|
Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 27, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, as amended by the following:
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that legal and staff representation be approved for the appeal
regarding 24 and 26 Montgomery Road.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Urban Development, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To advise Toronto Council of a number of Committee of Adjustment Decisions which have been appealed to the
Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether legal and staff representation is warranted.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
No financial impact.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)Legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding Application No. A-31/98ET, 63 Medulla
Avenue and Application No. A-111/98ET, 26 Holyoake Crescent.
(2)Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding 121 Melrose Street, 16 Albert Avenue,
45 and 45A Frances Avenue, 24 and 26 Montgomery Road, 100 North Drive, 26 Honbury Road and 52 Arborwood
Drive.
Comment:
The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:
(i)Address: 63 Medulla Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:63 Medulla Avenue Developments Inc.
Appellant:63 Medulla Avenue Developments Inc.
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:Proposed variances to the Zoning Code (Section 320-24.3, Supplementary Regulations for Waste
Disposal/Recycling Facilities) to permit the use of lands not which do not permit recycling facilities, as well as
permit the outside storage of materials.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:Since the City has previously been represented at the OMB in opposition to relaxing
development standards for recycling facilities, legal and staff representation should be provided in support of the
Committee=s decision.
(ii)Address: 121 Melrose Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:Maria Gaspar
Appellant:Maria Gaspar
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:A variance is requested to legalize an existing single, detached dwelling containing three residential
apartment units, whereas the R2 Mimico zone does not permit apartments in single, detached dwellings.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:The R2 zone in Mimico permits triplexes. Legal representation is not recommended.
(iii)Address: 16 Albert Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:1178605 Ontario Limited
Appellant: 1178605 Ontario Limited
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The property is occupied by an existing apartment building containing 17 apartment units, the
applicant is proposing to convert the laundry room into an apartment unit. Variances are required with respect to
parking, landscaping, curbing and gross floor area.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:The majority of the variances are required to legalize the site conditions of the existing
apartment building which was constructed in the late 1950's. Legal representation is not recommended.
(iv)Address: 45 and 45A Frances Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:Nickolaus Franz Gorican and Elizabeth Alice Gorican
Appellant: Nickolaus Franz Gorican and Elizabeth Alice Gorican
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The site has a frontage of 15.2 m (50 ft.). The applicants propose to sever the lot into two separate
properties, each with a lot frontage of 7.6 m (25 ft.) and a lot area of (3,502.3 sq.ft.). The applicants would retain
the existing dwelling on one lot and the severed lot would be developed as a single detached dwelling with a shared
driveway. The Second Density Residential R2 zone requires a minimum lot frontage of 13.5 m (44.29 ft.) and a lot
area of 510 m2 (5,489.77 sq.ft.). In addition, the applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback for the retained
lot.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:The lot area and frontage figures of the proposed lots would be similar to the lot standards
exhibited by a number of properties in the immediate area. Legal representation is not recommended.
(v)Address:24 and 26 Montgomery Road (Kingsway-Humber)
Applicant:Sharon House Corporation
Appellant:Sharon House Corporation
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicants propose to establish a group home for the purpose of providing non-medical nursing
care to members of the Christian Science Church Community. The Zoning Code limits occupants of a group home
to those individuals who have been referred by a hospital, court or government agency, recognized social services
agency or health professional. In addition, the facility is to be at least partly publicly funded or licensed or
approved in accordance with provincial statute. The proposal does not meet these criteria.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:The proposed group home would be providing non-medical care for individuals through a
privately run facility. With the proposed retention of the existing dwellings, it is anticipated that the facility would
operate in a manner similar to those group homes recognized by the Zoning Code definition. Staff note that the
application would be subject to the Site Plan Control Approval process, during which the details of site design and
landscaping would be reviewed. Legal representation is not recommended.
(vi)Address:100 North Drive (Kingsway-Humber)
Applicant:Beverly Elaine Torrance
Appellant:Peter Plastina
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:Variances are requested to legalize the location of the existing dwelling and attached swimming pool
which are located 1.1 m (3.7 ft.) and 0.0 m, respectively from the westerly lot line. Whereas, the Zoning Code
requires a minimum building setback of 1.2 m (3.9 ft.) for both the dwelling and the swimming pool.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Approved.
Staff Recommendation:The files of the Urban Development Department indicate that the existing dwelling and
pool were constructed in 1965 and 1966, respectively. Legal representation is not recommended.
(vii)Address:26 Honbury Road (Rexdale-Thistletown)
Applicant:Mohammad Aslam Goraya and Kishwar Goraya
Appellant:Mohammad Aslam Goraya and Kishwar Goraya
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application Date:Proposed variances to the side yard setback and dwelling depth requirements of the Zoning Code
in order to legalize a one storey attached garage.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused
Staff Recommendation:The applicant had approval to extend his dwelling but exceeded that approval. Staff do not
consider this a substantive planning issue. Legal representation is not recommended.
(viii)Address:52 Arborwood Drive (Rexdale-Thistletown)
Applicant:Lawrence Renne
Appellant:Lawrence Renne
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:Proposed variances to the rear yard setback and dwelling depth requirements of the Zoning Code in
order to legalize a one-storey sunroom.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused
Staff Recommendation:Staff do not consider this a substantive planning issue. Legal representation is not
recommended.
(ix)Address:26 Holyoake Crescent (Rexdale-Thistletown)
Applicant:Salvatore Vescio and Sophia Kourtis
Appellant:Salvatore Vescio and Sophia Kourtis
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:To permit the continued use of this single family detached house as a lodging house for a maximum
of eight (8) lodgers.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused
Staff Recommendation:This house is in a low density residential area. The Official Plan suggests that lodging
houses are better suited to higher density residential areas. However, the Plan acknowledges that lodging houses
can be permitted in low density residential areas through site specific by-law amendments evaluated on the basis of
a number of criteria. It is staff=s opinion that this application is more than a minor variance, consequently staff
recommend that legal representation be provided.
Conclusion:
The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that appeal items (i) and (ix) involve substantive
planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted for these
appeals.
As items ii), iii), iv), v), vi), vii), and viii) do not involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation
at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.
Contact Name:
Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, Director of Development and Design
Tel: (416)394-8216 Fax:(416)394-6063
|
