Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment

Refusal - 373 Clinton Street (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the City of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment decision of January 5, 1999, regarding 373 Clinton Street, and that he be authorized to retain independent planning advice and evidence for the hearing.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 15, 1999) from Councillor Adams:

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment decision of January 5, 1999, regarding 373 Clinton Street, and be authorized to retain independent planning advice and evidence for the hearing.

Background:

At its meeting of January 5, 1999, the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment refused an application to sever the property at 373 Clinton Street into four parcels of land and to construct four row houses with four rear attached garages. This refusal has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board with a hearing date pending.

This matter was deferred sine die at the Committee of Adjustment's hearing of July 7, 1998, at the request of Urban Planning and Development Services department, citing that the proposal was subject to site plan approval and that the Urban Planning and Development Services department had not received an application for that purpose. It was later noted by the Committee of Adjustment in its decision of January 5, 1999 that "it has been determined that the proposal is not subject to Site Plan Control".

In her July 3, 1998, submission to the Committee of Adjustment, the Director of Urban Planning and Development Services and Deputy Chief Building Official, noted concern about "the number of houses proposed in relation to densities and lot frontages prevailing in this area and; that the proposed setbacks from the front lot lines are atypical of this area and contribute substantially to the applicant's need for depth variances".

The Committee of Adjustment in its refusal decision noted "the application as not being minor, appropriate or within the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and; is of the view that closer compliance with the gross floor area, and building depth provisions of the by-law can be achieved, since the development involves new construction". The application for consent to sever also failed as being premature.

--------

(A copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment dated January 5, 1999, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk).