City community council will attend to two development applications this week (Wed), both of which are not getting much attention at the present time.
1) DUNBAR DEVELOPMENTS. 4187 Dundas Street West development plan and the issue between the developer and the city over the numbers of tress to be removed.
from the staff report…
Etobicoke York Community Council – March 26, 2009 Decision Document General Manager advised that of the remaining 7 trees, 5 could be removed subject to conditions but the General Manager refused to issue a permit to destroy Tree Nos. 4192 and 4193, being a red oak and a horse-chestnut, as: inspection of the trees by staff revealed that both are in good condition and, for the reasons set out below, the General Manager cannot support the removal of these trees.
The applicant has appealed this decision to refuse to issue permits to destroy these two trees to Etobicoke York Community Council. The applicant had requested the removal of all 9 trees (including the 2 on the abutting property) to permit the construction of a proposed residential building that was the subject of a zoning and site plan appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”).
The OMB has issued a decision allowing the proposed building; and, in appealing the General Managers refusal, the owner stated that: the above noted decision . . . contradicts decision PL070056 of the Ontario Municipal Board. The decision of the General Manager would not permit the construction of the 7 storey condominium development on site as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. I believe that the decision of the General Manager cannot ignore and also contradict the decision of the Board ….
2) Etobicoke York Community Council to recommend that City Council amend the Zoning By-law No. 1-83 in favor of 3385 Dundas Street West Zoning By-law Amendment Application –
The applicant wishes to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 1-83 for the former City of York to permit the construction of a 6-storey, mixed use building at 3385 Dundas Street West, containing 118 residential units and ground floor retail. The development is intended to be a rental building for individuals 65 years of age and over. No government funding or ownership is proposed. It would be operated as a private, for profit enterprise.
The building is to be designed as an apartment building, in that all of the residential units will have full kitchens. No common dining facilities or nursing care are proposed. It is to be an apartment building oriented to senior citizens as opposed to being a “supported living environment” which one might usually associate with senior citizens.
On the basis that the building is to be occupied by people 65 years of age or older, Technical Services accepted a parking ratio which is less than the normal parking ratio for an apartment building under Comprehensive Zoning By-law 1-83 for the former City of York.
The concern is whether the City, through the tools available to it under this application,can guarantee that the building will only be occupied by people 65 years of age or older, thereby justifying the lower parking ratio. The draft zoning by-law amendment attached to the Final Report does not contain any definition of senior citizen’s dwelling unit.