City of Toronto   *
HomeContact UsHow Do I...? Advanced search Go
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
   

 

Official Plan Amendment No. UDOP-99-35 -

Peter Cheatley (1205373 Ontario Limited) -

76, 78, 80 & 84 Ellerslie Avenue - North York Centre



The North York Community Council recommends that:



(1) the report (December 20, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, not be adopted;



(2) the Official Plan Amendment application UDOP-99-35, submitted by Peter Cheatley (1205373 Ontario Limited), be refused and that City Council express to the Ontario Municipal Board its serious concern that approval of development outside the North York Centre boundary and the movement of the Relevant Residential Property Line (RRPL) could destabilize stable residential neighbourhoods adjacent to the North York City Centre; and



(3) City Council support the community representatives in the event that they decide to entertain a judicial review or further legal action with respect to their legal fees and any planning support they may require.



The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on January 18, 2000, with appropriate notice of this meeting in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.



The North York Community Council submits the following report (December 20, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, Urban Development Services:



Purpose:



The applicant is requesting an amendment to the D.3 Uptown Plan to exempt the lands at 76 to 84 Ellerslie Avenue from the building height and setback policies relating to the Relevant Residential Property Line, in accordance with a recently issued OMB Decision.



Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



All costs associated with the processing of this application are included within the 1999/2000 Operating Budget and are primarily those related to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) the OMB be advised that City Council has no objection to this Official Plan Amendment application (UDOP-99-35), which has been filed in accordance with the OMB's Interim Decision dated November 4, 1999.



Background:



History:



In September 1999, an Ontario Municipal Board hearing was held on appeals related to the following:



(i) Part D 2.17 of OPA 381 (which later became Part C 9.140 of the North York Official Plan), which set out a site specific policy for the lands at 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue;

(ii) OPA 467 which repealed this site specific policy;

(iii) A rezoning application for the lands at 76 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue; and

(iv) A site plan approval application for the lands at 76 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue.



In an interim decision dated November 4, 1999, the Ontario Municipal Board found that



(i) The proposal for 49 townhouses and 16 second units is an appropriate form of housing for this development and has planning merit.

(ii) Nos. 76 and 78 Ellerslie Avenue are to be excluded from the zoning by-law for the site.

(iii) The development can be accommodated without any new functional sections of service road.

(iv) Access to the Downtown Service Road through Ellerslie Avenue will be permitted on a temporary basis only.

(v) A minimum setback of 9.5 metres from the north property line of the site is appropriate.

(vi) The appellant's proposed modification to the C9.140 policy eliminating the Relevant Residential Property Line policies on the east portion of the site conflicts with the policies of the D.3 Uptown Plan and therefore does not conform to the Official Plan.



The Board determined that the location of the Relevant Residential Property Line (RRPL) running through the site should be relocated to the east side of the site to accommodate the proposal. The Board adjourned the matter for 60 days to enable the proponent to make an application to the City to amend the provisions of the D.3 Uptown Plan for the purpose of relocating a portion of the RRPL as it relates to this site. The Board indicated that should the new application be appealed to the Board, the appeal will be consolidated with the other matters and the Board will schedule the hearing to continue. A copy of the OMB's interim decision is attached as Appendix 1.



Proposal:



The applicant has submitted an application to amend the Official Plan to set out a site specific policy for the lands at 76, 78, 80 and 84 Ellerslie Avenue to exempt them from the provisions of Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.4 of the D.3 Uptown Plan which pertain to height and setbacks in relation to the Relevant Residential Property Line as shown on Map D.3.2 of the D.3 Uptown Plan (see Appendix 2).



Official Plan:



The lands subject to this application (Nos. 76, 78, 80 and 84 Ellerslie Avenue) are located within the D.3 Uptown Plan area of the North York Centre. These lands are designated Uptown Residential 2 (see Schedule "A") which permits residential development with a maximum density of 1.5 FSI and a maximum height of 3 storeys or 11 metres.



These lands also form the east part of the redevelopment site proposed for townhouses. The west portion of the site, comprised of No. 88, 90, 96, 100 and 102 Ellerslie Avenue, is part of a stable residential area lying outside of the Uptown. This west portion is designated Residential Density 1 which permits single detached and semi-detached dwellings. The lands in the west portion are also subject to a site specific policy (C9.140) which permits the lands at Nos. 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue to be redeveloped for residential uses to a maximum density of 1.0 FSI and a maximum height of 3 storeys or 11 metres, subject to vehicular access from the Uptown Service Road and not from Ellerslie Avenue.

