08 192870 WET 06 OZ
Send content, including photos, you want posted on blog to
Publicly comment on any post by clicking "comments"
Please contact if you want to be added or removed from the e-mail distribution list for 51 Lake Shore Drive
This blog was set up by neighbours concerned about development on this site. There is currently a proposal to build seven four storey units (six semis and one single) that would greatly reduce public views of the lake, is partially on green space and lakeside "hazardous lands" and is totally out of character with the neighbourhood. This would require a huge amendment to Toronto's Official Plan and zoning by-laws.

Click on month or arrow to see previous posts

Friday, December 4, 2009

Thursday, November 26, 2009


Includes extracts from Jem Cain's daily updates ......


46 people from our community showed up at the OMB Hearing Monday morning. We over-filled the room capacity. There was seating for 16-20 people. They ran out of chairs. Some people were standing along the walls, and some people were outside in the corridor because the room was so full they couldn’t get in.

The lawyer from the City of Toronto was really pleased with the strong show of support for the City and TRCA-Toronto and Region Conservation Authority opposing the development. 

One community member is going to attend all five days of the hearing as a “Party” to the hearing. He will be able to give evidence and cross-examine witnesses from both sides. Some people will be attending for the five days just to monitor the proceedings.
Sixteen people asked to be considered “Participants” and present their comments on 51 Lake Shore at the OMB Wednesday. Lawyers from both sides can question participants – we do not have the right to question any of the other witnesses and we do not have to attend all five days of the hearing.


Mr. Ketcheson said that Dunpar would be requesting a hearing adjournment at the OMB first thing tomorrow morning. There is an existing survey of the 51 Lake Shore Drive property from 1909 that Dunpar had access to. The 1909 survey is significantly smaller than the survey Dunpar provided to the City with their application. The lot has increased in size since 1909 probably due to landfill and protection put in place after Hurricane Hazel. There are questions about whether they own all the land they show on their site plan, or if they own all the land they show on their more recent survey.
The OMB Chair said that if the hearing moved ahead he would probably rule on the more conservative lot size based on the 1909 survey. He cannot rule on land that Dunpar may not own.
He said we need to have one set of property lines to work from before we can talk about planning issues.
The Chair asked Dunpar if they wanted to request an adjournment to the hearing so they can settle the questions on land ownership and lot size.
The City lawyer wants to move ahead with the OMB hearing.
The Chair ended the hearing early this afternoon and he told Mr. Ketcheson that - Tomorrow morning you need to come in with direction from your client on whether or not he wants to adjourn this hearing.
An adjournment does not mean that anyone has won at the OMB, or that Dunpar’s proposal has been stopped.
This is not a dead issue – an adjournment gives the appellant Dunpar an opportunity to clearly define the property they own so that they can come back to the board for a decision on their application.
The OMB hearing on 51 Lakeshore Drive was adjourned today at the “reluctant request” of Dunpar’s lawyer Bruce Ketcheson.
The hearing was adjourned because there are two surveys for 51 Lake Shore Drive. The  survey from 1909 that shows the original property without landfill, which is a significantly smaller property. Dunpar did a survey in October 2006 and included the lake fill and wall along the shoreline identifying it as their property. They could not provide proof that they have a title or deed to the land reclaimed from the lake. The landfill could be owned by Dunpar, the City or the Province.
They will spend from now until March trying “to identify and certify the property”.
There is a prehearing set for March 12 2010 at 9:30am downtown at the OMB which will decide if the hearing will continue
None of the community members who came to the Board today were allowed to present. The application could stay the same, change or be withdrawn depending on who owns the land at the lake front.  The residents were able to indicate that many of them would prefer to not see it adjourned but dealt with this week.  The Chair was also asked by residents to change his final disposition to read a “substantial discrepancy” rather than “some discrepancy” between the two surveys.
It was recommended that if you are a participant you may want to attend in March 2010 so that when they set the date for the public presentations you can speak up if the date is not good for you.
The OMB Chair who seems to be a fair and thoughtful individual made everyone aware that though he is on the Board until 2012, he expects to be leaving in August of 2010. If the hearing has not concluded and the Chair leaves, the entire hearing process starts over again with a new OMB member chairing it.  The City lawyer and planner assure us that they will also be there after the adjournment, as will the TRCA
Land ownership issues can take a long time to resolve, and that in March Dunpar may not have been able to resolve the questions around ownership.
The lawyer for Dunpar reserved the right to present a motion for cost at the conclusion of the proceedings. Many of us from the community found this puzzling - since no one wanted to go to the OMB, but Dunpar. They went to the OMB rather than work with the community and the City Planning Department. 

