Property Snapshot

What could this property become?

This property report looks at what may be possible here, what nearby owners have already been doing, and what should be checked before moving forward.

Inside this report
00 / At a Glance

If you read nothing else

Backyard HousingLikely as-of-rightis the strongest first path this snapshot found.
Density used
28%
of 349 m² permitted
Headroom
251 m²
unbuilt permitted floor area
Lot vs neighbours
75th pct
larger than 3 of 4 parcels
Constraints
2 flagged
of 10 layers checked

Next step: confirm the backyard housing path with a project feasibility review before commissioning drawings. Everything below is the evidence.

01 / Densification Paths

Which path fits this property?

Instead of listing every project type, this snapshot ranks the realistic ways this property could add housing over time.

Housing profile

Bungalow-style lot

This property looks like a bungalow-style lot. The strongest paths are often basement conversion, backyard housing, and carefully placed additions.

A lower existing house on a deeper lot often points to backyard housing, basement conversion, and carefully placed additions before a full rebuild is considered.

Profile group
Bungalow / Large Rear Yard
high confidence
  • 10.2 m frontage
  • 45.6 m lot depth
  • 98 m2 existing footprint
  • low existing massing
  • 21% existing lot coverage
  • tree protection review may affect rear-yard work
Static 3D preview
Best first opportunityCost $$Likely as-of-right

Backyard Housing

Add a separate unit in the rear yard when lot geometry supports it.

The rear-yard screen is promising. The next question is whether access, trees, servicing, and separation keep the suite practical.

Evidence
  • 58 m² screened suite footprint
  • 45.6 m lot depth
Watch-outs
  • Tree protection may shrink the buildable area

Feasibility review covers: suite size screen · access and tree watch-outs · one-storey vs two-storey direction.

Best for: deep lots, lane lots, or owners wanting a detached rental unit
Review garden suite ->
Static 3D preview
Strong second pathCost $$$Likely as-of-right

Addition + Conversion

Expand the existing house and use the added area strategically.

The envelope suggests there may be useful expansion room. A feasibility review should test whether rear, side, or vertical work is the cleanest path.

Evidence
  • 1,195 ft² screened addition area
  • Vertical addition ranks strongest
Watch-outs
  • Build above the existing house within the permitted height envelope.

Feasibility review covers: three approval routes compared · exact added area per route · coA-backed variance targets.

Best for: families needing more space or owners combining expansion with rental income
Compare 3 approval routes ->
Static 3D preview
Lowest-disruption pathCost $As-of-right · code review

Light Renovation

More housing mostly inside the existing house.

This is likely the lowest-disruption path: use the existing house area first, then confirm code, egress, and layout details.

Evidence
  • 98 m² existing footprint
  • 4.2 m existing height signal
Watch-outs
  • Basement height and exits need site confirmation

Feasibility review covers: likely lowest-disruption path · manual review checklist · conversion-first next step.

Best for: rental income or more units without rebuilding
Review basement path ->
Static 3D preview
Long-term / higher-risk pathCost $$$$As-of-right within envelope

Rebuild / Multiplex

Use the site for maximum long-term housing potential.

The site has enough signals to keep multiplex or rebuild on the table, especially if the existing house is underbuilt relative to the zoning envelope.

Evidence
  • Envelope is about 3.6x existing footprint
  • Multiplex screen: Strong Planning Potential
Watch-outs
  • Highest cost and uncertainty

Feasibility review covers: max envelope screen · unit-count direction · complexity and risk flags.

Best for: investors, long-term owners, underbuilt lots, or Major Street properties
Review multiplex path ->

Path rankings are based on zoning rules, parcel geometry, existing footprint, accessory-suite screening, addition envelope, public constraints, and nearby activity. They are not permit approvals or construction advice.

Rear-yard and laneway access are screened from lot data and should be confirmed before relying on this result.

Interior conversion depends on existing building conditions that cannot be confirmed from public data alone.

02 / Property Signals

Why This Property Stands Out

A few property features may make this site more interesting than a typical house in the area.

Property Advantages
Large Lot
This lot is larger than many nearby properties.
Deep Lot
Deep lots often provide more room for additions and backyard projects.
Neighbourhood Signals
Neighbours Are Adding On
Several nearby homeowners have recently added to their homes.
Basement Suites Are Common Nearby
Basement apartments appear to be common in this neighbourhood.
Backyard Housing Is Happening Nearby
Backyard housing projects have been found nearby.
Active Renovation Area
Many homeowners nearby are investing in their properties.
03 / Property Envelope

What Could Fit On This Property?

This model shows the approximate building envelope based on zoning rules. It helps illustrate where a larger house, addition, or future project may fit.

Lot area465 m²
Lot width10.2 m
Lot depth45.6 m
Building height8.5 m
FSI0.75 : 1
Max GFA (FSI × lot area)349 m²
Lot coverageNo limit
Buildable area160 m²
Front setback6.0 m
Side setback0.9 m
Rear setback11.4 m
Garden suite envelope — resolved for this lot
Max suite footprint58 m²
Max storeys1
Max height4 m
Rear setback0.6 m
Side setback0.6 m
Separation from main house5 m
Backyard area124 m²

A one-storey suite is the recommended fit for this lot.