Map D.3.2 of the D.3 Uptown Plan (see Schedule "C") establishes a Relevant Residential Property Line which generally follows the property lines of the nearest detached or semi-detached dwellings outside of the D.3 Uptown Plan area in the stable residential area which existed on November 17, 1986. A portion of the RRPL runs in a north-south direction along the east property line of No. 88 Ellerslie Avenue and coincides with the boundary line that divides the Uptown area from the stable residential area in the Official Plan.



The RRPL is intended to be a demarcating line separating and buffering the stable residential areas from the Uptown redevelopment area. Section 4.5.4 of the D.3 Uptown Plan requires a minimum 9.5 metre setback between development within the Uptown and the RRPL. In addition, Section 4.5.2 of the D.3 Uptown Plan sets out a height formula which is based on a percentage of the horizontal distance from the RRPL.



Zoning:



The lands subject to this application are zoned R4 (One Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone) which permits single detached dwellings as shown on Schedule "B".



Comments:



Relevant Residential Property Line (RRPL):



At the OMB hearing held in September 1999, the applicant sought a modification to the C9.140 policy in order to exempt the east portion lands from compliance with the provisions of the D.3 Uptown Plan relating to the RRPL. The D.3 Uptown Plan is in full force and effect. In its Interim Decision, the OMB indicated that "the proponent is asking the Board to indirectly amend provisions in the Uptown Plan by way of a proposed modification to the C9.140 policy." The C9.140 policy is only applicable to the west portion of the site. The Board indicated that "in order to properly achieve the final planning policy sought by the proponent, as needed for this development, an amendment to the Uptown Plan relocating the RRPL to the east side of the East Portion of the development site is required".



Moving the RRPL to the east as indicated by the OMB would have two implications:



- Impact planning regulations on adjacent lands



It would affect the property rights of landowners in the Uptown located to the east of this site by reducing the maximum height permitted for some of those lands. The D.3 Uptown Plan regulates height as a percentage of the horizontal distance from the RRPL. Currently, on the lands east of this site, the D.3 Uptown Plan permits a maximum height of 50% of the horizontal distance from the RRPL for lands in the Buffer Area, and 70% of the horizontal distance from the RRPL to a maximum of 87 metres for the other lands. By shifting the RRPL to the east, the distance from the RRPL for some of the lands east of the Service Road would be reduced, thereby reducing the height limit permitted by the Plan.



- Misrepresenting the purpose of the RRPL

The RRPL represents the property line of the first house outside of the Uptown. Moving the RRPL to the east portion of the site would put the RRPL within the D.3 Uptown Plan area. This conflicts with the D.3 Uptown Plan policy 1.4.1 that the RRPL is to represent the closest property line of low density residential uses outside the boundaries of the Uptown. The RRPL is intended to serve as a demarcating line separating and buffering the residential uses in the stable residential area from the higher density development in the D.3 Uptown Plan area.



Applicant's Proposed Site Specific Policy:



The applicant has submitted an Official Plan amendment (see Appendix 2) that would not relocate the RRPL. Instead, they are proposing a site specific policy that would exempt the lands at Nos. 76 to 84 Ellerslie Avenue from the requirements of the D.3 Uptown Plan that regulate height and setbacks in relation to the Relevant Residential Property Line. The proposed policy would set out a minimum northerly setback of 9.5 metres from No. 1 Basswood Road.



This proposed Official Plan amendment implements the OMB's Interim Decision without making a change to the RRPL. On the basis of the OMB's Interim Decision, which finds that the proposed townhouse development is appropriate and that a minimum 9.5 metre setback should be provided from the lands to the north, staff do not oppose the proposed Official Plan amendment.



Community Consultation:



On December 22, 1999, the Department gave notice of a Community Council Public Meeting to review this application (see Appendix 3). The public meeting will give residents in the area an opportunity to express their views on this application prior to the OMB resumption of the hearing.



