Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions for

(1) 20-30 Sandcliffe Road; and (2) 3524 Dundas Street W.,

Ward 27, York Humber

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Director, Community Planning, West District, be authorized on behalf of Council, to withdraw the appeal of Committee of Adjustment decisions B-39/99YK to B-44/99YK with respect to 20-30 Sandcliffe Road, conditional upon the applicant submitting to City Council for its September 28 meeting, satisfactory documentation indicating that agreements have been entered into with the existing tenants to provide security of tenure for all existing tenants should they wish to remain tenants, and the right of first refusal should they wish to purchase their homes, and indicating that such agreements have been registered on title;

(2)recommendation (3) in the report dated August 17, 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, West District, be approved; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The York Community Council submits the following report (August 17, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To provide information regarding Committee of Adjustment decisions that have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and recommend whether or not legal and staff representation is warranted.

Financial Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The financial costs associated with appeal of the consent applications for 20 - 30 Sandcliffe Road are limited to the $250.00 appeal fee. There is no financial cost associated with the appeal for 3524 Dundas Street West.

Recommendations:

It is recommend that:

(1)Council endorse the appeal of Committee of Adjustment decisions B-39/99YK to B-44/99YK for 20-30 Sandcliffe Road filed by Urban Planning and Development Services staff on behalf of Council;

(2)Legal and staff representation be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the appeal noted in the preceding recommendation; and,

(3)Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeal regarding application No. A-60/99YK for 3524 Dundas Street West.

Comment:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(1)Address:20 - 30 Sandcliffe Road (Ward 27- York Humber)

Applicant:Inaugural Source Inc.

Appellant:City of Toronto

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:B-39/99YK to B-44/99YK. The applicant proposes to sever a site containing six existing lawful nonconforming rental townhouses into six freehold lots each containing an existing townhouse. (see appendix A and B)

The Committee of Adjustment on July 26,1999 granted consent for the severance of an existing townhouse portion of land into six (6) residential lots with a condition requiring the applicant to pay 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland. The subject property presently consists of six (6) two-storey rental townhouses that are lawful non-conforming uses in an R2 Zone. Planning staff commented that new policies contained within Official Plan Amendment (OPA) No.2 relating to the preservation and maintenance of residential buildings, particularly rental buildings, apply to these consent applications. The amendment was adopted by City Council on March 2, 3, and 4 but is currently under appeal.

In particular, policy 135.1 within OPA No.2 states that it is the policy of Council "to preserve, maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, and particularly rental buildings, across the City of Toronto by restricting the demolition of residential property and the conversion of rental units to condominium, and/or freehold, by discouraging the conversions of rental units to equity co-operative, and by encouraging new rental housing production."

Notwithstanding that these new policies are under appeal, they are Council adopted policies. As indicated in planning staff comments dated April 20, 1999 and July 14, 1999, to the Committee of Adjustment in considering matters of consent, the Planning Act provides that regard shall be given, among other matters, to whether the consent conforms to the Official Plan. In light of the above-noted adopted policies, the proposed consent application would not conform with the policies of OPA No.2.

Therefore, in the absence of a Council meeting in August and a limited time frame to lodge an appeal, an appeal was filed of the Committee's consent decision by Urban Planning and Development Services staff, on behalf of Council.

(2)Address:3524 Dundas St. West (Ward 27 - York Humber)

Applicant:Helen Smoljan

Appellant:Helen Smoljan, 1660 Glenvista Dr. Oakville

Hearing Date:To de determined by the Ontario Municipal Board

Application:A-60/99 YK. The applicant proposes to erect a self-contained, mobile food sales kiosk to be associated with the Brewer's Retail store at the same location (see Appendix C)

The Committee of Adjustment on June 29, 1999 refused the above-noted application to permit a self-contained, mobile food sales kiosk to operate on the subject property. The Planning Department did not have any objections to the application, thus no comments were submitted.

Conclusions:

In regard to the Committee of Adjustment's decisions for 20-30 Sandcliffe Road, the subject appeal is warranted, given the recently adopted city-wide policy regarding rental unit conversions and the lack of conformity with the Official Plan. Legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board are warranted. Further it should be noted that during periods when Council is not meeting, (August, March etc.) arrangements should be made through the Procedural By-law to authorize the Solicitor to act on behalf of Council where a Council policy is affected.

