200 Keele Street, 195 & 203 Oakmount Road

200 Keele Street to construct a two block, three-storey, 24-unit, existing 15-unit rental townhouse block will be demolished.

To construct a two block, three-storey, 24-unit condominium townhouse development an applicant is proposing to sever the rear portions of 195 and 203 Oakmount Road and add it to the property at 200 Keele Street. The existing 15-unit rental townhouse block will be demolished.

With a lot area of .48 hectares (1.18 acres) and 27.4 metres (90 feet) of frontage on the west side of Keele Street, and part of site which abuts Lithuania Park to the south, the property at at this time contains a 15-unit block of 3-
bedroom, rental townhouses built in 1978.

Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application –
Preliminary Report

Property Owner:



Zoned R2 Z0.6 in the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86


In addition to seeking Demolition and Conversion permission re: existing 200 Keele St townhouses, and in addition to seeking severance of rear yards of 195 and 203 Oakmount Rd (severances appear to be on consent), there are also now applications to reduce the landscaped open space at 195 Oakmount Road, and to convert 203 Oakmount to duplex (developer's people were not clear on this and didn't appear to even know about it at the meeting, but this was included in notice and the architect thought he could make 203 Oakmount into 2 x 1400 sq. ft. living spaces without touching the exterior!), to "eliminate required parking" at 203 Oakmount Rd (like parking's not already bad enough!), and then the applications to add rear yards to 200 Keele, and to build 22 townhouse condos and 4 rental townhouses, with associated variances, exemptions etc. Point of interest from the meeting, there is not one example in our neighborhood vicinity where development has proceeded by acquisition of back yards! I would attach photos of the Notices posted this morning, but not sure how. My thanks to the moderator: I don't actually know how to blog, but this matter is important enough to figure it out! Brandy.

After a period of dormancy it's time to act on this file. Here are some important dates that you need to know.
The revised OPA/rezoning application received by the City on August 27, 2009 proposes to retain 14 of the 15 townhouse units (since there is considerable protection for mid-range and affordable rental housing). The new plan is to build 13 townhouse units in the rear yards of 195-203 Oakmount (some of the new building might be 200 Keele Street) and to access these by a private road along the north side of 200 Keele Street. All of the concerns outlined in the City's preliminary report are still valid, including rental concerns since the proposal amounts to an intensification of a rental site.
The matter comes before York Etobicoke Community Council on the morning of Tuesday January 12, 2010 (agenda pending). From there it goes to the full City Council on January 26 and 27. Next comes the OMB prehearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 23 at 9:00 in the morning. The OMB hearing itself is scheduled for three weeks starting Monday April 12 at 10:00 am.
At Community Council the issue will be whether to release City staff to defend the City's position at the OMB appeal. The councillors will hear deputations (maximum length 5 minutes each), so it's important to attend this meeting (that's Tuesday, January 12) if you possibly can. City Council does not hear deputations.
By the February 23rd OMB prehearing, the City will have determined its position, and the newly formed Lithuania Ravine Residents and Ratepayers Association, a party to the OMB appeal, will have done the same. Residents have until 10:00 am February 23 to decide if they wish to shelter under the Ravine Association or if they wish to be participants and to inform the OMB of their decision.
At present, the city's response to the new proposal is not posted. The issues (Neighbourhoods, Ravine protection, the Built envionment ie road access, and Rental housing), however, have not changed.
See you on January 12.

Leave a Reply