April 30, 1999
To:North York Community Council
From:H.W.O. Doyle
City Solicitor
Subject:Ralph and Ada Reichmann
214 Strathallan Wood and 409 and 415 Glencairn Ave
Appeal to the OMB of Committee of Adjustment Decision -
conditions of approval
Our File No. AP98.04
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held with respect to 214
Strathallan Wood, 409 and 415 Glencairn Avenue in September, 1998.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not Applicable.
Recommendations:
That this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The properties involved in this appeal are set out above. Although separate parcels at one time, because of the purchase of
all three properties by Ralph and Ada Reichmann, title merged on all three properties. An application for severance was
brought requesting consent to convey Parts 1 and 2, with Part 3 being the retained parcel. The Committee of Adjustment
granted the severances, subject to six conditions. The Reichmanns appealed conditions 3, 4 and 5 to the Board and a
hearing resulted. Of the three parcels, only Part 2 is vacant. Parts 1 and 3 have existing dwellings on them.
A previous identical application was made and appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board on December 5, 1994. The
condition imposed at that time related to the filing of a vegetation plan as part of the plan of proposed development on Part
2 (the vacant parcel)
The consents lapsed as conditions were not fulfilled within the required time, which, in turn, led to the new application
being made. Despite a request being made to the Committee of Adjustment to impose the same conditions as had been
agreed to previously, the Committee did not do so and, instead imposed the six conditions.
The issue to be decided by the Board was one of tree preservation and the necessity of being required to replace any tree
before its removal and the ability of City officials to prevent a tree's removal. The conditions (Condition 4) imposed would
require a tree preservation and planting plan for Part 1, which has an existing house and is fully landscaped presently.
Condition 3 places the same requirement on Part 3, the parcel to be retained.
By its Decision and Order issued March 25, 1999, the Board determined that conditions 3, 4 and 5 were unreasonable,
allowed the appeal and imposed two conditions in substitution, as follows:
1.At the time of site plan application with respect to those lands municipally known as 415 Glencarin Avenue, being
conveyed and described as Part 2 on a sketch prepared by Rady-Pentek and Edward Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors,
designated as Job No. 89-228-A, the proponent must file a vegetation plan as part of the plan of proposed development.
2.No trees be removed from Part 2 prior to site plan approval being obtained.
A copy of the Board's Decision and Order is attached for Council's information.
Conclusions:
That this report be received for information.
Contact Name:
Irvin M. Shachter
Solicitor
Legal Division
Corporate Services Department
Tel: (416) 392-1219
Fax No. (416) 392-0005
H.W.O. Doyle
City Solicitor
encl.
