Status Report on the Ontario Municipal Board -
1947-97 Bloor Street West (High Park)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in accordance with Council's
amendment to Clause No. 5 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, for the
purpose of enabling a source of funds for outside planning advice to be identified,
(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request a review of the Ontario Municipal
Board's decision, issued on July 2, 1998, to grant an extension for an exemption for
1947 and 1997 Bloor Street West from the provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and
801-97 beyond April 17, 1998;
(2)subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the
subject of a further report to Council, the City Solicitor be instructed to retain an
outside planner for the Board Hearing, set for August 12, 1998, in relation to the minor
variances requested for the site.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received
the following status reports for information:
(i)(July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and
(ii)(July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from
the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
To request authorization for the City Solicitor to request that the Ontario Municipal Board
(the Board) review the Board's decision to grant an extension of an exemption from the
provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and 801-87 for the above-noted properties and to
request that authority be granted for the retention of an outside planner in relation to the
Board hearing into the owner's current site proposal.
Source of Funds/Financial Implications:
A recommended source of funds for retention of an outside planning consultant will be
addressed in a further report direct to Council.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request a review of the Board's decision, issued on
July 2, 1998, to grant an extension for an exemption for 1947 and 1997 Bloor Street West
from the provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and 801-87 beyond April 17, 1998.
(2)subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the subject of
a further report to Council, the City Solicitor be instructed to retain an outside planner for
the Board Hearing, set for August 12, 1998, in relation to the minor variances requested for
the site.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of June 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted a Motion regarding
the above-noted properties and submitted same to Toronto City Council for consideration
and approval at its meeting of July 8, 1998. That Motion, in part, instructed the City
Solicitor to attend the Board hearing in support of a decision of the Committee of
Adjustment to deny variances requested by the owner and, if necessary, to retain outside
planning advice. The Motion further requested that the City Solicitor apply for a Board
hearing date in September or October.
Toronto City Council adopted the motion as amended and in so doing authorized that the
City Solicitor attend the Board hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment and
requested that the City Solicitor apply to the Board for a hearing date in September or
October. Council also deleted the recommendation that the City Solicitor be authorized to
retain outside planning advice if necessary.
As an ancillary matter, the Board, in a decision issued on July 2, 1998, approved a request
by the applicant to extend an exemption for the subject lands from the provisions of Zoning
By-laws 798-87 and 801-87 beyond April 17, 1998.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As I noted in my status report dated July 8, 1998 on this matter, the subject location has
been a source of longstanding public and City concern and there have been a number of
proceedings before the Board over development proposals for the site. In 1989 the then
owner of the site, along with owners of certain other sites potentially affected by By-laws
798-87 and 801-87, requested that the Board exempt the proposed development from the
provisions of the by-laws, which amended the definition of gross floor area to include below
grade space, on the basis that the project was "in the pipe" at the time of the by-law's
passage. The proposed development was for below grade commercial space with parking
located above grade, on top of the building. After holding a public hearing into the request,
the Board, in a decision dated September 20, 1989, approved a 4 year exemption from the
by-law.
At the end of the exemption period, the mortgagee, having taken possession of the property,
requested a further extension of the exemption due to serious financial problems brought on
in great part by the recession. The Board held another public hearing into the request and in
a decision dated May 12, 1994, approved a further four year extension, to expire on April
17, 1998. In that decision the Board ordered, "there will be no further extensions past
the...April 17, 1998 dates".
Subsequent to those hearings, the latest proposal before the Board, set out in my July 8
report, is for a residential condominium development, with (primarily) below grade parking.
Nonetheless on April 6, 1998 the site's current owners, by way of a letter to the Board,
requested that a further extension be granted until the current appeal before the Board,
pertaining to minor variances in relation to the residential development has been heard. The
argument used to justify the request was that the project has been in the pipe since August of
1997. I understand that the City and area residents who have had standing in the previous
hearings referred to above, did not receive any notice that the Board was formally
considering the request.
The Board, without benefit of a hearing into the request, approved the request in a decision
issued on July 2, 1998. In light of the changed nature of the proposal for the site, the
sensitive nature of this matter, the Board's established practice of holding hearings into
requests for an exemption, and the Board's previous decision of May 1994 that no further
exemption shall issue, I am of the opinion that the latest approval of an extension represents
a failure of natural justice.
