June 29, 1999

To:Toronto Community Council

From:H.W.O. Doyle

Subject:50 Prince Arthur Avenue - OMB Decision and Consultants Fees

Purpose:

To inform Council of the Ontario Municipal Board decision respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue and to advise of additional funds required to pay Mr. Leon Kentridge of Kentridge Johnston Limited.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available in the Legal Services Operating Budget. The funding implications are in the amount of an additional $6,000.00.

Recommendations:

That an additional amount of $6,000.00 be allocated from the Legal Services Operation Budget for the retention of outside planning advice for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue, in addition to the funds previously authorized by Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 16, 1998, Council adopted Clause 59 of Toronto Community Council report No. 16, which instructed the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the City's position in this matter and authorized funds in the amount of $26,000.00 plus GST and disbursements to be paid to the outside planning consultant retained by the City for the hearing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This matter involved applications for official plan amendment, rezoning, site plan approval, consent to convey and tree removal respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue which is an existing 19 storey apartment building in the Annex.

The hearing took place over 10 days. The City, represented by Ms. Sharon Haniford presented evidence through Mr. Leon Kentridge, an outside planning consultant, and Mr. Gary LeBlanc, a forester in the City's Forestry Division. Residents of the Lowther Mews, in support of the City's position were represented by a solicitor and a planning consultant. The Annex Resident's Association also presented evidence in support of the City's position. Residents of 50 Prince Arthur and numerous other Annex residents testified in support of the City's position. The applicant was represented by a solicitor and planning consultant.

The hearing took place over 10 days and involved applications for official plan and zoning amendments, severance and tree removal and injury under the City's Tree By-law in order to permit 8 infill townhouses to be erected within the open space at the rear of this tower in the park form apartment building, creating townhouses with no direct vehicular access from a public road and no street presence. One of the trees proposed to be removed was a large elm tree approximately 70 years old in good condition.

In its decision dated April 9, 1999, the Ontario Municipal Board dismissed all of the appeals by the applicant in this matter, upholding the City Council's decision. The Board found that the proposed development is not in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan, being too intense a development for the site and not compatible with the surrounding area as it creates significant, unacceptable adverse impacts on the Lowther Mews, that it does not satisfy the criteria for a severance set forth in the Planning Act and that the proposal does not represent good planning.

The application to injure or destroy trees and the issue respecting park land conveyance versus money in lieu became academic as the Board was not approving the development related applications.

At the time of the December 16, 1998 decision of Council and when Mr. Kentridge was retained by the City, the hearing had been set down for 8 days and was expected to be completed in that timeframe. In fact the hearing took 10 days, with the Board sitting longer than usual hours for a number of those days. In addition, a great deal of preparation prior to and during the hearing was required, some of which could not have been anticipated and some of which was due to the manner in which the applicant approached the hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Kentridge's actual time spent is more in the order of $46,000.00 rather than the originally anticipated $26,000.00 fee previously reported, comprised of an additional $16,000.00 of preparatory work and $4,000.00 of hearing work.

I am requesting Council authority to pay Mr. Kentridge an additional $6,000.00 which would partially reimburse him for his additional work and expenses. Due to the complexity and duration of the hearing, I am satisfied this would be reasonable under the circumstances.

Conclusions:

The decision of City Council to refuse the applications was upheld by the Board. Mr. Kentridge had a significant role in the success the City achieved and the additional expense borne by him could not have been anticipated at the time of his retainer. I am recommending additional funds be made available to partially compensate him in this regard.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford

Solicitor

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-6975

Fax: (416) 392-4420

H.W.O. Doyle

City Solicitor

Legal Services

O:\WRITE\SHANIFOR\041\84060001.98\50PR~ART\OMB.RPT