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(ii) OPA 467 which repealed this site specific policy;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