Aronowicz (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 418

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-06-16

25 261430 S45 10 TLAB

Aronowicz (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 418

Issuance Date:

June 16, 2026

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

Appellant(s):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

34 GROVE AVE

COA File No.:

25 219818 STE 10 MV (A0672/25TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 261430 S45 10 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

19/05/2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member A. BROWN

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

M. Climans

Appellant

O. Aronowicz

D. Bronskill

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment issued on November 20, 2025, refusing the Appellant’s request for variances. The subject property is located at 34 Grove Avenue. The Appellant seeks to demolish a single family dwelling and a one-story garage and replace them with a new single family dwelling and a two-story garage.

2There are no parties or participants other than the Appellant.

3The Appeal was heard on May 19, 2026, by means of the City of Toronto WebEx virtual platform. I advised those present that I had visited the subject property and surrounding area, in accordance with the direction of City Council, and that I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing.

4The subject property is zoned R (d.1.0) (x804) by City of Toronto By-law 569-2013.

5The Requested variances to the Zoning By-law are:

Maximum Building Depth [10.10.40.30.(1)]

The permitted maximum building depth for a (detached house, semi-detached house) is 17.0 metres. The proposed building depth is 18.91 metres.

Front Yard Soft Landscaping [10.5.50.10.(1)]

A minimum of 75 percent of the required front yard landscaping must be soft landscaping: 26.88 square metres. The proposed front yard soft landscaping area is 53 percent: 19.0 square metres.

Rear Yard Soft Landscaping [10.5.50.10.(3)]

The lot must have a minimum of 50 percent of the rear yard for soft landscaping: 72.58 square metres if the lot frontage is greater than 6.0 metres. The proposed rear yard soft landscaping soft area is 37 percent: 53.71 square metres.

Ancillary Building – Lot Coverage [10.10.60.70.(1)]

The permitted maximum lot coverage by an ancillary building or structure is 5% of the lot area: 16.11 square metres. The proposed lot coverage by the ancillary building is 20.1 percent of the lot coverage: 65.01 square metres.

Ancillary Building – Total Floor Area [10.5.60.50.(2)]

The maximum total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures is 40.0 square metres. The proposed total floor area of all ancillary buildings is 65.01 square metres.

Ancillary Building – Height [10.5.60.40.(2)]

The maximum height of an ancillary building or structure is 4.0 metres. The proposed height of the ancillary building is 6.0 metres.

Ancillary Building – Number of Storeys [10.5.60.40.(3)]

An ancillary building or structure may not have more than one storey. The proposed ancillary building has two storeys.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6Provincial Interest - S. 2

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

7Provincial Policy – S. 3

A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.

8Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

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

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

9Exhibits:

Exhibit #1: Expert Witness Statement of Graig Uens.

Exhibit #2: Appellant’s Appeal Document Disclosures including the Appellant’s updated site plan, drawings, elevations, maps, diagrams, aerial and street level photographs, data, and Committee of Adjustment decisions.

10Graig Uens testified on behalf of the Appellant. A Registered Planner, he testified about his experience and qualifications in land use planning. He also filed Form 6 with the Tribunal. I permitted Mr. Uens to provide expert evidence in the Appeal.

11The subject property is located on the west side of Grove Avenue, south of Dundas Street, west of Ossington Avenue, in the Trinity Bellwoods neighbourhood. The property has a frontage of 7.33m, a depth of 43.94m and a lot area of 322m. There is currently a vacant two-storey house and a rear detached garage on the site. The property can be accessed at the rear by Skey Lane. It is well-served by public transit. The property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City’s Official Plan.

12The Appellant proposes to construct a detached, three-storey, four-bedroom dwelling, along with a two-storey garage at the rear. The Appellant hopes to convert the new garage into a Laneway Suite in the future, and has designed and sited the garage with that in mind.

13Changes were made to the Proposed Variances compared to those that were before the Committee of Adjustment. The proposed building depth was reduced from 19.33m to 18.91m. The front porch encroachment and Floor Space Index variances were eliminated. The area of front yard soft landscaping was increased from 18.5m² to 19.0m². The City Zoning Examiner confirmed compliance of the proposed front yard setback, eliminating that variance requirement.