Maybe the community should ask for costs from Dunpar for the hundreds of cumulative hours spent and work missed in the last two years challenging them over a development application on land they haven’t even made sure, in the Chair's mind, that they actually own!

Saturday, November 21, 2009


The OMB does not seem to have a public e-mail address for sending submissions.  They do have a fax number - 416 326 5370.  Faxes can be sent from a computer, from the post office, from print shops like Staples etc.  A letter sent this weekend should arrive mid week and the hearing is scheduled until Friday.  As a decision probably won't be rendered for thirty days after the end of the hearing, even a late letter would have some impact.    The address is ....
Ontario Municipal Board
655 Bay Street
Suite 1500
Ontario M5G 1E5
The telephone number is 416 326 5370 for more information on getting your views heard
Make sure you mention the OMB file numbers on any communication
OMB PL090404 and OMB PL090405

Monday, November 9, 2009


As many of you know, there have been a number of community meetings recently in preparation for the upcoming OMB hearing starting Monday, November 23rd at 9.30 a.m. Community residents have met with the City Solicitor, the TRCA and City Planning Staff as well as consulting together and with Lakeshore Planning Council to plan the presentation of our position alongside the City's defense of the issues raised in their comprehensive staff report. It is a good feeling to see everyone working together.

If you object to Dunpar's development application and support the City's position, it is extremely important that you show up on the first day of the hearing whether you intend to register as a participant, party or not. Even better if you can attend some or all of the five scheduled days. Attendees will be asked to register on the first day for a time slot if they wish to speak as a participant. We need to let the Board members know that this is a very important matter to the community and that we have assembled as a large group to demand that our City's planning objectives be upheld.

The address of the OMB is 655 Bay Street, Suite 1600.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009


There has been much talk in the community about the adverse legacy and the kind of precedent that would be set by the sort of intense development applied for by Dunpar. The Official Plan states that public access and the safeguarding of vistas to the lake is an essential planning component of our waterfront City's future. If the magnificent vistas photographed from the site in this videoclip are removed from the public realm to become the sole property of a privileged few, then we, the community, its residents, Waterfront Trail users and the City, will lose this asset forever and set in motion a pattern that could spread to other lakeside properties.

Explore Google Maps streetview of site.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009


This morning, City Council passed a motion made by Councillor Grimes that the three recommendations made by Planning Staff in their report posted yesterday be adopted (see previous blog post). It passed by a large majority, without any discussion, in a subsequent vote .
This now paves the way for the City to defend its/our position (a refusal of the application) at the upcoming OMB hearing using the City Solicitor, planning staff and consultants.
The Staff report is extensive and fleshes out with technical details and appropriate references all the objections that have been raised by the community over the last two years. The OMB hearing will present a perfect opportunity for the City and its citizens to stand together against Dunpar's outrageous challenge to our shared values and their attempt to shut us out by going directly to the province.
The last paragraph on page 12 of the planners' report confirms what many of us have always asserted - that the developer, to conform with existing regulations, has the right to build on the site no more than "two single detached dwellings facing Lakeshore Drive " .

Tuesday, September 29, 2009


The planing staff report on the revised proposal, dated September 29th., which is to to be presented at tomorrow's City Council meeting, has been finally posted. Here are the web link and the main recommendations contained in the report.

  • City Council refuse the applications to amend the Official Plan and former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit one single detached dwelling and six semidetached dwellings at 51 Lake Shore Drive as the proposed residential development does not conform to the Official Plan and is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

  • City Council direct the City Solicitor, City staff and any necessary consultants to attend a future Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to oppose the applications as represented by the revised proposal outlined in this report.

