Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (November12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, be adopted;
and further
(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board for the purpose of seeking an
adjournment of an appeal relating to 16 Tremblay Drive (Application No. A344/98ET) as the owner will be out of
the country:
Purpose:
To advise Toronto Council 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:
There will be financial costs associated with the appeals involving 189 Rexdale Boulevard and 165Islington Avenue.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding Application No. A-305/98ET,
189 Rexdale Boulevard, and A-262/98ET, 165 Islington Avenue, and that legal and staff representation not be provided
for the appeals regarding Application No. A-286/98ET, 399 Lake Promenade, and A-307/98ET, 282 Rimilton Avenue and
A-320/98, 391 Renforth Drive.
Comments:
The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:
i)Address: 189 Rexdale Boulevard
Applicant:William Muller
Appellant:Patrick Di Monte, Solicitor for the applicant.
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:Proposed variances to Sections 304-34, 304-31G, 304-36B.(1), 304-20B, 304-20C, 304-36G.(1), 304-20D
and 304-20E of the Zoning Code with respect to permitted uses, landscaping, parking and setbacks requirements in order
to recognize the operation of a stand alone car sales centre on 1037.13m2 (11,164 sq.ft.) of the west portion of the front
yard of the subject lands, including the establishment of a freestanding sales trailer and freestanding washroom facility on
the lands.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Comments:The subject site is currently being used for the storage and parking of miscellaneous items and vehicles such
as trailers, boats, derelict auto-parts, house-trailers, dump trucks etc. The applicant's proposal requires a total of eight
variances from the general provisions of the Zoning Code and the Supplementary Regulations for Stand Alone Vehicles
Sales and/or Rental Establishments. The supplementary regulations were enacted in 1997, providing for such operations to
be permitted only in accordance with locational criteria and site specific standards (as now set out in the ZoningCode).
The proposed used car sales operation from a sales trailer located in the front portion of the property is inappropriate and
contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Therefore, legal and staff representation is warranted.
ii)Address: 399 Lake Promenade
Applicant:Ver Gacanin, Alberto Macedo and Armandina Macedo
Appellant:Ver Gacanin, Alberto Macedo and Armandina Macedo
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The property is occupied by a duplex dwelling with an illegal basement apartment and the applicant wishes
to legalize the basement unit and make additions to the existing structure. The Multiple Residential Long Branch (RM1)
zone does not recognize duplex units with basement apartments (Section 330-25 of the Zoning Code) and therefore,
structural alterations are not permitted (Section 330-6[1] of the Zoning Code). Relief is also sought to permit outdoor
stairs to be located 0.8m (2.6 ft.) from the side lot line whereas Section 330-26B.(6)(b) of the Zoning Code requires a
minimum setback of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.).
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Comments:The Multiple Residential Long Branch (RM1) zone permits duplexes and triplexes but does not recognize a
duplex with a basement unit. As the application does not involve substantive planning matter, legal and staff
representation is not warranted.
iii)Address:165 Islington Avenue
Applicant:Eugenia Biedrzycka
Appellant:Eugenia Biedrzycka
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:To legalize and maintain the use of single detached dwelling as a lodging house for seven lodgers. A lodging
house is not listed as a permitted use on the site, which is zoned Second Density Residential (R2) (New Toronto).
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Comments:As lodging houses are not listed as a permitted use in the Second Density Residential (R2) (New Toronto)
zone, applicable Official Plan policies require that the proposed facility be evaluated on the basis of an application for
site-specific by-law amendment, rather than minor variance. Therefore, legal and staff representation is warranted.
iv)Address:282 Rimilton Avenue
Applicant:Porfirio and Madalena Da Silva
Appellant:Porfirio and Madalena Da Silva
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB.
Application:To permit the construction of a new single detached dwelling on a vacant lot. The dwelling would be set
back 6 m from the front lot line and 7.17 m from the rear lot line, while the required minimum setbacks are 7.99 m and
8.38 m, respectively. The dwelling would have a gross floor area of 220.86 m2 (0.6floor space index), while a maximum
floor area of 147.39 m2 (0.4 floor space index), is required by the by-law.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Comments:The proposed dwelling would be situated on a relatively shallow lot severed earlier in 1998, and is similar in
scale, character and setbacks to existing dwellings in the vicinity. Therefore, legal and staff representation is not
warranted.
v)Address:391 Renforth Drive
Applicant:Bogdan and Bozena Jakubowski
Appellant:Bogdan and Bozena Jakubowski
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB.
Application:To permit the construction of a new two storey addition to an irregular shaped corner lot which would result
in an average rear yard setback of 5.89m (20 ft). The Zoning Code requires an average rear yard setback of 8.08 m (27 ft)
for the subject site.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Comments:As the subject site is an irregular shaped corner lot, staff are of the opinion that legal and staff representation
is not warranted.
Conclusion:
The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that appeal items (i) and (iii) involve substantive
planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted for these appeals.
As items (ii), (iv) and (v) do not involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario
Municipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.
Contact Name:
Richard Kendall, Principal Planner
Tel: (416)394-8227, Fax: (416)394-6063