March 10, 1999
To:Scarborough Community Council
From:H.W.O. Doyle
Subject:Ontario Municipal Board Decision: 50 Nashdene Avenue, Unit 105
Purpose:
This report advises Council of the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board on the variance appeal respecting 50 Nashdene
Avenue, Unit 105.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.
Recommendations:
That this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
City Council, at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998 , directed the City Solicitor to appear before the Ontario
Municipal Board to oppose a variance sought by the owner of the industrial unit at 50 Nashdene Avenue, Unit 105, to allow
for installations of windshields in the industrial unit used for auto glass storage. The Committee of Adjustment refused the
variance and the owner appealed to the Board.
Comments
The Board conducted a one-day hearing and heard testimony from a land-use planner called by the owner's counsel as well
as the City's planner.
The Board preferred the evidence of the City's planner and found that the proposed variance fails to meet all of the tests of
the Planning Act and did not represent good planning. The testimony of the City's planner, which was accepted by the
Board, was that even the occasional installation of automobile windshields constituted a vehicle service or repair use which
was not a use permitted in the area. The Board also agreed with the City's view that such an occasional use did not
represent a permitted accessory use.
The City's evidence, which was accepted by the Board, provided that the vehicle repair or service use was intentionally
limited to specific areas of the former City of Scarborough and that the subject property does not meet the criteria of the
City's recent policy for the location of vehicle service garages, nor could the City's performance standards be met.
Although the business practices suggested by the applicant could, the Board found, assist in mitigating some of the negative
impacts of the vehicle service use if they were strictly followed, the Board shared the City's concerns that there would be
pressure to increase the frequency of the use should the installation business become successful. The City maintained and
the Board agreed, that enforcement of the applicant's business practices would be extremely difficult and it would be likely
that negative impacts would escalate.
On the basis of the evidence presented, the Board found that none of the four tests under the Planning Act were met.
Conclusions:
The Board decision represents a successful outcome from the City's perspective. A copy of the Ontario Municipal Board
decision will be filed with the City Clerk and will be available for review.
Contact Name:Raymond M. Feig, Solicitor
Telephone:(416) 392-7224
Fax:(416) 392-0024
E-mail:rfeig@toronto.ca
H.W.O. Doyle
City Solicitor
Legal Services
O:\WRITE\RFEIG\700\GHE10002.98\NASHREP.RPT
