July 20, 1999
To: East York Community Council
From: Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, RPP
Director of Community Planning, East District
Subject: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON
MINOR VARIANCE APPEALS
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding appeals of the Committee of Adjustment decisions described below. This report is for the consideration of the East York Community Council at their meeting of September 14, 1999.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council authorize staff from the Planning Division and Legal Division to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the appeal of the East York Committee of Adjustment’s decision regarding the application for minor variances for 264 Monarch Park Avenue (File A28/99EY).
Comments:
Variance Application A65/99EY
Mr. Aheleas Mitoulas
Re: 34 Cadorna Avenue
The applicant is proposing to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of the existing detached house at 34 Cadorna Avenue. He applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance from the maximum lot coverage requirement. On June 8, 1999, the Committee approved the variance, subject to a condition ensuring that the addition does not impede access to a rear yard garage. A neighbour appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Staff did not take a position on this application, and do not recommend that Council direct staff to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
2. Variance Application A28/99EY
Mr. Gerry Paul
Re: 264 Monarch Park Avenue
The applicant, on behalf of the owner, Mr. Van Eenooghe, is proposing a variance to legalize the use of the property at 264 Monarch Park Avenue for six apartment units, whereas the zoning by-law allows only two semi-detached dwelling units. The property is currently being used for six dwelling units. The applicant also requested a variance to allow only two parking spaces to be provided on the property, whereas the zoning by-law would require one space per unit, or six spaces in this case. On June 8, 1999, the Committee of Adjustment refused the application.
Planning staff provided the Committee of Adjustment with a report recommending refusal of the application for the following reasons:
The density of the property is not appropriate in the neighbourhood, and the existing illegal use has created adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties;
Two parking spaces is insufficient for six dwelling units;
There is a lack of amenity space for residents on the property;
The proposal violates the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law.
There is a long history of zoning by-law infractions on the property. The City’s permit records show that the dwelling was built in 1974 as a single-family dwelling. The current owner indicated he purchased the property in 1984 as a multiple unit dwelling containing six apartment units.
In 1993, the East York By-law Enforcement Division began by-law enforcement action against the owner for the zoning infraction. The Borough took the owner to court, where he was convicted and fined $2,000.00.
In 1995, the owner applied for a site-specific rezoning to allow him to maintain 4 to 6 separate residential units in the dwelling. Planning Division staff could not support the proposal, so the owner revised the application to request two dwelling units in the form of a semi-detached dwelling. On July 10, 1995, East York Council passed By-law No. 76-95 to permit a pair of semi-detached dwellings.
The owner did not remove any dwelling units from the building, and continued to violate the zoning by-law. On July 10, 1998, the City took the owner to court again for the zoning infraction, and he was again found guilty. At his sentencing hearing on May 14, 1999, the owner was fined $10,000.00. He was given six months to pay the fine. The Court also issued a Prohibitory Order, which prohibits him from continuing the zoning violation.
The property was also the subject of a previous minor variance application. On December 19, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment refused an application to permit two parking spaces in front of the building. The owner appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board allowed the appeal, and granted the variances, subject to the owner providing landscaping in the front yard in accordance with a Site Plan approved by the Board. The owner has not complied with the condition.
In the opinion of staff, the planning issues are significant and should be addressed by the City at the Ontario Municipal Board. Staff are recommending that planning and legal staff be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to oppose the application.
Contact Name:
Paul Galvin, Planner
(416) 397-4648
(416) 397-4582
pgalvin@borough.eastyork.on.ca
Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, RPP,
Director of Community Planning, East District Office
/PG
F:\reports\cofa-appeals-6.wpd