14On March 16, 2026, the Appellant mailed a notice to the Neighbours within 60m of the site informing them of the revisions to the Proposal compared to the original application before the Committee of Adjustment.

15Planning Act

16Mr. Uens testified that the Proposed Variances have regard for the matters of Provincial Interest specified in s.2 of the Planning Act (listed above), specifically s.2(f), s.2(i), s.2(j), s.2(p), s.2(q) and s.2(r). The proposal provides for housing, improves the existing site, is located close to established community services, promotes sustainable development, mitigates greenhouse gas emissions, and promotes a well-designed built-form with limited impacts on adjacent properties.

17Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

18Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS). Mr. Uens referred to several policies of the PPS, including Chapter One (improving housing options to address a full range of needs), Chapter Two (achieving complete communities), Policy 2.2.1(b) (achieving a range of housing options and densities to meet the present and future needs of residents), Policy 2.2.1(c) (efficient use of land for new housing) and Policy 2.9 (energy conservation and climate change).

19In Mr. Uens’ opinion, the proposed development contributes to the efficient use of land and to a complete community. The dwelling is “sustainably designed” and a potential future laneway suite would add to the housing availability. In his opinion, the Proposal contributes to provincial growth objectives and makes efficient use of land in the City.

20Official Plan and Zoning By-law

21Mr. Uens testified about the various policies found in the Official Plan. The Official Plan is intended to be read as a whole. Section 2.3.1.1 states that “Neighbourhoods are low rise and low density residential areas that are considered to be physically stable.” Development in Neighbourhoods must “respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns in these areas.”

22Policy 4.1.5 describes the criteria for development in Neighbourhoods. The built form should respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

23Mr. Uens also testified about the development and inception of the City’s laneway suite Site and Area Specific (SASP) Policies and related Zoning provisions. Specifically, SASP 546 permits laneway suites across the City, subject to a range of criteria specified in Policy 1.(b). Laneway suite policies are intended to expand housing options in the City.

24Mr. Uens explained that the proposed development has setbacks, height, depth and density that reflect the general intent of requirements for siting a detached dwelling. The rear wall of the house generally aligns with the rear wall of adjacent structures, and has similar landscaped space in the rear yard. No trees are affected by the proposed development.

25The proposed garage in the rear yard is comparable to other rear yard structures that are common throughout the properties in the block facing Skey Lane. Several of those properties along Skey Lane have structures that are taller than would be typical of structures in most laneways.

26Mr. Uens defined the Immediate Context to include 75 lots bordered by Grove Avenue, Foxley Street, Dovercourt Road and the rear of mixed-use properties fronting Dundas Street West. This comprises addresses 6-54 on Grove Avenue, 16-25 on Skey Lane, 211-279 Dovercourt Road and 52-76 Foxley Street.

27The Geographic Neighbourhood of 160 lots includes the Immediate Context plus 3-41 Rolyat Street and 178R Ossington Avenue. According to Mr. Uens, the area is largely comprised of “two- and three-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings in a wide variety of styles with considerable variation in front elevations and roof design. Many lots have rear yard accessory structures and front and rear landscaping to varying degrees.”

28Building Depth

29Mr. Uens testified that the lot at 34 Grove Avenue is deep compared to many of the lots in the Immediate Context, leading to an analysis of the ratio of the proposed building to the lot depth. The proposal has a building depth to lot ratio of 43%, whereas the average in the Immediate Context is 55.6% and the average in the Broader Context is 57.6% As mentioned, the rear wall of the proposed development generally aligns with dwellings to the north and south. In Mr. Uens’ opinion the proposed building depth is consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

30Front Yard Landscaping

31The minimum percentage of required soft landscaping at the front of the lot is 75%, whereas the proposal would allow 53%. Mr. Uens stated that front yard soft landscaping varies widely in the Neighbourhood. Several properties along Grove Avenue have 0% soft landscaping, and previous variance approvals in the area have allowed less than the percentage sought in the instant Appeal. The proposal includes hardscape walkways to the front porch and the front basement entrance. In Mr. Uens’ opinion the proposed front yard soft landscaping is consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

32Rear Yard Landscaping

33The minimum required percentage of rear yard landscaping is 50%. The proposal is for 37%. The rear space will include a patio and garage. The proposed soft landscaping is greater than that found on many lots in the Broader Context, including 17 lots on Grove Avenue, 11 lots on Dovercourt Road, 8 lots on Foxley Street and most of the lots along both sides of Rolyat Street. In Mr. Uens’ opinion, the proposal is consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

34Ancillary Building – Floor Area and Lot Coverage

35The Zoning By-law specifies a maximum total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures of 40m². The proposed floor area of the ancillary building will be 65.01m². This reflects the intention to convert the garage into a two-storey laneway suite in the future.