04 / Neighbour Activity

See What Your Neighbours Have Been Building

People nearby have been improving and adding to their homes. These examples summarize the main activity types found around this property.

Of the 4 nearby projects with a recorded status: 1 completed, 2 active or under construction, and 1 in review — a read on how much building momentum this pocket has right now.

Within 500m of 63 O'Connor Dr, the sample dataset shows steady renovation, addition, and suite activity. The surrounding O'Connor Drive block pattern suggests homeowners are actively reinvesting in existing houses while larger housing options are worth watching nearby.

Building Permits
31in last 24 months · 500m
Interior renovations
11
Additions
8
Secondary suites
5
New builds
3
Garage / accessory
2
Demolitions
2
Planning Applications
9in last 24 months · 500m
Minor variance
6
Consent / severance
1
Site plan
1
Rezoning
1
Recent minor variance files indicate that rear additions, side-yard relief, and parking adjustments are common approval questions in this sample area.
Tree protection and access constraints should be resolved early because they can change both the buildable footprint and approval timeline.
Nearby examples
Addition nearby
12
55 O'Connor Dr

Relief for rear-yard setback and lot coverage for a rear addition.

Minor Variance - Additions / alterationsJan 18, 202638m away
71 O'Connor Dr

Two-storey rear addition and interior alterations.

Permit IssuedApr 12, 202646m away
Building permits / CoA
Secondary suite nearby
5
47 O'Connor Dr

Basement secondary suite with new egress window.

Under ReviewMar 21, 202658m away
Building permits
Garden/laneway nearby
4
24 Hassard Ave

Accessory suite proposal with tree protection and access constraints.

Minor Variance - Garden / laneway suitesJun 26, 2025188m away
18 Hopedale Ave

Detached accessory structure and rear-yard site work.

ClosedFeb 14, 2026124m away
94 Woodville Ave

Replacement detached dwelling with integral garage.

Permit IssuedNov 7, 2025212m away
Permits / CoA themes
05 / Things To Check

Things to Check Before You Build

These public-data checks flag issues that may affect design, approvals, timing, or where you can build.

HeritageNo heritage issue found.
TreesA protected tree may affect where you can build.
RavineNo ravine issue found.
ConservationNo conservation issue found.
Floodplain / TRCA / OverlayNo TRCA issue found.
Other overlaysAnother overlay may require extra review.
Archaeological Potential Area
Your property is within an area of archaeological potential. Projects involving excavation or planning approvals may trigger an archaeological assessment. If archaeological resources are found, further study or preservation requirements may affect timeline and cost.
Protected Tree
A protected tree may affect where and how you can build.
06 / Technical Zoning

Technical Zoning Details

The zoning record and the by-law rules resolved for this lot. Numeric envelope values (height, setbacks, coverage, FSI) are in Section 03.

Zone designation
RD (f6.0; a185; d0.75)

The full designation includes the base zone and its applicable performance standards. A site-specific exception can modify the base-zone rules.

Governing by-law
Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013
Site-specific exception
None identified in designation
Angular plane
Not required by base RD zone rules
Key rules used in this screening

These are the resolved base-zone rules used to calculate the screening envelope. Site-specific exceptions, survey conditions, or other applicable law may change the final design limits.

Max Building Length17.00m

Maximum building length measured from the required front yard setback.

By-law ref: By-law 569-2013, Ch. 10.5.40.60 (sample)

Max Building Depth19.00m

Maximum building depth for detached houses governs the envelope on this deep lot.

By-law ref: By-law 569-2013, Ch. 10.5.40.60 (sample)

Front Setback6.00m

Front yard setback follows the established building line on this block.

By-law ref: By-law 569-2013, Ch. 10.5.40.70 (sample)

Rear Setback11.37m

Rear setback resolved as 25% of this lot's depth, which governs over the flat minimum here.

By-law ref: By-law 569-2013, Ch. 10.5.40.70 (sample)

Side Setback0.90m

Side setback resolved from the RD zone standard for this lot frontage.

By-law ref: By-law 569-2013, Ch. 10.5.40.70 (sample)

07 / Data & Sources

How This Report Was Built

The coverage, search window, and public data sources used across this report.

Constraint Layers
10 checked
All standard overlay layers screened against City of Toronto, TRCA, and intake-question data.
Activity Window
24 months · 500m
Building permits, planning applications, and CoA decisions within the search radius.
Sources
  • Toronto Zoning By-law
  • TRCA Regulated Areas
  • Heritage Register
  • Ravine and Natural Feature layers
  • Sample nearby building permit index
  • Sample Committee of Adjustment decisions
  • Sample planning application index
08 / Next Step

Ready to Explore a Specific Project?

This snapshot maps what the property could support. The project feasibility report takes one project and compares three approval routes — as-of-right, minor variance, and multiple variances — so you know which path to file before paying for drawings. Based on this snapshot, Backyard Housing looks like the strongest first candidate.

  • Three approval routes compared, each with its own 3D massing
  • Exact buildable area per route (ft² and m²) under FSI and lot coverage limits
  • Variance targets backed by nearby Committee of Adjustment decisions
  • Owner action plan with filing path and typical timing

Explore Project Feasibility

Move from a property snapshot to a focused project review for the option you care about most.

Sample report only. Some nearby activity values are adjusted for demonstration and do not represent a legal opinion, permit approval, or guaranteed development right.