76-102 Ellerslie Avenue - OPA 467, Referral No. 1
of OPA 381, Planning Act Rezoning and Site Plan
Appeals - OMB Hearing Results
The North York Community Council recommends that the following
report (January 12, 2000) from the City Solicitor, not be adopted.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise of the outcome of the Ontario
Municipal Board hearing and provide recommendations with respect to
the position that the City should take when the Ontario Municipal Board
resumes the hearing at a date to be set to deal with the proponent's
Official Plan Amendment application.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable
Recommendations:
That Legal Staff attend at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing when it
resumes to address the matter outlined in this Report, namely to ensure
that the RRPL policies remain in place save and except with respect to
this particular site.
Background:
The proponent, a numbered company, assembled eight single family
residential lots on the north side of Ellerslie Avenue, west of Beecroft
Road and proposed to replace the dwellings with 49 townhouses, with
an additional 16 second units (basement apartments).
In September 1999, an 8 day 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(ii) OPA 467 which repealed this site specific policy;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 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 C 9.140 policy
eliminating the RRPL policies on the east portion of the site
conflicts with the policies of the 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
Official Plan Amendment application (called OPA), to the City to
amend the provisions of the Uptown Plan for the purpose of relocating
a portion of the RRPL as it relates to this site. The Board indicated that
should the OPA be appealed to the Board, the appeal will be
consolidated with the other matters and the Board will schedule the
hearing to continue.
In accordance with the Board's direction, on November 11, 1999, the
proponent filed an OPA modifying the text for the subject property in
respect of the relevant residential property line. The Director,
Community Planning, North District, has recommended in his Report
on it that the Ontario Municipal Board be advised when it resumes its
hearing, that the City does not object to the amendment based on the
Ontario Municipal Board's Interim Decision dated November 4, 1999,
which finds that the proposed townhouse development is appropriate.
The OPA, it is fair to say, is viewed as a technical one to accommodate
the proposal which was found by the Ontario Municipal Board to have
planning merits.
Legal Services has discussed the Ontario Municipal Board's Decision
and the Report's recommendations with the outside planning consultant
who testified at the hearing. It is his opinion that the Board is not
looking, at this stage, to reopen the hearing on the merits. The OPA is
essentially technical in nature and will operate to facilitate the
development as directed by the Board. He does, however, see a role for
the Council to use the planning process at this stage not to thwart the
development (which might raise an argument that it is appropriate to
award costs against the municipality if it acts unreasonably in light of
the Board's findings in its Interim Decision), but rather to ensure that
sure this is a specific RRPL exemption which will not arise again. These
limited areas could be addressed by the municipality when the hearing
resumes so that the uniqueness of this application is apparent.
Conclusions:
That the City Solicitor, together with the outside planning consultant, be
authorized to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board when the
hearing continues to seek those goals and objectives set out in this
Report and the report of the Director of Community Planning, North
District regarding this matter.
Contact:
Larry J. Darkes
Solicitor
Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law
Legal Services
Tel: (416) 392-7224
Fax: (416) 397-4420
