Zoning By-law compliance or address future concerns with a private window being replaced by a non-private window.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Geographic Neighbourhood per Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan

38Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Mr. Chan delineated a Geographic Neighbourhood which I accept. The Geographic Neighbourhood is bounded by Annette Street to the south, Jane Street to the west, Keele Street to the east, and the rail corridor to the north of Dundas Street West.

Exhibit 2, Page 84: Geographic Neighbourhood Map

39The Geographic Neighbourhood contains properties zoned as the Residential Multiple RM (f12.0; u4; d0.8) (x252) generally to the west of Runnymede Road, and R (d0.6) (x737) to the east of Runnymede Road. A number of properties in the area north of Dundas Street West to the Rail Corridor are zoned R (d0.6) (x778), with the same site and development standards at the Subject Property.

40The existing development in the Geographic Neighbourhood is characterized by one-to three storey 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).

41There are few Garden and Laneway Suite minor variance approvals by COA in the Geographic Neighbourhood. For Garden suites, two are approved at: 168 Annette Street, and 108 Maria Stree. There are also Laneway suites approved at: 184 Annette Street, 513 Durie Street, 51 McMurray Avenue, and 754 Windermere Avenue. Nearby but outside of the Geographic Neighbourhood, the following have been approved: 504 Beresford Avenue (Garden suite) and 350 Quebec Avenue (Laneway Suite).

42The immediate context was defined by Mr. Chan to be Vernon Street between Runnymede Road and Gilmore avenue, from #27-84 Vernon Street.

43I have considered Mr. Chan’s geographic neighbourhood and I find that it meets the criteria for delineating a Geographic Neighbourhood under Policy 4.1.5, including: zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features.

Provincial Interest

44I find that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, including: (p) the appropriate location of growth and development. The Subject Property is in an R zone which permits a multiplex and garden suite on a lot. In addition, the proposal meets: (q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians. The Subject Property is within walking distance to the transportation network on Dundas Street West.

2024 Provincial Planning Statement

45The 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 provide 5 rental units (fourplex plus the proposed garden suite) on the Subject Property 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?

46The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan. Mr. Chan reviewed the relevant policies of the Official Plan, including the Healthy Neighbourhoods Policies of Chapters 2.3.1, the Built Form Policies of Chapter 3.1.3, the Housing Policies in Chapter 3.2.1, and Garden suite OPA 554/SASP 670 (as amended by OPA 824).

47Chapter 2.3.1 notes that development in neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes, and open space patterns, and recognizes that neighbourhoods are stable but not static. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposed development meets the intent of Policy 2.3.1.1 and represents sensitive and gradual change in the physical character of the Geographic Neighbourhood. The proposed Garden suite is a newer type of permitted development, and it implements angular planes to contain building massing and mitigates impacts of a reduced separation distance and rear yard setback. The rear yard landscaping on the Subject Property is proposed to be comprised of open soft landscaped areas and permeable paving that will aid in groundwater absorption. There are two trees to be planted in the rear yard.

48Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposed garden suite meets the intent and purpose of Built Form Policy 3.1.3.3.. Opaque windows are proposed on the north side of the second storey of the garden suite, which will block views into the adjacent rear yards. I accept this opinion on the basis that the approval is tied to the plans to ensure that there are no changes in the proposed windows, layout of the garden suite, or usage of the second storey of the garden suite.

49Mr. Chan reviewed the Official Plan’s Housing Policy 3.2.1.1, and provided his opinion that the garden suite will provide an increased range of housing in terms of form, unit mix, and rental tenure within the Geographic Neighbourhood. Considering the limited number of livable ancillary buildings in the Geographic Neighbourhood, I agree with Mr. Chan’s opinion on this matter. Garden suites provide additional housing options for a variety of household configurations and people in different stages of life, including multigenerational families, renters, and those wishing to age in place.

50Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal meets the intent and purpose of Policy 3.2.1.2 in the that the proposal provides for new rental housing units responding to regulatory changes allowing Garden suites in Neighbourhoods, and incentives for the creation of Garden suites (along with Multiplexes) such as the Garden suite Development Charge Deferral Program.