Section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act provides that "The Board may rehear any
application before deciding it or may review, rescind, change, alter or vary any decision,
approval or order made by it". The Board's Practice Direction 12, "Review of a Board
Decision", states that "A party may request a review based on a failure of natural justice
(such as no notice of a hearing, etc)...". Given the above I would recommend that I be
granted authority to request that the Board review its decision.
Concerning the hearing set for August 12, 1998 pertaining to the minor variances requested
by the present owner, I would also recommend that I be granted authority to retain an
outside planner for the hearing. As I noted in my July 8 report, the City's Planning Division
is not opposed to the current proposal, subject to the imposition of certain conditions.
Accordingly, if I am to follow Council's direction that I attend at the hearing in support of
the Committee of Adjustment's decision to refuse the variances, I will require outside
assistance. In making this recommendation, I note that it was the practice of the former City
of Toronto to retain outside consultants to support the position of City Council on planning
matters.
Contact Name:
Marc Kemerer
Legal Department
392-1228
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 8, 1998)
from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To provide the Toronto Community Council with the update they requested on the Ontario
Municipal Board appeal for the residential project on this site, and the latest community
meeting, held on July 6, 1998.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference:
At its meeting of June 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner
of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor to report to its meeting
on July 22, 1998, on the "progress of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing". The Toronto
Community Council also requested the City Solicitor to attend the Board hearing, with an
outside planning consultant, if necessary, in support of the decision of the Committee of
Adjustment refusing variances for the project.
Background:
The 1947-97 Bloor Street site is a sensitive, steeply sloping site on the south side of Bloor
Street West, at the corner of High Park. The Official Plan permits a project with a maximum
density of 3 times the lot area.
On March 10, 1998 the Committee of Adjustment considered variances to permit a
six-storey residential condominium on the site, after three community meetings held prior to
the Committee of Adjustment hearing. The project had been scaled down from the original
seven storey proposal, reducing the density from 3.98x to 3.64x the lot area. The Committee
refused the variances and on March 25, 1998, the refusal was appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board by the proponent.
Current Status:
The Ontario Municipal Board has set a date of August 12, 1998 to begin a three-day hearing
to consider planning evidence regarding this proposal. The planning staff letter on the
variance application recommended conditions the Committee of Adjustment should impose,
if it chose to approve the downsized project. For this reason, the City Solicitor will be
required to retain an outside planning consultant for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Public Meeting:
On Monday, July 6, 1998 a community meeting was held to discuss the latest changes to
the project which has now been further reduced to a density of 3.33x, but is still 18.9 m high
rather than the 14 m permitted by the Zoning By-law. It also encroaches somewhat into
required angular planes. Thirteen members of the public attended the meeting. Most of these
people preferred a lower building, within the Official Plan density limit and the height and
angular plane provisions of the Zoning By-law.
Contact Name:
Barry Brooks
Telephone: (416) 392-0758
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-Mail: bbrooks@city.toronto.on.ca
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 8, 1998)
from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
To provide the Toronto Community Council with the update it requested on the Ontario
Municipal Board appeal for a residential project on this site.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of June 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted a Motion regarding
the above-noted properties and submitted same to Toronto City Council for consideration
and approval at its meeting of July 8, 1998. That Motion instructed the City Solicitor to
attend the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing in support of a decision of the
Committee of Adjustment to deny variances requested by the owner and, if necessary, to
retain outside planning advice. The Motion further requested that the City Solicitor apply for
an OMB hearing date in September or October. Finally, the Motion requested that the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor report to
the July 22, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council on the progress of the OMB
hearing.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The subject location has been a source of longstanding public and City concern and there
have been a number of proceedings before the OMB over development proposals for the
site. Most recently, the (latest) owner submitted an application to the Committee of
Adjustment for a number of variances, including gross floor area, penetration of the angular
plane, and height, to construct a six storey apartment building containing 59 dwelling units,
a mechanical penthouse level and four below-grade levels containing residential and parking
uses. At the Committee hearing held on March 10, 1998, area residents raised a number of
concerns about the proposal, particularly with respect to the size and height of the proposed
building.
The Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal as presented would
create a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area. The owner has appealed this decision
to the OMB.
I understand that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is not
opposed to the project, subject to the Development Review application now before the City
being approved. For this reason, and in accordance with Council's direction, an outside
planning consultant will be retained to present evidence at the hearing in support of
Council's position. I have written to the OMB to alert the Board that the City will be seeking
a rescheduling of the hearing to September or October. Once the Motion is approved by
Council I will immediately advise the OMB so that it can consider the City's request.
Contact Name:
Marc Kemerer
Legal Department 392-1228