The subject appeal for 3524 Dundas Street West was also reviewed by staff. There are no substantive planning issues relating to the application. City Legal staff and Planning staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is therefore not warranted for this appeal.

Contact Name:

P. Carvalhinho

Assistant Planner,

Community Planning - West District

Tel: 394-2618; Fax: 394-2782

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (September 9, 1999) from Mr. Michael B. Vaughan, Q.C.:

The application concerns six row houses built in 1952. They were constructed as separate homes, each with separate municipal and public services to the street. They were owned as a rental project and over the years have become run down. My client purchased them with the intent of upgrading and renovating the homes as they became vacant, in the normal course. My client discussed his plans with the appropriate City officials and they appeared to be acceptable. Accordingly, he made an application de to sever the row houses into separate ownership, just as an identical row of six townhouses immediately west have been severed into separate ownership homes.

The tenants support the application. It was considered by the Committee of Adjustment on two occasions before it was approved. A number of meetings were held with the neighbours. Those meetings culminated in a settlement agreement with the neighbours represented by Councillor Nunziata, a copy of which is attached. The Committee of Adjustment approved the application based on the settlement agreement as supported by the Councillor.

The policy referred to in Mr. Moretto's letter dated August 9th, came in after my client filed the application to the Committee of Adjustment. The policy is a carry-over of the old City of Toronto "condominium conversion policy", the intent of which was to prevent conversion of highrise rental apartment buildings to condominiums. The policy did not apply to the conversion of row houses to freehold units, such as the case in question. The policy referred to by Mr. Moretto is now before the OMB. It will not be part of the official plan unless, until, and to the extent that it may be approved by the OMB.

In the event that Mr. Moretto's appeal is withdraw, my client is prepared to provide all existing tenants with a written undertaking not to require vacant possession other than for non-payment of rent or cause, should they wish to remain as tenants. As well if they wish to purchase their homes, my client is prepared to offer each of them a right of first refusal.

An OMB hearing would involve the City in substantial expense. Having in mind all the circumstances, particularly the settlement agreement that was negotiated with the neighbours, I would hope that Council would want to keep faith with the neighbours and the Councillor, and not take a step that would undermine the neighbourhood negotiation process. The settlement was reached on a unanimous basis with the neighbours and with the Councillor and to proceed with an appeal would undermine the wishes of the applicant, the neighbours, the Councillor and the process.

On behalf of the applicant may I therefore request that the Community Council recommend that the appeal be withdrawn.

Agreement dated July 20, 1999

Between:Inaugural-Source Inc. (Hereinafter called "Inaugural")

OF THE FIRST PART

- and -

All the Neighbours represented by Frances Nunziata

(hereinafter called "Neighbours")

OF THE SECOND PART

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.If the applications before the Committee of Adjustment today concerning 20-30 Sandcliffe Road and 30A and 30B Sandcliffe Road are approved and not appealed, Inaugural agrees:

(a)to build one house instead of two houses on the new lots at 30A and 30B Sandcliffe Road;

(b)to set back the new house at least 6 feet from the west property boundary abutting the right-of-way to the west;

(c)to construct no fence along the west property boundary abutting the right-of-way to the west;

(d)to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to a 6-foot wide right-of-way in favour of the neighbours abutting to the west, and to pave the parking lot on the land to the west;

(e)to try to reduce the height of the proposed new house

2.This agreement is binding on the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties.

Inaugural-Source Inc.Neighbours

Per: George HerczegPer: Frances Nunziata

The York Community Council also had before it during consideration of the above matter, the following three similar letters dated September 13, 1999, submitted by Mr. Michael Vaughan, Solicitor, and signed by the tenants of 20, 26 and 30 Sandcliffe Road:

We are familiar with the application that was approved by the Committee of Adjustment and wanted to forward a letter explaining why, as tenants of the property, we are in favour of the Committee's decision to approve the severance of these properties.

A successful severance would finally give us the ability to purchase our home and make the change from tenants to homeowners. We have indicated to the owner that if the severance was successful, it would give us the ability to own our unit and we would be interested in doing such.

We are in favour of this severance application.

Appendix A: Location Map

Appendix B: Site Plan

Appendix C: Location Map