March 31, 1998
To: Toronto Community Council
Standing Committee/Community Council/City Council
From: Sylvia N. Watson
Toronto Community Council Solicitor Head of Department
Subject: Expropriation of the private lane at the rear of premises Nos. 58 - 66 Williamson Road and 252 to 256 Glen Manor Drive West, for public lane purposes (Ward 26)Report Subject (concise and upper and lower case), Ward Name (where appropriate)(must be related to an identifiable use, activity or location)
Purpose:
Fill in appropriate information as section suggests
To request that City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, consider the report of the Inquiry Office and decide whether to approve its application to expropriate the private lane described above for public lane purposes.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Fill in appropriate information as section suggests
Funds in connection with the expropriation of the private lane at this location are to be provided from Capital Account No. 296-601.
Recommendations:
Fill in appropriate information as section suggests
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council consider the report of the Inquiry Officer attached as Schedule "A" to this report.
(2) If City Council decides to approve the proposed expropriation, it do so for the following reasons:
The expropriation of the lands is required for public lane purposes. It is believed that the safety and utility of the laneway will, after acquisition, be improved through the installation of paving, drainage and lighting.
(3) City Council specifically modify the expropriation as originally proposed by approving the expropriation of only that portion of PART 2 on Plan 66R-17177 shown as PART 2 on Draft Expropriation Plan 2101-1.
(4) The City Clerk be directed to cause the decision of City Council and reasons to be served upon Susan Leonora Crammond and Bernard Lucht, 9 Southwood Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M4E 2T7, parties to the inquiry, and to the Chief Inquiry Officer, Ministry of the Attorney General, Crown Law Office - Civil Law, 8th floor - 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K1, within 90 days after the date of the receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer in accordance with the Expropriations Act.
(5) If City Council decides to approve the expropriation, it direct that:
(a) The City Clerk or designate and the City Treasurer or designate be authorized and directed to execute a Certificate of Approval in the form prescribed in the Expropriations Act.
(b) Leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto.
(c) Offers of compensation, in compliance with the requirements of the Expropriations Act, to the registered owners, and/or whomever may be entitled to be served, be approved up to the amount of the appraisal reports obtained by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the appropriate City Officials be authorized to offer immediate payment of 100% of the offers of compensation and to settle the compensation claims within the limits of their authority and further be authorized to complete these transactions; prepare the necessary documents releasing the City from any claims arising from the expropriation of land; pay any interest charges or expenses incurred by the City; and pay any reasonable legal and appraisal fees associated therewith.
(d) The lands be placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services until required for public lane purposes.
(e) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take such action as may be necessary to complete these transactions and/or take possession of the lands involved, including the preparation and registration of the Expropriation Plan and service of the required documents such as Notice of Expropriation, Notice of Possession, Notice of Election, Without Prejudice Offers, Appraisal Reports, etc.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Fill in appropriate information as section suggests
As appears from Clause 10, City Services Committee Report No. 5, adopted at its meeting held on April 29 and 30, 1996, City Council authorized, among other things, an application to City Council for approval of the expropriation of all rights, title and interests for public lane purposes of certain lands described as follows:
Schedule "A"
In the City of Toronto, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of:
Firstly: Lot A according to Plan M-467 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66), designated as Part 1 on a plan of survey deposited in the said Land Registry Office as 66R-17177;
Being part of Parcel 1513 in the Register for Section S, Toronto.
Secondly: Part of Lot 146 according to Plan M-467 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66), designated as Part 2 on a plan of survey deposited in the said Land Registry Office as 66R-17177;
Being part of Parcel 146-2 in the Register for Section M-467.
Thirdly: Parts of Lots 104 and 105 according to Plan M-390 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66), designated as
Parts 3 and 5 on a plan of survey deposited in the said Land Registry Office as 66R-17177;
Being part of Parcel 104-3 in the Register for Section M-390.