36The permitted maximum lot coverage is 5% of the lot area, whereas the proposed coverage is 20%. The footprint of the proposed garage is approximately the same as the footprint of the existing garage and that of other garages on similarly sized lots in the Neighbourhood. The proposed garage would be incidental and subordinate to the main house, in keeping with the intent of the By-law. In Mr. Uens’ opinion, the proposed variances are consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

37Ancillary Building Height and Number of Storeys

38The permitted height for the ancillary building is 4m. The proposed height is 6m. The By-law permits a one-storey building; the proposal is for two storeys. The proposed garage would be facing Skey Lane. Skey Lane has numerous other two- and three storey structures. Mr. Uens stated that the “existing and planned context both include two-storey laneway facing structures.” Skey Lane has a greater variety of structures than is typical of a residential laneway in the City. Several such buildings were specifically identified by Mr. Uens, including 259A, 259B, 259C Dovercourt Road (two-storey dwellings) 28 and 48 Grove Avenue (tall garages), 241 Dovercourt Road (two- and three-storey building) 16 Skey Lane (two-story commercial), 21, 13 and 25 Skey Lane (three-storey townhouses), 15A Grove Avenue (three-storey structure), 178 Ossington (two-storey commercial), 36R Foxley Street (two-storey commercial). These (and other examples) form a unique context along Skey Lane.

39There is a one-storey garage to the north of the subject property, with roughly the same footprint as the proposal. Shadowing from the proposed building will fall on the adjacent garage roof for part of the day.

40In Mr. Uens’ opinion, the variances are consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

41Appropriate for Development or Use of the Land

42Mr. Uens stated that the proposal would permit the development of a three-storey, detached house with a two-storey garage designed for conversion to a laneway suite. The project has been designed to limit impacts on adjacent properties. Several sustainable design features are also included. The original proposal to the Committee of Adjustment was changed to eliminate some variances and to change others to bring them closer to the By-law standard.

43The area has a wide variety of lot depths and configurations. Buildings are either two-storey or three-storey. The Committee of Adjustment approved a two-storey ancillary building at 47 Foxley Street, in early 2026, that is larger and higher than the ancillary building in this Appeal.

44Minor in Nature

45Mr. Uens stated that the proposed variances are minor in nature. This involves an assessment of impact, and is not merely a mathematical exercise. The proposal is designed to limit hard landscaping as much as possible. The proposed garage generally reflects the footprint of the existing garage, and aligns with the siting of other garages along Skey Lane. The requested height of the ancillary structure reflects the height of numerous other structures along the laneway.

46In Mr. Uens’ opinion, the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and the variances are minor in nature.

47In summary, it is Mr. Uens’ expert and uncontested opinion, based on the evidence, that the proposal meets the four tests under the Planning Act, has regard for several matters of provincial interest, and is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

48The Appellant submits that the changes to the variances from those before the Committee of Adjustment are minor and represent an improvement over the original application. It is submitted that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s.45(48.1.1) of the Planning Act not to require that the Proposal must be recirculated (especially as the Appellant has already done so of their own accord).

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

49The original proposal to the Committee of Adjustment was subsequently changed by the Appellant to reduce the building depth, eliminate the FSI variance, eliminate the front porch variance, and increase the front soft landscaping. A front yard setback variance is no longer required. The changes were discussed with City Planning. The City Zoning Examiner issued a revised Notice reflecting the amended proposal.

50After hearing from Mr. Uens and from legal counsel Mr. Bronskill, I decided that the changes to the COA Application are minor within the meaning of s.45(48.1.1) of the Planning Act, and that the Appellant should not be required to recirculate the Proposal. The changes represent an improvement from a planning perspective by reducing the potential impact upon the neighbours and by increasing the soft landscaping and open space.