  • In the event the OMB is inclined to approve a development of the lands, the City Solicitor request the Board to impose necessary conditions of site plan approval as determined by staff.

Monday, September 28, 2009


Mayor Miller's office has just responded to a letter from a resident that was posted previously on this blog. When asked to clarify the last sentence in his response, it was confirmed that "support" and "uphold" mean directing the City Solicitor go to the OMB hearing to defend the City's position. His admin assistant wrote back ......

"Thank you for writing.
The Mayor is aware of the development application at 51 Lake Shore Drive and agrees that the current proposal represents over development within a stable neighbourhood.
He is also aware that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has some significant issues with respect to the plan and its impact on the shoreline. He would support attending the OMB in order to uphold planning staff's position.

Thanks again for writing,
Joanne Miller"


From Councillor Grimes' office ref City Council meeting on Wednesday ...

"There are several reports submitted by various community members that are being provided to each councillor including:
from Robert Bingham
from Terry Smith, Friends of Sam Smith Park
from C. Freeman, and submitting a list of residents and owners
from William Denning, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council
from Janina Wadon
From C. Fagain ( coop)
from the Property management company of the coop."

Saturday, September 26, 2009


City Council agenda September 30th
51 Lakeshore Drive item (has links to background documents)
At this time, there seems to be no recently written staff report with a planning decision available to the public for this meeting next week. Staff are supposed to have that report ready for Council to consider next Wednesday. Reports are generally posted on the above site three or four days before meetings.
On the meeting agenda and under the item EY28.49 there are listings of submissions made by residents and other interested parties.

Friday, September 25, 2009


Yesterday, a number of community members who have previously spoken to or commented on Dunpar's application received this ten page letter from their lawyers, Ritchie, Ketcheson, Hart and Biggart.
It is posted here for everyone to see. (Double click on the thumbnails to view or print - it is posted in three parts)
A neighbour noted that the developer and his lawyer are so in touch with the neighbourhood that throughout the documents we are referred to as Fourth to us!
On Schedule B, note how the spaces between the semis and single are tiny. This "revised proposal" is exactly the same as the townhouse application, uses the same footprint, has the same floor space, has no setbacks, is way too high, buildings shoehorned in to the max, no garden space, with the developer now proposing structures that he hopes he can sneak by under allowable building types in areas designated Neighbourhoods.



Thursday, September 24, 2009


Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you regarding the development of the property at 51 Lakeshore Drive.
My family has lived across the road at 12 Fourth Street for almost 35 years. We have raised our children here, sent them to school locally, supported community initiatives and have maintained a loyalty to the community that is the Lakeshore. We have also been aware over the years that the prime real estate at 51 Lakeshore Drive would be subject to change. Thus we have participated at community meetings, sent our opinions to our councillor Mark Grimes and had informal discussions with many users of the waterfront trail. It is my understanding that Councillor Grimes is opposed to the developer's application. I am writing to request that you please support Councillor Grimes in his request to take the City Solicitor to the OMB hearing regarding 51 Lakeshore Drive in November. The developer has the right to take this to the OMB due to a misunderstanding of communication from the developer. A revised proposal has not included any public component. The community has not had access to a detailed site plan or right to speak at Community Council. Proper process has failed. I believe this property should remain zoned for R2; that keeping with the original footprint would be in keeping with the street scape and neighbourhood. We need to support our city's official plan in regard to neighbourhoods, the public's accessibility to the waterfront, and maintaining the vistas for everyone to enjoy, not just a privileged few. The stewardship of our waterfront is part of the city's heritage and a responsibility for the future. Thank you,
Fourth Street Resident

