Here is the essential question that the Lakeshore
community would like answered fully.
Given
that a significant portion of this waterfront site is zoned G (as are
other sites adjacent and close by),
Given that, when the
developer bought the property, the survey attached to the title showed
that he was buying only a portion of the land that is actually there and
not the land that is designated, for some good but yet unexplained
reason, as G zone or the Crown shoreline strip
Given
that the City’s G designation means “open space” and, generally, indicates
parkland,
Given
that planning staff and the City Solicitor said they could not find
the by-law that created the G zone on this site and then they
admitted that there were no by-laws for all the other major land fill
parks in South Etobicoke like Humber Bay Park West and East
Given
that our Official Plan calls for a continuous waterfront trail with
connected parks
Given
that a developer has claimed it to build private houses on,
Given
that the City and any interested party has only until July 5th
to object to that claim,
Do you think it is reasonable that City residents should
be happy with the explanation from the City Solicitor that this G zoning on
City maps, including the current one on the City’s website, is merely a slip of
the pen” and will not be defended by our City either by objection to the Land
Registry Office or at the recommencement of the OMB hearing?
A suggestion for the City .... object to the title
application or, at least, request an extension to the July 5th deadline to
fully investigate the probability that the City of Etobicoke zoned all this
waterfront land G because it was either illegal lakefill by shoreline owners or
was filled by the City after storm damage or to create public land and has
been set aside for future waterfront parkland.
At noon today, Mr. Aker, the Ontario Municipal Board
Adjudicator adjourned the hearing for the second time over the question of
title. At this time, there is no clear
fact of ownership of the property by Dunpar because the deadline for objections
to the granting of title has not yet been reached. Any interested party has until July 5th, 2010 to file
an objection. This was clearly stated
in the notice placed in the Etobicoke Guardian last week. In fact, that notice could be viewed as a
public admission from the developer’s lawyer that they were going in
to the OMB hearing yet again without being able to clearly show the OMB that
they actually own the property.
The
Adjudicator made it clear to all the parties that he had no choice but to adjourn
the hearing of the appeal “sine die” until clear title has been established and
the title process completed (“sine die” means that no particular day has been
set for it to start again). This in all likelihood won't be until the Fall of this year. Given that Mr.
Aker will be leaving the Board in August, this means that the hearing will have
to start from the beginning before a new OMB member. It is imperative that all
interested residents once again attend on that new hearing date.
There was one other matter that influenced his
decision. Dunpar has asked the Crown
(the Ministry of Natural Resources) for permission to build a seawall on the
Crown’s property at the shoreline but the MNR has refused to even consider this
until the OMB has made a decision on the building application. Dunpar wants to build this seawall against
the City’s and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority’s objections in
order to try and get around regulations that say there must be an open, unbuilt
“hazards buffer” zone of 32 meters from the shore to protect structures from
one-in-a-hundred-years storm events.
After the OMB hearing was adjourned, a dozen residents went to the Mayor's office at City Hall and spoke at length with a Constituency Liaison staffer from his office. The residents outlined the community's concerns, were given a full hearing and were promised an immediate, investigative follow up by the Mayor's office.
Please come on down to the hearing. It starts at 10 a.m and the
location is Ontario Municipal Board Offices, 655 Bay Street, 2 blocks north of
Dundas at Elm Street. It is scheduled for two weeks and a decision should
follow 4 - 6 weeks after. The City Solicitor, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority lawyer and Ken
Tilden, a local resident, will be there as parties to this appeal by Dunpar. On Monday, residents who are registered as participants should find out what
day will be set aside for us to make our statements. It will probably be
towards the end of the hearing. If you are a participant and are not able
to come on Monday, you will be contacted by phone. The information will
also be posted here.
There are lots of side issues to this application by
the developer to overbuild on this site, contrary to City zoning
regulations, the City's Official Plan and TRCA shoreline regulations. One of them is the question
of ownership. At this point in time, Dunpar does not own the shoreline or
have a permit to build shoreworks on it (the Province owns it); the developer does not yet have
official ownership of the rest of the site (July 5th is the deadline
for objections to their title application - see previous post); the G
zoning on a large part of the site is one that is commonly found on
publicly owned parkland (e.g. Prince of Wales park, Sam Smith park etc.)
and the City has not yet offered any sort of explanation as to why
municipal planners put this specific designation on the site. The Councillor's office has already stated that city parkland would not be surrendered for private residential development. After last Thursday's Lakeshore Planning Councilpublic meeting, it was decided that the Council should
immediately write to CityCouncil with the community's concerns about
this.