51The Tribunal must determine whether the proposed variances are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and whether they have regard for the provincial interests in s.2 of the Planning Act. The onus is also on the Appellant to provide evidence to prove that the proposed variances meet all four statutory tests in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. That is, do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law? Are they desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land? Are they minor in nature?

52A hearing before the TLAB is a hearing “de novo” under s.45(18) of the Planning Act, meaning that the application that was before the Committee of Adjustment must be considered anew.

53A variance is a privilege and not a right. A variance will not be approved if it fails to meet all four tests.

54Planning Act and Provincial Planning Statement

55I agree with Mr. Uens that the Proposal has due regard for several of the matters of provincial interest enumerated in s.2 of the Planning Act. The Proposal will result in a new three-storey dwelling, built with environmentally sustainable features in an established community and close to public transit. The building and garage are appropriately massed and designed to fit within their context.

56I agree with Mr. Uens’ expert opinion that the Proposal is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. The proposed development within an established neighbourhood will take advantage of existing services, transit and infrastructure.

57General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

58Chapter Four of the City of Toronto Official Plan includes Policies on “Neighbourhoods”. These were discussed by Mr. Uens. I have included the most relevant sections below.

Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods

The stability of our Neighbourhoods’ physical character is one of the keys to Toronto’s success.

While communities experience constant social and demographic change, the general physical character of Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods endures. Physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and “fit” the existing physical character. A key objective of this Plan is that new development respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in a Neighbourhood.

O.P. Policy 4.1.5 (Excerpts) Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

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

b. prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c. prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;

d. prevailing building type(s);

e. prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages;

f. prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

g. prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;

h. continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and

i. conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.

The geographic neighbourhood for the purposes of this policy will be delineated by considering the context within the Neighbourhood in proximity to a proposed development, including: zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features.

The physical character of the geographic neighbourhood includes both the physical characteristics of the entire geographic area in proximity to the proposed development (the broader context) and the physical characteristics of the properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (the immediate context). Proposed development within a Neighbourhood will be materially consistent with the prevailing physical character of properties in both the broader and immediate contexts. In instances of significant difference between these two contexts, the immediate context will be considered to be of greater relevance. The determination of material consistency for the purposes of this policy will be limited to consideration of the physical characteristics listed in this policy.

The prevailing building type and physical character of a geographic neighbourhood will be determined by the most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood. Some Neighbourhoods will have more than one prevailing building type or physical character. The prevailing building type or physical character in one geographic neighbourhood will not be considered when determining the prevailing building type or physical character in another geographic neighbourhood.

While prevailing will mean most frequently occurring for purposes of this policy, this Plan recognizes that some geographic neighbourhoods contain a mix of physical characters. In such cases, the direction to respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character will not preclude development whose physical characteristics are not the most frequently occurring but do exist in substantial numbers within the geographic neighbourhood, provided that the physical characteristics of the proposed development are materially consistent with the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood and already have a significant presence on properties located in the immediate context or abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent block(s) within the geographic neighbourhood.

No changes will be made through rezoning, minor variance, consent or other public action that are out of keeping with the overall physical character of the entire Neighbourhood.

4.1.8. Zoning by-laws will contain numerical site standards for matters such as building type and height, density, lot sizes, lot depths, lot frontages, parking, building setbacks from lot lines, landscaped open space and any other performance standards to ensure that new development will be compatible with the physical character of established residential Neighbourhoods.

59This Appeal would permit the Appellant to replace an existing detached dwelling with a new detached dwelling. It would also replace an existing one-story garage with a new two-storey garage. The evidence about the immediate context and broader context demonstrates that the main building and the garage will reflect and reinforce the physical character of the Neighbourhood. The houses along Grove Avenue, Foxley Street, and Dovercourt Road are generally two and three storeys. The proposed building depth is comparable to other properties in the Neighbourhood.

60The photographic evidence in the Appellant’s Disclosure shows that a significant number of properties in the immediate and broader contexts do not comply with the current By-law standard for front and rear yard soft landscaping.

61Many properties in the immediate context have ancillary buildings at the rear. Skey Lane has a significant variety of structures, including garages, commercial uses, apartments, and townhouses. The evidence is that the proposed ancillary building will fit within that context, which is somewhat different from a typical lane in a residential neighbourhood. Detailed and expansive photographic evidence clearly showed the variety of structures along the laneway, some embellished with arguably artistic (if somewhat fulsome) graffiti.