Wednesday, September 23, 2009


Dunpar's move to take this to the OMB based on the outrageous claim that the City delayed action on their application, weasel-worded communication from the developer about his intent aside, has resulted in a vital part of the planning process on the revised proposal being deftly sidestepped - the local public component - namely a public meeting, the community having a staff report to consider, access to a detailed site plan and the right to depute at Community Council. After a motion passed at a recent, very well attended meeting, a letter sent by Lakeshore Planning Council to Councillor Grimes and the rest of the Etobicoke-York Community Council requesting that this matter go before them before the OMB hearing took place will see no action other than being tabled. We are told that it is no longer a matter for public and Community Council consideration. All is now in the hands of the Ontario Municipal Board!
Here is a reply to a local resident who wrote about the same matter from Sheila Paxton, Mark Grimes' Executive Assistant ....
Thank you for your comments
Councillor Grimes does not support the current proposal, as he has
indicated in each meeting he has attended on this issue.
The developer withdrew the application for town homes, but then
proposed to amend it to semis. As the footprint for the semis was not
substantially different then the original application for town homes
it was considered an amendment .
In speaking to the City Planning Department I have learned that once
an appeal is launched to the Ontario Municipal Board ,as it has in
this case, the matter is no longer an issue that its heard at Community
Council. The Council is no longer voting on approving or not
approving the plan, as this point is now mute as approval is in the hands of the OMB. Once it become a legal hearing, rather than a local issue Community Council has no authority in the matter.
The issue is no longer whether Council approves the plan or not, but rather whether it wants to fight the appeal.
Planning must prepare its recommendation on whether there is
sufficient grounds to oppose the approval at the OMB hearing, and this
has to be heard by Toronto City Council, who then give direction to
the City Solicitor on whether to fight the appeal or not. You may want to
write a position paper and send it to members of council and or attend
the OMB hearing to depute.
The appeal is scheduled at the OMB at the end of November .




Hi Folks,
Though I live in New Toronto, I did not send the attached e-mails.
A resident sent an e-mail regarding 51 Lakeshore Drive to all the Councillor's this morning.
Councillor Del Grande took the time to reprimand the resident for the emotion in the e-mail, and the resident's opinion that the 51 Lakeshore Drive proposal was based on greed.
I thought that it was worthwhile to forward this.
Councillor Grimes request to have the City Solicitor take the 51 Lakeshore Drive application to the OMB, may not receive the support it needs at council to pass.
Please copy all the Councillors on your e-mails regarding 51 Lakeshore and ensure you tell them how you would like them to vote.
Thanks so much,

Date: 9/23/2009 9:24 AM

From: New Toronto Resident
To: Toronto City Council, All Councillors

I support Councillor Grimes' request that the City Solicitor go to the OMB to oppose the Dunpar application for 51 Lakeshore Drive.
Dunpar is not a community-friendly developer.
They are motivated by greed.

New Toronto Resident


To: New Toronto Resident
On 23-Sep-09, at 11:18 AM

Councillor Mike Del Grande wrote:

Greed has nothing to do with it. (emotional)
It is based on good planning. (factual)
That is the basis of opposition.


From: New Toronto Resident
To: Councillor Mike Del Grande <>
Date: 2009/9/23
Subject: Re: 51 lake Shore Dr.

I disagree,

Has the councillor ever visited the Lakeshore?

Dunpar recently erected a set of 4 storey row houses in front of my home cutting off my view of the lake. When I protested the development they threatened to erect a 13 storey apartment building. That is not being community-friendly. That is intimidation. The row houses are gated and Dunpar walled up the Waterfront Trail walkway to a waterfront parkette contrary to their agreement. They were forced to remove the wall when residents complained. Dunpar also installed overly bright lighting outside the gated row houses and were forced to take those out when residents protested. They were supposed to upgrade the parkette beside the row houses as part of their agreement but never did that.

People live in neighbourhoods and people have emotions. Since there are more people opposing this development than are for it, Toronto councillors should honour the wishes of people who voted them in.

John Zanini has a huge interest in this company and has been systematically buying up waterfront properties for his own gain. If he were sensitive to the needs of others he would plan buildings on the waterfront that do not act as monoliths, shutting everyone else out. That is not proper planning.