The OMB hearing was adjourned until next week, June 14th, so that Dunpar could verify with the Land Registry Office that it actually owns the property it wants to build on. There was an investigation by the province, which is an adjacent landowner, and it indicated that a shoreline strip is actually crown land and belongs to the public. The crown's claim is for a 25 feet strip measured from the bottom of the shoreline slope. (The community has long argued that the public section of this property is substantially larger than this investigation could apparently prove.) Dunpar has agreed to that finding and has produced a new survey to reflect that (survey on left - MNR shoreline strip marked "FILL")
On June 3rd, 2010, the developer applied to the Land Registry Office for absolute title to the remainder of the property that does not include the public land. Dunpar has not asked the province to sell them the publicly owned shoreline to this date.
Adjacent landowners, the 7 community members and groups who "have shown interest" and already objected to Dunpar's application for absolute title to the whole property and, according to the Etobicoke Guardian notice on Friday, any other "person/corporation having an interest", has until July 5th to file any objections. The Guardian notice makes no mention of any requirement for an affidavit to accompany any objection
The Guardian notice is shown here (Double click for larger view)
After receiving a revised site plan on May 21st which showed a reduction in the number of units (6 instead of 7) and more of a setback from the lake (see previous post), the three parties at the OMB hearing which recommences next week on June 14th (the City, TRCA and Ken Tilden) received on June 2nd yet another "revised" site plan.
This latest plan is shown in this thumbnail (double-click to enlarge) .
We are now back to the 7 unit configuration with no obvious difference from the previously "revised" plan that replaced the "original" 7 townhouse plan that replaced the first monster-home-right-on-the-water plan!
If Dunpar had applied to build what is allowable on this property in the first place, we would all, by now, have new neighbours living in our community instead of this never-ending, convoluted mess.
As reported earlier, Dunpar has a
accepted a revised property line along the lakeshore edge of the site based on
the Province’s investigations. They will use this agreement with the Province to support ownership through the land Titles process.
Here is the developer’s updated site plan with measurements
and other statistics that was sent last Friday to the other parties represented
at the OMB hearing.
The plans show some differences from the one presently before the OMB. There is one less unit (note a block of 3 townhouses instead of 2 semis with 4 units) and what looks approximately like an additional 25 feet setback from the top of the slope.
The plans do not show elevations (side views). The height remains the same.
The Province has not yet received a request from Dunpar to buy the lakefill strip at the water's edge and the Ministry says it has not yet made a decision to sell it. See Deputy Minister's letter.
Many residents have recently written to Virginia West, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, demanding that public land on the site not be sold to the developer. Here is the response coming from her office ....
May 20th 2010
Thank you for your email
regarding a proposed residential development at 51 Lakeshore Drive in Etobicoke
adjacent to Lake Ontario.
This is a municipal
planning matter under the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto, and the Ministry
of Natural Resources (MNR) has no role in this process.
This planning matter is
currently subject to a hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), and at the
hearing, concerns were raised regarding the ownership of the land being
considered for development.
As the property in question is adjacent
to Lake Ontario, of which the bed is considered Crown land, MNR as the adjacent
landowner, became involved in determining the correct property boundary.
Ministry staff determined there is a small piece of filled Crown land
situated in front of the proposed development property adjacent to the Lake
Ontario shoreline, and have recommended a revised Crown/private land boundary
for this property.
The landowner has
accepted this revised property line along the lakeshore, and will use this
boundary to confirm title of their property through the Land Titles Act
process.
Once the landowner has
confirmed land ownership, the OMB hearing can resume to address the planning
matter regarding the residential development proposal of this property.
The Ministry of Natural Resources has no role in this process.
Should the landowner
wish to purchase this filled Crown land in the future, they have the option of
applying to my ministry to acquire it at fair market value. The Ministry
is not prepared to entertain an application for purchase of the filled Crown
land at this time until all legal matters have been resolved.
Any potential
disposition of Crown land would be subject to the Ministry’s Class
Environmental Assessment for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development
Projects, policies and procedures. Through this process Ministry
staff would consider the, social, ecological, and economic
impacts prior to proceeding with any potential sale of Crown
Land.