62I agree with Mr. Uens that the proposal is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

63General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

64This Tribunal has previously stated that, “A Zoning By-law represents parameters of development that can be permitted as of right; it is not intended to be an “ideal” but rather a threshold beyond which appropriate development within the planning context must be considered, often through the process of application for variances.” Kuganesaphavan (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 235, at para 87.

65The proposed building depth is 18.71m, compared to the zoning requirement of 17m. In the Immediate Context, the average building depth is 18.83m. In the Broader Context, the average depth is 18.36m. The lot at 34 Grove Avenue is comparatively deep. The building depth to lot ratio would be 43%, whereas the average in the Immediate Context is 55.6% and the average in the Broader Context is 57.6% The rear wall of the dwelling will align with dwellings to the north and south.

66The proposed front yard soft landscaping is 53%. The required minimum is 75%. The rear yard soft landscaping is 37%. The by-law minimum is 50%. The data found by Mr. Uens shows that a substantial number of properties in the immediate and broader contexts are below the By-law standard. The Appellant reduced or eliminated some of the originally proposed variances (including reducing the building depth), creating more open space and satisfying concerns raised by City Planning.

67Turning to the ancillary building, the permitted maximum lot coverage is 5% of the lot area, whereas the proposed coverage is 20%. The proposed floor area of the ancillary building will be 65.01m². The Zoning By-law specifies a maximum total floor area of all ancillary buildings or structures of 40m². The proposed footprint is roughly the same as the existing garage. The permitted height for the ancillary building is 4m. The proposed height is 6m. The By-law permits a one-storey building; the proposal is for two storeys.

68However, as mentioned previously, given the features of Skey Lane, a two-storey garage, with a height of 6m would fit within the streetscape of the laneway, and is not likely to be noticeable from the street. The ancillary building would remain subordinate to the main building. The width of the new garage would be essentially unchanged from the original garage and the impact on neighbouring properties would be minimal. There are several structures along the laneway that exceed 6m in height, including townhouses and apartments. Open space is preserved in the rear yard.

69As mentioned, the Appellant hopes that the ancillary building will be converted into a laneway suite, which (according to Mr. Uens) will comply with the Zoning By-law. Construction of the two-storey garage would be advantageous at this point, rather than after the new main building is completed. However, my consideration of the proposed variances does not take into account the possibility of a laneway suite.

70I agree with Mr. Uens’ uncontroverted evidence that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

71Appropriate for the Development or Use of the Land

72The proposal would replace a detached two-storey dwelling with a detached three-storey building. The height of the main building is By-law compliant and the front yard setback does not require a variance. The Proposal is not an over-build on the site, out of character with the other properties. I agree with Mr. Uens that the Proposal is appropriate for the development of the land.

73Are the Variances “Minor”?

74The courts have established that the test of “minor” 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. The issue of whether a variance is minor must by determined by the Tribunal in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, the proposed variances are minor in the circumstances, particularly the unique features of Skey Lane. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any undue adverse impacts of a planning nature. No one appeared at the Hearing to oppose the variances.

CONCLUSION

75Based on the forgoing findings and reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposed Variances meet the four tests in s.45 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, and have regard for several matters of Provincial Interest specified in s.2 of the Planning Act.

76As explained within, the Tribunal also finds, in accordance with s.45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, that it is not necessary to give Notice of the amendments to the original Application.

DECISION AND ORDER

77I order that the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment Decision be allowed, and that the Variances set out in Appendix “A” be authorized, subject to the condition of substantial compliance contained therein.

A. Brown

Panel Member

Appendix “A”

Approved Variances

Maximum Building Depth [10.10.40.30.(1)]

The permitted maximum building depth for a (detached house, semi-detached house) is 17.0 metres. The proposed building depth is 18.91 metres.

Front Yard Soft Landscaping [10.5..50.10.(1)]

A minimum of 75 percent of the required front yard landscaping must be soft landscaping: 26.88 square metres. The proposed front yard soft landscaping area is 53 percent: 19.0 square metres.

Rear Yard Soft Landscaping [10.5..50.10.(3)]