Bye for now,
New Toronto Resident

Friday, September 11, 2009


At last night's well-attended Lakeshore Planning Council meeting, it was moved and accepted that Councillor Grimes be sent a formal letter from LPC requesting him to present a motion at next Tuesday's Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting that would direct the Planning Department to present their Staff Report on the current proposal at the following Community Council meeting on October 13th.
As it stands now, there is officially no staff report prepared yet. The Planning Department was asked to present the report directly to City Council on September 30th, postponed from July because of the municipal strike. If it goes straight to City Council, there would no opportunity for the community to speak to its contents and the staff decision that would be included in it. By requesting that the report go before Community Council before going to City Council (the normal process), it would allow area Councilors and the public to discuss it on October 13th before it went to full City Council on October 23rd, a month before the OMB hearing on November 23rd.
Please support this initiative by calling Councillor Grimes' office (416 397 9273) or, better still, by getting yourself on the speakers' list next Tuesday.
To participate in that meeting, Glenda Jagai, Committee Administrator at the City Clerk’s office must be contacted at 416 394 8101 or by e-mail at
Speakers will be given only five minutes to present their views. A speaker's card will have to be filled out prior to speaking so that your presentation becomes part of the public record. You can declare yourself as a speaker in the council chamber right up the moment the item is dealt with


On June 16th, 2009, Greg Garcia-Hobson, the City Planner assigned to this application, received this letter from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). To view, double click on the thumbnails.

It states that the “TRCA staff cannot support the approval of the revised applications …. (because) the proposed development is partially located within the natural hazard limit and entirely located within the 10 meter structural setback”.

TRCA have restated what they said about the original proposal; the revised proposal has virtually the same footprint as the first and is therefore subject to the same restrictions. The City, when it decided not to approve the former proposal based partly on the TRCA ruling, is again obligated to reject this one for the same reasons.

Monday, September 7, 2009


Come to Lakeshore Planning Council this Thursday at LAMP, 7.30 p.m.
This, along with other matters, will be discussed.

OMB Contact: Eva Pietrzyk, Planning Assistant (416) 326-6793

Friday, August 21, 2009


To check on the status of the OMB hearing (not yet scheduled but probably late September or October), go to

and enter the case number PL090404



51 Lake Shore Drive - Official Plan and Rezoning Amendment

and Site Plan Applications - Request for Direction Report

Item EY28.49 – Etobicoke York Community Council

Adopted by City Council on August 5 and 6, 2009

City Council on August 5 and 6, 2009, deferred consideration of Item EY28.49 to its next regular meeting on September 30, 2009.

You can view this item and any background information in the City Council Decision Document posted on the City’s website at:

City Clerk

Monday, July 27, 2009


The Ontario Municipal Board has assigned # PL090404 to Dunpar's case. As of this time, no hearings are yet scheduled.

E-Status Case Details

Property Address Case Description Status Case Number
51 Lake Shore DrDunpar Developments Inc.OpenPL090404

No Hearings have been scheduled for this case.

OMB Contact: Eva Pietrzyk, Planning Assistant (416) 326-6793

Friday, June 12, 2009


Eighty or more residents came to last night's Lakeshore Planning Council meeting to hear what amounted to a sustained defense of Dunpar's position by Irene Jones who told the audience at the outset that she was a paid lobbyist for Dunpar. Her emphasis was on the inevitability of change and Dunpar's beneficial role in that throughout South Etobicoke. She found that concept difficult to defend when the audience challenged her by noting that the exchange of precious public views of the lake for the right of a few individuals to own that view outright and forever did not amount to a community asset and is against the word and intent of Toronto's official policy. As attractive as Dunpar's tightly-packed, "Mimico Georgian", cookie cutter creations might be to Irene Jones, the lake and magnificent view of the city were deemed by many to be even more attractive! There were repeated calls for the developer to limit building to the footprint of the existing structure and to construct what zoning and building standards allow for - one semi or one single. Others suggested that a small four or five storey condo development on the original footprint in a zoning-adjustment exchange for a Section 37 donation of the lower half of the property to the public realm as a waterfront parquette might be appropriate. But, the developer's representative was clearly there not to negotiate or compromise but to relay to the community that Dunpar was intent on pushing this all the way, regardless of City regulations and almost total community opposition.
Posted by Terry Smith

Thursday, June 11, 2009


4.30 p.m.
I have just heard from Lakeshore Planning Council that the representatives from Dunpar will not be attending tonight's meeting at LAMP due to illness.
Irene Jones, former Ward 6 Councillor, will present their proposal and represent them.


