pc28¹ÙÍø

The owner of 28 Valiant Rd. proposedÌýa three-storey structure with a basement containing four separate units and a garage, according to documentation submitted to the city. Three units would have two bedrooms, and one unit would have one bedroom.

Fourplexes have been legal across pc28¹ÙÍøsince 2023Ìýas part of an effort to bring more “gentle density” to neighbourhoods dominated by single-family homes. However, the homeowner was seeking to occupy more space on the lot, along with other variances.

In opening remarks, the committeeÌýreminded attendees that fourplexes are legal, and asked that attendees focus their objections on the requested variances.

And while many residents spoke out about the exemptions in question — with some calling the proposed variances “egregious” and “not minor”Ìý— the committee also heard plenty of debate about the impact of the added density and how the fourplex proposal would affect the character of the neighbourhood.Ìý

Neighbours objected to both variances and added density

The owner of 28 Valiant Rd. purchased the property in 2020 and is living in the bungalow there. The residential street is lined with trees and a mix of old and new single-family homes.

The proposal for the property sought, among other requests, permission to occupy more space on the lot (37 per cent versus 33 per cent), have greater floor area (377 square metres versus 192 square metres) and be taller (11.43 metres versus 10) than currently allowed. It also proposed smaller setback spaces.

The owner’s representative noted the property was approved for similar variances in 2021 when they proposed a two-storey structure in the back of the property and a second storey for the bungalow, and that the new requests are “almost exactly” the same.ÌýHe added that several properties in the neighbourhood have been approved for similar variances, but they house only one family, rather than four.Ìý(The application lists several examples of similar variances granted in the neighbourhood; most are smaller changes but some are greater than what the fourplex proposal sought.)

In letters of objection submitted prior to the hearing, neighbours raised a slew of concernsÌý— the fourplex would introduce more traffic and too much density, its location on the corner of a three-way intersection would pose a safety risk for pedestrians, the construction could risk more flooding, and the structure would disrupt the character of the neighbourhood, they said, among other reasons.Ìý

A next-door neighbour also raised concerns about the small setback proposals, saying it would pose a risk to his home’s foundation and fire exits, which the representative for the property disputed.

Residents repeated concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety, plus potential sewage issues. To that, the representative rebutted that transportation services raised no concerns about the application.

A handful of objections argued the proposal would not match the character of the neighbourhood.

Can a fourplex fit the character of a neighbourhood of single-family homes?

Despite the committee’s request not to object to the presence of a fourplex, some attendees and many letters highlighted concerns around added density.

A committee member, at one point, challenged a resident who spoke, asking whether they took issue with the variances or the presence of a fourplex. The resident conceded “a single-family house would be more appropriate” at the corner lot.Ìý

Another resident spoke openly about his opposition to fourplexes, saying the long-standing neighbourhood was designed around a vision of a garden with architectural unity.

“This neighbourhood has zero multi-unit buildings … This plan doesn’t mix with anything. It has an impact on community integrity. It impacts what we bought into in the Kingsway.

“The hallmark of this neighbourhood is literally nothing ever changes. It stays the same,” the resident said, arguing that’s why so many neighbours submitted letters of objection.

Most residents who appeared at the hearing said they were not opposed to intensification, but found the location to be ill-suited for the proposed density. Some letters of objection stood firmly against the presence of a fourplex.

“This will, if allowed, begin a cascade of more houses destroying the neighbourhood into a slum yard of undesirable inhabitants who will bring crime and filth and drug activity and illegal aliens into a long established quiet safe neighbourhood,” one letter read.

Owner told the Star he planned to build a multi-generational home with rentals

Owner Tony Tarantella told the StarÌýthat he wanted the fourplex to be a multi-generational home like the one he grew up in, with two rental units, and said he wants to stay in the neighbourhoodÌýwhile his youngÌýson attends school.

TarantellaÌýsaid he would bring in his mother, who is living alone after his father diedÌýtwo years ago.

“I was gonna put my mom on the main floor, me and my family on the second floor, and then, yeah, cost of living in pc28¹ÙÍøis expensive, so I mean, I’m gonna rent out two units,” heÌýtold the Star.

Tarantella added that the units would have nine-foot-tall ceilings and the third floor would have a balconyÌý— features he hoped would keep tenants happy and in the home for several years.

“I have a nine-year-old son,” he added. “How’s he gonna afford anything in pc28¹ÙÍøin 10 years from now? In 12 years, where is he gonna live? You know? So I figured this would secure a future for him as well.”

Committee rejects proposalÌý

In his rebuttal, the owner’s representative David Igelman said he believes most people objecting do take issue with the property being a fourplex, adding that the property was approved for similar variances in 2021.

But one committee member said the proposal was requesting a “worse” situation than had already been approved.

Committee members went on to highlight concerns around the ceiling height and the setback proposal, saying the application “does not meet the forecast.”

One member added that as fourplexes are newer to the city, the committee should heed as much caution as they did when they first started to approve variances to garden suites and laneway suites.

Finally, four members voted against the application, with one member voting in favour.Ìý

Speaking with the Star after the decision,ÌýTarantella said he’s going to explore his options with designers in the coming days.

“I’ve been told I’m allowed to build based on what I was granted,” he said, referring to the 2021 approvals.

Instead of a fourplex, which would require a larger structure, TarantellaÌýsaid he would consider building a triplex instead.