Thank you for bringing
your concerns to my attention.
Virginia M. West
Deputy Minister,
Ministry of Natural Resources
The community understands that there is a process to all of this. However, with the three year battle that the community has fought to protect larger public issues here, it should be a no-brainer to not sell the public portion on this site because of its "social" impact. 2011 is an election year and the Lakeshore community has a long memory. It will directly impact their vote if the government has not protected our public access to the lakefront.
Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore, has come out in support of the community's wish that public lands on the water's edge should not be sold for private, residential development but retained for public access to the lake. Here is a letter she recently sent to Linda Jeffrey, Minister of Natural Resources, asking her office to take this into consideration when public land at 51 is officially declared surplus.
Kudos to Laurel for standing alongside her neighbours in the Lakeshore and for seeing the larger picture.
Views of the lake and access to it are the defining characteristics of the community we all love. Connecting water's edge links and lakeside parks are what makes the Waterfront Trail such a valuable asset to the City of Toronto and to the Province.
What we already have should never be given up - it should be a top priority of the City and the Province to add even more.
This coming Friday (May 21st) is the day that Dunpar is
scheduled to provide the reference plan that will come from the Land Title
process and an updated site plan with measurements and other statistics to the
other parties represented at the OMB hearing.
In recent weeks, residents have made submissions to the
City, Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Michael Ignatieff’s office urging the province not to sell to the developer
any public land on this property. The expectation is that already publicly
owned land on the water’s edge should stay in the public realm for the future
development of parks and connecting trails.
To date, there has been no official response from the Province.
The City is saying that it is purely a
provincial matter, even though the City’s Official Plan calls for a continuous
waterfront trail from east to west and has partnered with the Province at Amos
Waites in Mimico on the linear waterfront park. The City’s new revised draft zoning bylaw clearly shows that much
of the property, as well as land on 41 and 33 Lake Shore Drive, is zoned Green (parkland), just like Prince of Wales and Cliff
Lumsden parks as well as the little parkette at the corner of Lake Shore Drive
and Fourth (see map above). One wonders
why the City is not putting more pressure on the Province to protect its zoned green
space.
Re:
51 Lake Shore Drive & Potential Waterfront Park
At a
meeting held on February 11, 2010, the Lakeshore Planning Council (LPC) members
discussed the 51 Lake Shore Drive redevelopment proposal and its most recent
developments. Two conflicting surveys
of the same property, entered as evidence at a recent hearing of the Ontario
Municipal Board, necessitated clarification as to ownership.
The LPC
members have always supported access to the water’s edge through connection of
publicly accessible open spaces and the expansion of the waterfront trail. In the event that the water’s edge at 51 Lake
Shore Drive is owned by the Crown or a public agency, we would ask that these
properties be retained for public open space uses.
We would
welcome an opportunity to transform the water’s edge at 51, 41 and 33 Lake
Shore Drive into a waterfront-type promenade if future research reveals that
the water’s edge at these locations is in fact owned by a public agency. We ask that the City take action to secure
these lands for future public uses.
... Thanking
you in advance for your attention to this very important endeavour.
Today was the OMB prehearing conference for the adjudicator
to review Dunpar’s progress with resolving the significant discrepancy issue
between the 1909 and 2006 surveys of the property. On December 2009, the developer applied to the Director of Land
Titles for absolute title and, to date, that has not been resolved.
The Ministry of Natural Resources, as an
adjacent landowner, has commented on the application and is in discussion with
Dunpar over a claim they have, as a public body, on some of the lakefill
portion of the site. Through our
political representatives, the community has requested that the Province and
the City secure any surplus land identified in this claim for public realm
parkland as indicated by the G zoning in the City’s records and the policies of
the Official Plan.
Dunpar believes that an agreement or a hearing will
determine title by May 21st.
If that occurs, the developer will submit to the parties at the OMB
hearing (the City, TRCA and Ken Tilden) a title reference plan and a revised
site drawing with any updated measurements and statistics.
The continuation of the OMB hearing has been set for 10 a.m.
June 14th and is scheduled for nine days with the same adjudicator,
Mr. Aker. Depositions and exhibits
submitted last November still stand and the 16 participants are still recorded
and able to speak in June. A speaking schedule for participants will be set on
the first day for later in the week.