(Double click on image for larger view)

Tuesday, June 9, 2009


(Double click on image to enlarge view.)
Note how densely packed the six four storey semis and one single are, with no room for gardens. There is minimal setback. The lot design does not conform in any way with the neighbourhood norm as outlined in the Designated Neighbourhoods section of the City's Official Plan.
The construction footprint is virtually the same as the previous seven townhome proposal, encroaching on green space and presenting a physical and visual barrier to the lake.


At today’s Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting, Dunpar’s lawyer confirmed that his client will proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board over the revised proposal (six semis, one single). He said the reason for the appeal is a “timing thing” and that “Dunpar has waited long enough”. When questioned by the chair (Councillor Nunziata), who reminded him that it was the applicant and not the City who withdrew the application, he said that his client “withdrew the proposal not the application”. Greg Garcia-Hobson, the City planner responsible for this application, told the council that the e-mail he received from Dunpar stated, “we are not going through with the townhome application – we’ll get back to you”. That’s when Councillor Grimes, if you recall, sent a letter to the community saying that the developer had withdrawn his application. So, if the weasel wording that Dunpar feels entitles them to appeal to the OMB on the grounds of City delay confuses the City, politicians and planners alike, is it any wonder that the community is nonplussed too?

Six local residents spoke to the Community Council today and reiterated many of the arguments the community presented at the last two community consultations on development at this site (90 people attended the first meeting and 140 the second). All speakers spoke in defense of the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws that clearly prohibits the content of this proposal. There were calls for a full community consultation on this third proposal before it goes to City Council.

The City’s planning department has no position yet on this latest proposal. TRCA should complete its report in a week’s time and Planning should have its final staff report, including its decision, shortly afterwards. A motion passed today will allow planning staff to take their report directly to City Council’s next meeting on July 6th. Assuming that report again decides against the applicant for all the reasons brought up before, then City Council will have to consider whether to support that decision, to modify that decision or to override that decision and allow the application. The direction in which Councillor Grimes speaks to that report will assuredly have a strong influence on council and its decision.

Community Council today passed a motion presented by Councllor Grimes that directs the City to send its solicitor to any OMB hearing to defend the City’s position should City Council vote against the developer’s application. (If it goes to the OMB, that hearing should be sometime in August or September.) Residents will have the opportunity to speak at that hearing if they have previously shown themselves to be an interested party - watch this space for information on how to to sign up for that.

Councillor Mammoliti asked legal counsel today whether Dunpar could “flip flop their application back to townhomes at the OMB” and was told that they could not. Community Council today also moved that the planning department take into account for their final report today’s deputations from residents.

Thursday, June 4, 2009


If you are not able to attend next Tuesday’s Community Council meeting to make a presentation (June 9th), it is important that you send written comments. Your comments will provide public input as well as indicating your status as an interested party should there be an OMB hearing later in the Fall that you wish to attend.

Send comments to the Etobicoke-York Community Council: City Clerk’s Office

Your communication will be distributed to the Members of the Etobicoke York Community Council for consideration.

(Please note that City staff will not accept any communication which is unsigned or which does not include a mailing address.)

Copies should also be sent to :

Frances Nunziata, Chair Etobicoke Community Council

Mark Grimes, Councillor, Ward 6

Greg Garcia-Hobson – City Planner


Notice to people writing or making a presentation to the Etobicoke York Community Council

The City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the City of Toronto Municipal Code authorize the City of Toronto to collect any personal information in your communication or presentation to City Councilor its committees.

The City collects this information to enable it to make informed decisions on the relevant issue(s). If you are submitting letters, faxes, e-mails, presentations or other communications to the City, you should be aware that your name and the fact that you communicated with the City will become part of the public record and will appear on the City's website. The City will also make your communication and any personal information in it - such as your postal address, telephone number or e-mail address - available to the public, unless you expressly request the City to remove it.


