Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board

regarding Zoning By-law No. 484-1998 in

connection with 1150 Woodbine Avenue

The East York Community Council recommends as follows:

(1)that the City Solicitor be requested to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in connection with 1150 Woodbine Avenue and to hire an independent planner to defend the City Council's decision adopted on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998;

(2)that the City Clerk be requested to inform the interested parties who were in attendance at the public meeting held on July 22, 1998, of the appeal which has been received and the decision to defend the City Council's position taken on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998; and

(3)received the following report (September 8, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To inform the East York Community Council that an appeal was received in connection with the Zoning By-law Amendment in respect of 1150 Woodbine Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The costs associated with the appeal have been secured from the appellant.

Recommendation:

That the report of the City Clerk be received for information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Council of the City of Toronto passed By-law No. 484-1998 on July 31, 1998, regarding an application submitted by Mr. Paul Jeffrey for property located at 1150 Woodbine Avenue. The land is currently zoned "Residential R2A" in Zoning By-law No. 6752. The R2A zone permits the land to be used for a one-family detached dwelling, or a one-family semi-detached dwelling, and one accessory apartment. This Zoning By-law Amendment rezones the lands to "R2A Residential - Site Specific (R2A.34) Zone" which will permit the land to be used for three dwelling units.

The appeal period for By-law No. 484-1998 ended on September 3, 1998 and one appeal objecting to this By-law was received within the time period allowed. Attached for your information is the notice of appeal from Mr. Paul B. Jeffrey, PBJ Associates Limited, 151 Nashdene Road, Unit 57, Scarborough, dated August 26, 1997.

Conclusions:

Once an appeal has been received, the municipality has fifteen (15) days in which to forward the appeal and a record of the passing of the By-law to the Ontario Municipal Board. In accordance with the Planning Act, the appeal will be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board prior to September18,1998.

Contact Name:

Janette McCusker

East York Office

Clerk's Division

778-2003

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (August26,1998) from Mr. Paul B. Jeffery, PQS, President, PBJ Associates Limited, Scarborough:

"We hereby file Notice of Appeal in respect to the above By-law for the following reasons:

1)The By-law is written in the body with reference to the fact that there had existed on the property one commercial occupancy plus two dwelling units. The Staff report suggests that they were satisfied that the replacement of the commercial content was a bonus in that the property had become residential as provided in the applicable existing by-laws. The fact that five units had occurred as a result of the conversion from two residential plus commercial to all residential was a little more that they wanted to accept, but they consistently suggest that four was an acceptable number, considering the parking situation. When the by-law was written, the number was reduced to three without a reasonable explanation of the Committee's decision for maintaining three units with the commercial converted to residential everything suggests that four would be the reasonable option.

2)The approval for three units on three floors pre-supposes that a two-bedroom apartment is acceptable on each floor. We feel that the density afforded by three two-bedroom units far exceeds the capacity of two bachelor and three one-bedroom units presently in place. At least one of the tenants of the bachelor apartments has lived there for several years (the other just over eighteen months) and the parking spaces have never had more than one or at the most two in the last five years. If two-bedroom units are developed, the clients most likely to live there would most certainly have one car, and possibly two, and as mentioned before the density may be all out of proportion to what is presently on the site, since these would attract a more affluent tenant, or one with a larger family. We feel certain that parking may develop a problem with the above in mind, we would like to suggest that the status remain as at present, or at worst four units be development, not three.

We would appreciate meeting with you to review this situation."