Fourthly: Part of Lot 104 according to Plan M-390 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66), designated as Parts 4, 6, 8 and 13 on a plan of survey deposited in the said Land Registry Office as 66R-17177;
Being part of Parcel 104-1 in the Register for Section M-390.
Fifthly: Part of Lot 104 according to Plan M-390 and Part of Lot 145 according to Plan M-467 both said Plans being registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66), designated as Parts 7, 9 and 10 on a plan of survey deposited in the said Land Registry Office as 66R-17177;
Being part of Parcel 104-2 in the Register for Section M-390.
Council also approved the following:
2. The service and publication of the Notice of such application required by the Expropriations Act;
3. The appropriate Officials to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the said Act, any requests for hearings that are received;
4. The Acting Commissioner of City Property to obtain any appraisal reports required to comply with The Expropriations Act;
5. The appropriate City Officials to report further to Council as the occasion may require;
6. A by-law to lay out the lands to form the new lane as described in Schedule `A' above, and thereafter dedicate the lands for public lane purposes; and
7. The appropriate City Officials to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Fill in appropriate information as section suggests
The service and publication of the Notice of Application for Approval to Expropriate Land was duly effected and a request for an inquiry hearing was received from Ms. Susan Leonora Crammond and Mr. Bernard Lucht, the owners of the property at 9 Southwood Drive, Toronto, Ontario.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed and on January 23, 1998 an inquiry was held into the question of whether the proposed expropriation was fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the City. The report of the Inquiry Officer was received on January 27, 1998, a copy of which is attached as Schedule "A" to this report.
The objections of Ms. Crammond and Mr. Lucht as summarized by the Inquiry Officer centred around their belief that:
a) some adjacent owners would be acquiring access over the lane which did not exist before;
b) the environment would be detrimentally affected;
c) there would be a potential loss of privacy;
d) private property and mature trees could be damaged during reconstruction of the lane, particularly with the grading and excavation necessary to improve drainage of surface water;
e) use of the lane would be open to the general public which could disturb the residents;
f) the lane was adequately maintained under private ownership; and
g) all of PART 2 on Plan 66R-17177 should be expropriated from the objectors so as not to leave them with a useless piece of land.
After consideration of the evidence, the Inquiry Officer found that:
1. The public interest outweighs the private concerns of the parties to the inquiry, and as the majority of the adjacent owners supported the expropriation and improvements, the City's taking of PARTS 1 to 10 inclusive as shown on draft Expropriation Plan 2101-1 dated September 23, 1997 is required for public lane purposes and such taking is fair, just and reasonably necessary for the purpose of the Expropriating Authority.
2. The City originally intended to take more of the Lucht-Crammond lands. PART 2 on the amended Draft Expropriation Plan 2101-1 is considerably smaller than the rear lane area originally intended (PART 2 on Plan 66R-17177). This leaves the owners with an anomaly in the form of a parcel at the rear more or less useless for any use other than the lane.
In finding that the proposed expropriation was fair, sound and reasonably necessary, the Inquiry Officer also recommended that the Expropriating Authority consider expropriating the whole of PART 2 as set out on Plan 66R-17177 rather than the reduced version of PART 2 as shown on draft Expropriation Plan 2101-1.
Following consultation with City staff from the Transportation section of Urban Development Services, I would recommend that the City expropriate the reduced version of PART 2 as,
(a) the reduced portion of PART 2 is all that is required to provide a functional lane to the area residents;
(b) expropriation of the entire portion would lead to unnecessary compensation costs; and
(c) the portion to be excluded is in fact encumbered and not used for laneway purposes.
A sketch showing the lands proposed to be expropriated is attached as Schedule "B".
Conclusions:
Fill in appropriate information as section suggests
City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, must consider the report of the Inquiry Officer and decide whether to approve the application as requested.
Contact Name:
Edward A. Earle
Legal Services
Tel: 392-7226
Signature of Department Head
Title _____________________________________
EE:mb Sylvia N. Watson
Enclosures Toronto Community Council Solicitor