51The development criteria in Policy 4.1.5 do not apply for Garden suites. Instead, Site and Area Specific Policy 670 (“SASP”) 670 applies. Mr. Chan provided his opinion that the proposal meets the intent of the relevant SASP 670 policies, and he reviewed these policies as follows:

a) For the purposes of this Site and Area Specific Policy, a “Garden suite” is defined as a self contained residential unit, subordinate to a primary dwelling, in which both kitchen and bathroom facilities are provided, and which is located on a lot within an ancillary building that is not adjacent to a public laneway.

Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal is subordinate to the primary dwelling and is a self-contained residential unit.

b) Development of Garden suites:

i) will ensure direct and safe access by meeting fire and emergency service requirements;

Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal meets fire and emergency service requirements having a minimum 1.0m width walkway from the front lot line;

ii) will limit privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties;

Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal limits privacy and overlook issues on adjacent properties by implementing opaque privacy screening on all rear-facing second storey windows;

iii) will maintain the majority of the rear yard as open space, and maximize contiguous soft landscaping that is supportive of tree planting;

Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal maintains the majority of the rear yard as open space (being hard and soft landscaped elements), and maximizes soft landscaping to enable the planting of two new trees;

iv) the location, massing, and design of a Garden suite 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;

The proposal does not result in the removal of a by-law protected tree on the property and adjacent properties and there are no trees protected by the proposal.

vii) will ensure that stormwater management is maintained on site; and

This is formerly b) viii) of SASP 670. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal maintains stormwater management on site by providing soft landscaping, permeable walkways and appropriate drainage in the sunken patio areas for the lower level unit of the floorplex.

viii) is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a Garden suite.

This is formerly b) ix. Of SASP 670. The proposal expands the urban tree canopy through the planting of two new trees in the rear yard.

d) Where an application is made under Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended in relation to the construction of a Garden suite, such application shall maintain the intent and purpose of policy b), and one or more of the following policies:

iv) the location, massing and design of the Garden suite will preserve existing trees protected under Municipal Code Chapters 608, 658, and 813, on the subject property and adjacent properties.

Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the location and massing and design of the garden suite preserves existing trees. There are no trees impacted by the garden suite.

52I accept Mr. Chan’s opinions with regards to SASP 670 and the various cited Official Plan policies, and find that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

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

53The Subject Property is zoned R (d0.6) (x737). Garden suites are permitted 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. By-law 849-2025 modified the Zoning By-law Chapter 150.7 regulations pursuant to O.Reg.462/24.

Variance #1: Rear Yard Soft Landscaping

54The intent 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.

55Mr. Chan stated that all of the walkways are proposed to be constructed of permeable paving, which continues to ensure that stormwater is managed and permeable into the ground of the rear yard.

56Mr. Chan provided his opinion that the proposed rear yard soft landscaping is reduced below the minimum 50% soft landscaping as the hard landscaping in the rear yard is designed to 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.

57The calculation of soft landscaping is also reduced by the areas underneath the rear fire escape for the multiplex building. The rear exit stairs will be made of metal grating, and allow rainfall to fall through it into the sunken patio and the permeable areas below the exterior fire exit stairs. The residual soft landscaped areas are proposed to accommodate the planning of two new trees in the rear yard which will assist with enhanced groundwater absorption.

58Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the total area of the rear yard which is designed to address matters related to stormwater management in terms of groundwater absorption and drainage comprises 64.84m2, or 58.73%.

59I find that the intent of the rear yard soft landscaping requirement is maintained.

Variance #2: Rear Yard Setback of Garden suite

60The requirement is for a garden suite setback of 1.5m from the rear lot line if there are no openings at and above 4m height. If there are openings, then the required rear setback is 3.0m.

61The intent of a rear yard setback of 1.5m and an increased rear setback of 3.0m for a garden suite with openings above 4.0m height 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.

62Mr. Chan provided his opinion that the Garden suite implements opaque privacy screening on the rear-facing second-storey windows that sufficiently addresses and mitigates any impacts of overlook and to privacy on the adjacent rear yards and buildings and maintains the intent and purpose of the original and updated garden suite development standards. I accept Mr. Chan’s opinion and find that the general intent and purpose of this provision of the Zoning By-law is met.