CCFEW (Citizens Concerned for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront) have a keen interest in development on this site. Check out their website


Tom Jiancos and John Zanini from Dunpar have accepted an invitation from Lakeshore Planning Council to attend next Thursday’s LPC meeting at LAMP (June 11th. 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.) to present their revised proposal. The purpose of this meeting will be to try and resolve as many issues as possible. The developers will present for about twenty minutes and that will leave forty minutes for discussion. All are welcome!

This may be the community’s only chance to meet with the developers to discuss this issue before a possible later OMB hearing, probably in the Fall.

Remember that Dunpar already has a strong sense of the community’s opinions and feelings about development on this site – they have been at two previous, well-attended, public meetings where the community came down pretty hard on them in our efforts to keep development within the intent of Toronto’s Official Plan and Etobicoke’s Zoning By-Laws. Next Thursday’s LPC meeting might be a good opportunity for the community to make suggestions about what it would accept on this site.

It is probably a good idea to become familiar with Etobicoke’s Zoning By-Laws, building standards and permitted uses for this R2 zoned site.

They can be viewed at

Previous posts on this blog can direct you to relevant sections of Toronto’s Official Plan as well as previous OMB rulings that cover conformity to existing neighbourhood structures.

Monday, June 1, 2009


The Etobicoke York Community Council will discuss 51 Lakeshore Drive on June 9th, 2009 in the afternoon sometime after 1.30 p.m. Planning staff is presenting a “Request for Direction “ in the light of the developer’s appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. They are seeking authority to report directly to the City Council meeting of July 6 and 7th, 2009 to establish the City’s position.
Because of what has happened (outlined in previous posts), there will not be a public meeting on this new proposal until the OMB hearing, if, in fact, that comes to be. Citizens cannot make presentations at City Council. Making a presentation at Community Council is the community's opportunity to continue to raise our concerns.
The agenda item and staff report including the developer's site drawings can be seen at Scroll down and look for item EY28.49
To participate in this meeting, Glenda Jagai, Committee Administrator at the City Clerk’s office must be contacted at 416 394 8101 or by e-mail at
Speakers will be given only five minutes to present their views. A speaker's card will have to be filled out prior to speaking so that your presentation becomes part of the public record. You can declare yourself as a speaker in the council chamber right up the moment the item is dealt with.

Friday, May 15, 2009


City planners will now circulate the OMB application to City lawyers and other staff for comments and then will prepare the planning staff report on the revised proposal requested by the Councillor (see previous post). That report will probably be presented at Community Council on June 9 2009 and go to City Council on July 2009. The OMB process would start at a later date with a prehearing before the main hearing.
The City planner cannot give residents a copy of the developer's site drawings because they are copyrighted but we hope to have a posting soon with a sketch of the proposal (3 semis, 1 single)
The June 9th Community Council meeting may be the only opportunity for resident’s input on the revised proposal at the City level (The process for presenting at the OMB is still unclear). It is a good idea at this stage to let the planner, Greg Garcia-Hobson, know that you disagree with the proposal as you know it at this time, based on the developer's last two applications, and that you wish to be identified as a person of interest for any community consultation, the Community Council meeting and the OMB hearing. Greg's e-mail address is
See previous post for Community Council information
Monday, December 1, 2008


