1383 Lansdowne Avenue

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having requested the City Solicitor to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 11, 1999, respecting the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing regarding 1383 Lansdowne Avenue; such report to include costs and the source of funds.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (May4,1999) from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport - Ward 21:

An application for the above-noted location was refused by the Committee of Adjustment on Tuesday, February 9, 1999. Please see the attached.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Solicitor be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for Monday, May 31, 1999, in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision of Tuesday, February9,1999, and that the Commissioner of Urban Development be requested to assist.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (February 9, 1999) from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport - Ward 21, addressed to Ms.Marilyn Stuart, Manager, Committee of Adjustment:

I am writing on behalf of local residents who are vehemently opposed to Mr. Tony Henriques' application, who is requesting variances to alter the above-noted premises to a converted house containing three dwelling units - including the use of the basement as a self-contained apartment. Please refer to the attached, which is self-explanatory.

The following concerns have been brought to my attention:

(1)Parking has been, and still is a major problem on Lansdowne Avenue and neighbouring streets. Permit holders have continually been inconvenienced by illegal parking, either by visitors or tenants of illegal dwelling units. For example, basement or attic apartments.

(2)The proposed self-contained apartment units are too small in size (519 sq. ft.). Lansdowne Avenue is characterized and known for having semi-detached and detached homes, owner occupied, and family oriented. The proposed units are too small to maintain the spirit and character of the neighbourhood.

(3)The proposed density is too high. Variance calls for 1.104 times the area of the lot. The majority of homes in the area are within 0.6 times the area of the lot.

(4)1383 Lansdowne Avenue has been a problem for some time. It's been operating as a multiple dwelling unit. It's absentee landlord has disregarded by-laws and the rights of neighbours, by not keeping up his property. For instance, the landlord proceeded with housing renovations without the benefit of a building permit.

With reference to the four tests of Planning, I would like to note the following:

(1)it is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

Sections 1.8b; 6.2; 6.4 6.14; and 6.15 of the Official Plan refer to "appropriate form of intensification". The intent of these policies is to set out a strategic planning direction, which clearly establishes where and what type of intensification would occur within the hierarchy. "Lansdowne Avenue" is not in the central core where intensification is encouraged, is not a main street where intensification is encouraged to a lesser degree. Lansdowne Avenue is within a low residential neighbourhood, where the proposed over intensification will not be in keeping and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

(2)Neighbourhood compatibility?

In this particular proposal, with the inclusion of the proposed basement apartment, the Building exceeds the 1.0 times allowed by the Official Plan, resulting in over intensification.

(3)Is it minor?

The proposed development will have significant adverse impacts on the neighbours in as much as:

(a)lack of front yard and back yard amenities;

(b)accumulation of garbage and its related unsanitary conditions;

(c)lack of landscape open space;

(d)lack of recreational facilities for its occupants;

(e)noise level;

(f)a transient population in a family oriented neighbourhood;

(g)parking and traffic implications;

(h)setting a precedent for future over intensification uses;

(i)will affect the quality of life to next door neighbourhoods and its occupants.

(4)Does it represent an appropriate Development of the Lands?

It will result in an over intensification of the site creating adverse impact and incompatibility problems.

For the above reasons, on behalf of my constituents, I ask your respected Committee to refuse this application.

However, in an effort to bring this property into compliance, I would like to suggest that as an alternative, it would be easier for the community to swallow a more appropriate form of development, for example:

Two self-contained units - one comprising of the first floor and the basement - connected by way of interior stairs, any basement separate entrance must be removed. The second unit comprising of the second floor and attic.

The result would be larger units, with higher rental income, family units and a greater degree of compatibility. In addition, you would have less parking problems, garbage accumulation etc.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

________

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (February 3, 1999) from concerned residents, addressed to Ms.AnnePyle, Applications Technician, which was distributed to Members of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its meeting on May 4, 1999, a copy of which is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.