Variance #3: Separation Distance for Garden suite from Main Dwelling

63The intent of the separation distance requirement 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 the minimum separation distance is 7.5m. The proposed separation distance is 6.5m from the fourplex.

64Mr. Chan noted that the proposed the front (south) main wall contains one second-storey window facing the multiplex, within a dormer. The window is for the primary bedroom, as can be seen on Drawing A402. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that since this is a bedroom window, it is not for a room on the second floor that would not be used for gatherings producing impacts of overlook into the multiplex units. I agree and have specifically tied the interior floor plans to the approval of the proposed garden suite.

Variance #4: Garden suite Angular Plane

65The purpose of the angular plane regulation is to limit the impact of a garden suite’s second storey massing on adjacent properties. This regulation has since been deleted from Chapter 150.7, pursuant to the Garden suite Monitoring Program Amendment. Angular planes on the roof of a garden suite are no longer required.

66The Zoning By-law previously required that no part of a garden suite penetrate 45-degree angular planes on all four sides of the garden suite. As noted above, the City amended its requirements for angular planes in response to the introduction of O. Reg. 462/24.

67The garden suite is proposed with side angular planes beginning at a height of 5.0m. The garden suite, if proposed with no side angular planes, would comply with the Chapter 150.7 development standards currently in force under By-law 849-2025.

68I find that the implementation of side angular planes reduces the overall massing of the garden suite and reduces the impact of the garden suite’s massing on the abutting east and west properties. The proposal meets the general intent and purpose of this previous requirement of the Zoning By-law.

Variance #5: Garden suite Height Variance

69The Zoning By-law now permits garden suites of up to 6.30m height above average grade. The garden suite is proposed with a height of 6.30m, in line with the amended maximum height permissions.

70Mr. Chan provided his opinion that the height meets the general intent and purpose of the maximum height regulation – it is proposed at a 6.3m height where currently 6.3m is permitted if the garden suite is separated by a distance of 7.5m or more from the main building. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the impact of the proposed height and massing being in closer proximity to the multiplex and closer to the rear lot line is mitigated by the implementation of the side angular planes, where they are no longer required. This item was previously discussed for variance #3, and I find that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of this provision of the Zoning By-law.

71By way of conclusion for this phase of the minor variance test, I find that the proposed variances individually and cumulatively maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

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

72Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal supports redevelopment and gentle intensification in a low-rise residential neighbourhood that is experiencing the transition contemplated by recent City policy and zoning changes. Mr. Chan notes that the City has expressly planned for a broader mix of ground-related, low-rise housing forms in Neighbourhoods, including multiplexes and garden suites. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposal contributes to that transition by adding housing choice in a form that remains low-rise and ground-oriented.

73Mr. Chan reviewed the housing situation in the Junction Area neighbourhood, and provided his opinion that it is desirable to add additional rental dwelling units in the neighbourhood in an area that is well supported by transit. Mr. Chan opined that garden suites are intended as purpose-built rental housing, and that the proposal adds housing options to the neighbourhood.

74Mr. Chan noted that City Council has encouraged the development of garden suites by a development charge deferral program.

75Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the proposed garden suite will not set a negative precedent for development in the interior of the neighbourhood and is desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property. The proposal will address the housing needs of the neighbourhood and the City at large, while implementing the vision of the City’s EHON Study.

76I find that the proposal will contribute to the existing housing supply in a manner consistent with the City’s new policy direction. I find that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.

Are the variances minor?

77Minor is an assessment of whether an impact rises to the level of an undue adverse impact of a planning nature. It is not a simple numeric test. Cumulative impacts as well as individual impacts are considered.

78Mr Chan provided that the variances sought will not have adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and are minor in nature and in impact. I have considered the impact of the individual variances and discussed some of these impacts in the Zoning By-law section of the minor variance test. I will discuss a few highlights below.

79In terms of soft landscaping, Mr. Chan noted that the quantity of soft landscaping, in square meters is proposed to be 43.43m2, or 39.34% which is supported by an additional 21.41m2 of permeable paved areas and the sunken patio with appropriate drainage, providing a total of 58.73% of the rear yard as areas that will effectively address groundwater absorption and drainage. Additionally, two trees are proposed in the rear yard which will also contribute to groundwater retention and reducing the impact of stormwater into the City’s sewer system. Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the rear yard soft landscaping variance does not result in adverse impacts, and proposes an adequate quantity of soft landscaped areas and permeable paving. In addition, the reductions in areas for soft landscaping are tied to providing accessible pathways for the basement unit of the fourplex and the garden suite.

80Mr. Chan’s opinion is that the impact of the reduced rear yard setback is minor through the opaque second storey rear-facing windows, thereby maintaining adequate privacy on the properties to the north.

81I find that the resulting proposal generates similar impacts to what would otherwise be an as-of-right garden suite. I find that the proposal does not result in any undue adverse impacts of a planning nature, and is minor.

CONCLUSION

82Mr. Flett in his closing argument asserted that the appellant is following the legislated permitted process of seeking variances from the Zoning By-laws on the Subject Property. Mr. Flett asserted that privacy concerns are adequately dealt with through the translucent window, which would be required to be on the structure in perpetuity if tied to the approval.

83In terms of massing, Mr. Flett asserted that City council and the province are intending to increase the massing in the neighbourhood to create more homes. The proposal calls for expanding the range of housing available where the predominant range are semi-detached and detached single family dwellings. There are only four similar buildings in the neighbourhood, and Mr. Flett asserted that there needs to be more.

84Mr. Flett also referred to a decision by Member Swinkin, 1001292121 Ontario Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 405, which stated that there have been dramatic changes to the planning regime for lands within the Neighbourhoods land use designation. Member Swinkin stated that the dramatic change is burdensome on neighbours, however, Mr. Flett asserted that there is no evidence that there are undue adverse impacts such that the burden is overwhelming or which would lead the Tribunal to refuse the application for the variances.

85Mr. Flett asserted that the application is the consequence of a policy and planning framework that needs to be grappled with. The variances are not in any way excessive variances, they are minor adjustments to setbacks, provision of greater height, etc. to create a truly liveable unit. Angular plans could be implemented through a condition of approval.

86With regards to the provision of rear yard space, Mr. Flett noted that not everyone grows up with a rear yard, and that this is not a realistic expectation in a big city. Families will live in homes that suit them, and if they want a big yard, they will live elsewhere. However, the proposal provides a housing option if a family is looking for a great neighbourhood with access to wonderful schools which is otherwise prohibitive due to the only housing option available being a single-family home. Mr. Flett stated that this is what these new planning policies are trying to address.

87In addition, Mr. Flett undertook to write to his client with respect to the issue of lighting at the rear of the fourplex, as this issue was raised by Ms. Hellreich.

88I think it is worthwhile to quote from Member Swinkin’s decision in 1001292121 Ontario Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 405 at length, as it applies to the case at bar and while the neighbours will be upset with this approval, it provides some additional context:

1. It was inevitable that cases like this one would be coming to the Tribunal. In fact, this isn’t the first.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. This appeal is a case in point.

89Member Swinkin addressed concerns raised by the neighbours, for the proposal which included a three-storey fourplex and a two-storey garden suite containing one unit:

50. 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.

51. 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.

90Member Swinkin further addressed the concerns raised by the neighbours:

111. 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.

112. 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.

91Member Swinkin’s comments are very relevant to the current matter before the Tribunal, and should provide some clarity to the neighbours in explaining the changes that are occurring in Neighbourhoods.

DECISION AND ORDER

92The appeal is allowed subject to the following conditions:

A. The proposal shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the plans bearing issue date October 22, 2025, and filed with the Tribunal on May 1, 2026, and appended to this decision.

B. All walkways on the subject lands, whether new or replacement, shall be constructed of permeable interlocking pavers.

C. Trees shall be planted as detailed on the Site Plan Diagram “SP01” which is included in the approved plans outlined above in condition A.

D. 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 south facade.

E. Translucent privacy screening shall be installed on the second storey windows of the north facade to prevent overlook.

The layout and function of the rooms on the second floor shall be in substantially in accordance with the floor plan found at page A402 of the plans which are included in the approved plans outlined above in condition A.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member