Conclusions:



The applicant is proposing a site specific Official Plan amendment to exempt Nos. 76 to 84 Ellerslie Avenue from the building height and setback policies of the D.3 Uptown Plan relating to the Relevant Residential Property Line, in accordance with a recently issued OMB Interim Decision. The Ontario Municipal Board should be advised that City Council does not object to the applicant's Official Plan amendment, based on the OMB's Interim Decision dated November 4, 1999, which finds that the proposed townhouse development is appropriate.

Contact:



Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7134

Fax: (416) 395-7155



(The Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)



_________





The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:



- (January 3, 2000) from Inese and D. Gregory Flude, in support of the Official Plan Amendment;



- (January 10, 2000) from Mr. Jeffrey B. Goldenberg, Fogler, Rubinoff, Barristers & Solicitors, on behalf of the applicant, advising that his client has entered into minutes of settlement with the Yonge Street Ratepayers' Association and the Lansing Community Association; and further advising that the applicant would be requesting the Ontario Municipal Board to revise the official plan amendment attached to the staff report as Appendix No. 2 to provide for a setback of 11 metres as opposed to 9.5 metres.



A staff presentation was made by Mr. Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner, Community Planning, North District.



The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:



- Mr. Jeffrey Goldenberg, on behalf of the applicant, advising that he had no objections to the recommendations contained in the staff report;



- Mr. Ernesto Laurini, who expressed his opposition to the Official Plan Amendment Application. He expressed concern that the Ontario Municipal Board at its hearing held in September 1999, approved a modification to the C9.140 Policy exempting the east portion lands from compliance with the provisions of the D.3 Uptown Plan relating to the Relevant Residential Property Line (RRPL);



- Ms. Neela Adamski, who spoke in opposition to the Official Plan Amendment Application. She felt that the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to relocate the RRPL sets a precedent whereby future developers within the area will make similar requests, thereby further destabilizing the surrounding single family home community;



- Ms. Sharolyn Vettese, on behalf of Yonge Street Area Ratepayers Association , who expressed her concerns with the Official Plan Amendment Application. She advised that her Association sought relief at Divisional Court. Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the Association and the applicant negotiated a settlement to increase the setback of the north property line of the site from 9.5 metres to 11 metres;



- Ms. Mary Ann Cross, who expressed her opposition to the application with regard to the increase of traffic infiltration from the development onto neighbouring residential streets. She also expressed concerns, as noted by previous speakers, with regard to the RRPL;



- Ms. Inese Flude, who expressed her support for the application. She stated that no new evidence has been presented to contradict the Ontario Municipal Board's decision. She further stated that the site was unique and that the relocation of the RRPL would not set a precedent;



- Mr. Ian Searle, who expressed his support for the application. He felt that the development proposal meets the criteria of the Planning Act. He further stated that the objectors have had a fair hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board and that the City should proceed with the approval of the application;



- Ms. Carol Gold, who expressed her opposition to the application and restated similar comments as previously noted with regard to the relocation of the RRPL. She concluded by requesting the North York Community Council to not agree to the changes in the interim judgement by the Ontario Municipal Board;



- Ms. Ronda Margolese, who advised that her opposition to the application had been expressed by the previous speakers;



- Mr. Greg Flude, who expressed his support for the application. In his opinion, the proposed site specific Official Plan amendment to exempt the subject lands from the building height and setback policies of the Uptown Plan relating to the Relevant Residential Property Line, is in accordance with the recently issued Ontario Municipal Board Interim Decision. He also stated that the compromise reached between the applicant, the Ratepayer Associations and the City was the best way to achieve development on this site;



- Mr. David Rathgeber, on behalf of the Lansing Community Association, who spoke in support of the application. During his submission he also stated that the summary of the agreement is correct and the Lansing Community Association would no longer be opposing the application;



- Ms. Anne Galilee, who indicated that her concerns had been expressed by previous speakers.



________





Recorded Votes:



A recorded vote on Recommendation (3) moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, was as follows:



FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong



AGAINST: Councillors Feldman, Shiner, King



ABSENT: Councillors Augimeri, Berger, Chong



Carried



A recorded vote on Recommendations (1) and (2) moved by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was as follows:





FOR: Counncillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong



AGAINST: Councillors Feldman, Gardner, Shiner, King



ABSENT: Councillors Augimeri, Berger, Chong



Carried





 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2005