H.W.O. Doyle, LL.B., LL.M.

City Solicitor

Legal Services

100 Queen Street West

14th Floor, West Tower, City Hall

Toronto ON M5H 2N2

Tel: (416) 392-8040

Fax: (416) 397-0024

November 24, 1998

To:Toronto Community Council

From:H.W.O. Doyle

Subject:14 Prince Arthur Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Ward 23 - Midtown)

Purpose:

To inform Council of the Ontario Municipal Board Decision respecting 14 Prince Arthur Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funding implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 City Council adopted Clause 25 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, refusing the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan approval for 14 Prince Arthur Avenue and requesting the City Solicitor, Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and staff of Heritage Toronto to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the City's refusal and to defend the Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This matter involved applications for minor variance, Official Plan amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan and an application under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to alter a building in a Heritage Conservation District. The application was to add two storeys to the building at 14 Prince Arthur Avenue which, among other matters, is located within the East Annex Heritage Conservation District (HCD), a Special Commerce Area (SCA) and the Prince Arthur Area of Special Identity (PAASI).

The Ontario Municipal Board hearing in this matter took place over five days. The City was represented by Ms. Sharon Haniford of my office. Mr.Winston Bridgman of Heritage Toronto and Mr. Michael Mizzi of Urban Planning & Development Services presented evidence on behalf of the City. Mr. Paul Johnston gave evidence on behalf of the residents. Ms. Sharyn Vincent and Mr. Donald Schmitt gave evidence on behalf of the applicant, represented by Mr.Adam Brown. A number of residents testified, including a number of long time residents of the East Annex. In addition, two interested heritage consultants, who had been involved in the preparation of the East Annex Heritage Conservation District Study, Mr. William Greer and Mr. Michael McClelland testified on their own behalf in support of the City's position.

The Board upheld the City's position refusing all of the appeals.

This is a significant decision in that it deals with a property within a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) where the building is of a more modern form than many of the buildings within the district. As well, it is located near the edge of the district, close to the much higher buildings along Avenue Road and immediately next door to a 22 storey apartment building deliberately excluded from the district.

The applicant's position at the hearing was based to a great extent on the height of the taller buildings next door and along Avenue Road and Bloor Street and on the lack of direct physical impact on the neighbouring properties. This, notwithstanding that the taller buildings were neither located in the HCD, the PAASI nor the SCA. In addition, they testified that the addition met the HCD study guidelines for additions.

The City witnesses disagreed and testified that was clearly the point of establishing these districts and associated policies. The Board agreed with the City witnesses.

The Board decision recognizes that the area in which Prince Arthur is located is quite distinctive in its architecture, history and cultural significance and refers to the East Annex Heritage Conservation District Study as a "very important feature of the policy context of the area".

The Board found that the proposal might be desirable in terms of enriching the rather plain structure at 14 Prince Arthur. However, the Board agreed with the City's witnesses that this is too great a risk and could have effects well beyond this Site. The Board held that in this case the balance would be upset if the development were allowed as proposed. The Board recognized the very strong and clear policy statements in the Official Plan, the zoning by-law and the continuum of study, which the Board found was part of

"a lengthy process of planning and policy-making... which have attempted to arrive at an acceptable level of regulation and permission...[all of which represents a level of compromise which] serves the interests of the entire community... by affording an ongoing policy balance that both allows and prohibits development in the greater interest. The effect would be to alter the neighbourhood in such a way that it would begin to lose the ambience and character that in many ways are now its lead attractions. It would also set the stage and raise the standard for other potential developments in the area, an area it is acknowledged that is under development pressures...As [the neighbours] observe with the benefit of long experience in such matters, the ratchet ultimately always turns only one way...The Board agrees with the City and its witnesses that this is too great a risk."

The Board found that the current in force policies remain reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

Contact Name:Sharon Haniford, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-6975

Fax: 392-0024

E-mail: shanifor@city.toronto.on.ca

H.W.O. Doyle

City Solicitor

SH:ccl

O:\WRITE\SHANIFOR\14PR~ART\TO980051.RPT