. Fall 2007, Dunpar applies to build a large, three storey single family home (4,746 square feet) at the lake end of the site
. December 5 2007 Dunpar withdraws application after significant community opposition at a public consultation meeting
· August 2008, Dunpar’s submits a development application to the planning department for seven townhouses. Gross Floor Area: 19,134 sq ft Floor Space Index: 1.51 Lot Coverage: 61.42%
· Fall 2008, the application is circulated to city departments and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for comments.
· December 9th, 2008, a public meeting on this application his held at the Assembly Hall. At this meeting, the application is rejected by the local residents, Councillor and planning staff.
· December 9th, 2008, Dunpar representative forwards an e-mail to Greg Hobson-Garcia, planning staff withdrawing the existing proposal.
. Councillor Grimes sends and posts on his website a letter to residents saying that the "Developer will not be pursuing their application for building town homes" and that "the withdrawal has been submitted in writing".
· January 1,2009 - deadline for a Council decision on Zoning By-Law Amendment
· March 1, 2009, - deadline for a Council decision on an Official Plan Amendment
· April 17th, 2009, Dunpar submits a revised proposal to the planning department for three semi-detached homes and one single family house. Gross Floor Area: 20,542 Floor Space Index: 1.62 Lot Coverage: 61.05%
· April 29th, 2009, City of Toronto Clerk’s Department receives a notification that Dunpar has submitted the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the grounds that the city failed to make a decision on the Zoning By-Law Amendment within 120 days and on the Amendment to the Official Plan within the prescribed 180-day time limit.
· May 14th, 2009, Councillor Grimes puts forward a motion at Etobicoke York Community Council meeting, to instruct staff to produce a report.
Important notice:
The developer withdrew the proposal not his application.

Monday, May 11, 2009


According to Greg Garcia-Hobson, the City Clerk's department has just received notification that Dunpar is appealing the seven storey townhouse application to the Ontario Municipal Board on the grounds that the City did not make a decision within the prescribed time limit (120 days for zoning change; 180 days for a revision to the City's Official Plan). Dunpar will propose to the OMB that they be allowed to go ahead with the preliminary proposal, now formal, described in the two previous posts (six semis, one single) instead of the townhouse application. This will now go to the City lawyer for preparation for the hearing - that date will be given to us by Greg when he finds out.

Monday, April 6, 2009


Even though this new, preliminary proposal from Dunpar includes dwellings that conform to R2 Zoning for the site (i.e. semi-detached and single family dwellings), the overall size of the lot is not large enough, after severance, to accommodate the four proposed structures (three semis and one single – seven units in total). The total size of the lot, according to City planners’ measurements, is 74 feet frontage and 154 feet depth. 88 feet, measured from the ‘top of the slope’ near the water to the first structure must be reserved for “hazardous” lands upon which structures cannot be built (TRCA requirement). As R2 Zoning requires lot measurements of 25 feet by 100 feet for single-family dwellings and 50 feet by 100 feet for semis, there is not enough conforming room for what is proposed. After severance and allowing for some possible tweaking by the Committee of Adjustments, there would barely be enough room for even half the structures proposed.
Of course, most of the community’s other objections from the last proposal apply to this new one, especially the height of four stories, which is out of line with other dwellings in the neighbourhood.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009


This no April Fools' joke! I spoke to Greg Garcia-Hobson today after hearing rumours that Tom Jiancos from Dunpar has submitted to City planners a new development proposal for the site. He confirmed that a "preliminary" plan has, indeed, been submitted in the last few days for staff to look at. Greg clearly wanted me to know that no "formal" proposal has yet been received but expects one soon, similar to the preliminary one but possibly with revisions. The plan calls for a development consisting of six semi-detached houses and one single family dwelling; so, three units of two houses and one single family unit closest to the lake. Two of the semi units would face west and one would face north. There would be no setback from the street. All of the structures would be four storeys tall! The whole development together would occupy approximately the same footprint as the last proposal. So, it looks like it is virtually the same proposal as last time with the exception of there being a small space between structures to allow the application to conform to the site's R2 zoning - semi-detached and single-family dwellings only. Greg's staff is not yet sure whether this would be a revision of the last application or is, in fact, a new application. If it is considered a revision, then the same community contact lists from before would be used to inform us; if it is new and is not considered to be a change to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaws and only subject to regulatory standards, then there would be no need for posting of information at the site or letters sent out to local residents, unless the Councillor wanted it. It is best to call or e-mail the planner and let him know that you need to be kept up to date on this application - Greg Garcia-Hobson 416 394 2615 TRCA are already involved because of the same issues as last time - Green space zoning and an inadequate "hazards" buffer at the lake end. We knew they would be back and here they are! Keep your eye on this space for further news.
Terry Smith