Councillor Mark Grimes
Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West, Suite C48 Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Dear Councillor Grimes,
Re: Community desire to create and maintain windows on the lake and public access to the waterfront including 51 Lake Shore Drive
As you are aware over the past three years our community has demonstrated tremendous interest in the various development applications for 51 Lake Shore Drive and the issues and impacts created by these applications to our community and neighbourhoods.
A website was created devoted solely to informing the public on the development applications at 51 Lake Shore Drive.
Community meetings have drawn over a hundred citizens, there is an e-mail distribution list of over three hundred interested people who have formed an ad hoc association, 17 residents declared themselves either a party or a participant at the OMB hearing, community groups are involved, and countless letters and e-mails have been written regarding the development proposals at 51 Lake Shore Drive.
One common thread throughout the community interest is a strong belief in our lakeside community and that waterfront land, when ever possible, should provide public access and offer vistas of the lake.
We are pleased to see these ideals and concepts reflected in our City’s Official Plan (2.3.2) “the waterfront, which stretches from Marie Cutis to Rouge Beach Park, is a major feature of the Green Space System … over time, lands on the water’s edge should become a network of publicly accessible open spaces … connected by a continuous waterfront trail”.
There are excellent examples of this vision being realized in South Etobicoke. Special mention must be made of the tremendous work being done by the City and the Province to create the linear park and Waterfront Trail extension alongside the lake in Mimico - a huge step on the path to fulfilling this dream.
51 Lake Shore Drive offers another wonderful opportunity to expand the vision and goal of linking the community and the lake. It is likely that the Province will soon lay claim to all or some of the lake-fill land on the south end of the 51 Lake Shore Drive. If this happens the province will declare the south end of 51 Lake Shore Drive publicly owned land and likely identify it as surplus land.
When reviewing applications to purchase the Crown land along the shoreline at 51 Lake Shore Drive, we request the Ministry of Natural Resources refuse all such applications.
To consider this portion of the shoreline as a stand alone piece of property is not in the interest of our community or the City’s Official Plan goals and stated purpose.
The properties adjacent to 51 Lake Shore Drive, 41 and 33 Lake Shore Drive, as well as Prince of Wales Park, are all properties that have a portion of land that is lake-fill built on the lake bottom. The addition of lake-fill at these properties was done at the same time the fill was done at 51 Lake Shore Drive. When viewed in its entirety the value of this continuous strip of lakefront is far greater than its individual parts and it is of vital importance to the long-range vision for the community and the City as a whole.
The residents at 41 Lake Shore Drive may have been granted access and use of their strip of lake-fill for a fixed number of years by the TRCA, which they have claimed. However, the eventual vision for this area is for a continuous waterfront trail and park system as evidenced by the G Zone designation for the infill portions of the previously mentioned addresses and Prince of Wales Park.
We request that the Province not declare the crown-owned land at 51 Lake Shore Drive surplus to their needs and sell the property. We request that the province put the crown-owned land under the control of the TRCA, and we request the City of Toronto maintain it as part of the park currently located at the bottom of the public roadway on Fourth Street.
Local residents were very enthusiastic in their offer to support the City’s Official Plan and vision by fundraising for a bench and landscaping in this location, an unfenced spot that has always been considered public parkland.
In the future the Province will probably seek title to the other lake-fill pieces. We are proposing that the City, TRCA and province partner together to create a working precedent for extending public realm land on the waterfront by guaranteeing public access and a vista on the lake at 51 Lake Shore Drive.
We greatly appreciate anything that you can do as a City Councillor to further the establishment and continuation of public access and a window on the lake for the public on crown-owned land at 51 Lakeshore Drive.
Sincerely,
K T
Co-spokesperson
Fifty-One Lake Shore Drive Ad Hoc Association of Concerned Citizens
cc: Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore Linda Jeffrey, Minister of Natural Resources Chris Hislop, Ministry of Natural Resources Mayor David Miller Sheila Paxton, Executive Assistant to Councillor Grimes Greg Hobson-Garcia, City Planner Mark Rapus, TRCA
“The
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) staff has conducted a site visit at
51 Lake Shore
Drive and is still in the process of reviewing the
file and associated documentation. Other government agencies (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, City of
Toronto) have
provided MNR with some additional information on the subject property that is
being reviewed as part of the process. District staff continues to discuss the
file with the Office of the Surveyor General. In this particular case, it is
difficult to determine a Crown/private boundary along the shoreline with over
100 years of historic activities and alterations since the 1909 plan of
subdivision was prepared.
My
office has been asked whether there is a policy in place with regard to the sale
of crown waterfront land to developers for private residential development. We
have followed up with the Ministry and been advised that, generally, MNR may
consider disposing of filled Crown land to any backshore property owner subject
to applicable policies and procedures. Any concerns related to future
development of the site are dealt with through the municipal planning process
and the Planning Act. MNR has no role in the municipal process regarding any
future development of the property.
We are
continuing to monitor MNR’s assessment and will ensure that the community is
made aware should we be advised of any decision made on the ownership of the
lake front land at 51 Lake Shore
Drive. We will continue to work with Councillor
Grimes’ office and to advise the community as soon as possible should any
decision be made to sell provincially owned crown
land.”
Follow the link to the OMB decision on Neville Park Blvd, on the waterfront in the Beach, which is
essential reading for all interested in 51 Lake Shore Drive. Note the importance given to the preservation of the common built form in areas zoned "Neighbourhoods" - like ours. Click on OMB E-Decisions and enter PL081443 in the Search bar. Choose the third option - January 6th 2010 decision.
There was a recent Provincial cabinet shuffle and Donna Cansfield is no longer the Minister of Natural Resources. She was replaced by Linda Jeffrey, a Brampton MPP. There will be a two week reorganization period for the new minister and her staff to make the transfer.
Laurel Broten's office has assured us that they are closely monitoring MNR's assessment of the probable crown land claim through the ministry's bureaucrats and technicians during this short political dislocation. They have told us that no public land would be sold without the community being made fully aware beforehand. They have also agreed to provide the community with information about MNR's policies on the sale of publicly owned waterfront land to developers for private residential development and about how the community can provide input into the decision-making process.
Councillor Grimes’ office has also been
contacted by the community and his staff will monitor what is happening too.
The Land Registrar has extended the deadline for submitting objections until February 26th. The Ministry of Natural Resources needs to do on-site work to evaluate any claim that the province (the crown) may have on the extra lot depth.
Six local residents as well as Citizens Concerned for the Etobicoke Waterfront were able to submit objections by the earlier January 12th deadline. Those objections were primarily based on the assertion that the extra land is the result of lake-fill on crown land (the lake bed) and, as such, supported by historic usage, belongs to the people of Ontario and should be kept in the public realm.
The City of Toronto submitted comments as well - "Given that this application will impact on the ownership of an area that may otherwise be public lands, and the fact that the City is not aware if all affected Provincial Ministries have been provided with notice of this application, (we) simply wish to bring the matter to your attention for consideration in the course of your review of the application".
Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Donna Cansfield, Minister of Natural Resources, have been made fully aware of the situation. They both know that the community has a great interest in this matter and that we all are closely watching.
On December 9th, 2009, Dunpar, through their lawyer Paul Merrick, applied to the Ontario Land Registrar for absolute title to 51 Lakeshore Drive. It was not until Wednesday of this week that the community at large got knowledge of this application.
There are unsettled boundaries to the lot due to a significant discrepancy between the 1909 survey and the one recently submitted by the developer. This discrepancy was the reason why the OMB adjudicator adjourned the development hearing last November – to get a clear property limit before a fair ruling could be made.
Interested parties have only until Tuesday January 12th to register objections with their lawyer.
It is believed at this point that there is enough of an argument to support the assertion that the extra seventy feet of lot depth is a result of infill work on the lakebed done by previous landowners and/or provincial or municipal bodies after storm activity. If so, then it is reasonable to regard it as land that belongs to the province and/or the City - land that should stay in the public realm given that lakebed is crown land. This might be an explanation for the G zoning on the southern portion of the property.
At this point, it is important that an extension to the application deadline be granted so that the community, the province and the City can explore this further before any decision is made.
It is important to note that waterfront land for public use is expensive and problematic to acquire. Just reflect on what’s been happening with the Mimico linear park with all the issues around holdups and expropriation. If the public already has a claim to this lakeside property, it would be extremely unwise to let it go without full consideration.
Includes extracts from Jem Cain's daily updates ......
Monday
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.
Tuesday
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.
Wednesday
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!
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
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 upon 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.
SEE YOU ALL THERE The address of the OMB is 655 Bay Street, Suite 1600.
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.
PLAY VIDEO TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED 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 " .
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.
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.
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.
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 Avenue...news 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.
