The ongoing saga of the development application at 1837-45 Bayview Ave. (southeast corner of Bayview and Broadway) continues. September’s Leaside Life reported on the inability to appeal the Committee of Adjustment decision to approve an additional three storeys (33 units), going against the Ontario Land Tribunal-approved mediated settlement for 22 storeys.
Because of Ontario Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act), there were only two realistic options left: we could request an investigation by Toronto’s Ombudsman and/or go to the media. We have done both, but the Ombudsman injunction to “allow the City a reasonable opportunity to resolve the complaint through its own complaint process” meant that we first had to submit the letter of complaint and documents to City Planning for them to consider and respond before the Ombudsman would investigate. The City provided an official response to the Letter of Complaint on Oct. 9, 2024. What did City Planning say in response to our concerns?
- The appropriateness of staff/applicant negotiations on a submitted application resulting in an amended Committee of Adjustment (CoA) application.
City Planning noted that applicants are encouraged to contact the City for a pre-application inquiry, to provide information and guidance to the applicant. In this case the applicant made an application (five storeys) and then an amended application (three storeys). Staff indicated no objection to the three-storey application. City Planning stated that its “handling on this inquiry and revised application is consistent with its process to encourage pre-consultation with applicants in order to identify issues, refine applications and provide feedback.” We respectfully disagree. Supporting the amended application goes far beyond “pre-consultation advice and guidance” and was inappropriate given the mediated settlement with the City and local residents’ group Bayview-Broadway Better Planning, approved by City Council and the Ontario Land Tribunal.
- The role, process and results of the CoA
Unsurprisingly, City Planning feel that the CoA appropriately exercised its statutory mandate despite the number of deputants in opposition and lack of discussion as to how the application met the four tests.
- Addressing long-term public complaints about the CoA
As noted in September’s Leaside Life article, this is not the only case of the Committee approving a minor variance for a site that had a recently approved site-specific rezoning. City Planning noted that in Bill 23, the Province removed the two-year prohibition on minor variance applications following site-specific re-zonings.
- Provincial legislative changes affecting the Committee and public involvement
Again, the provincial government eliminated third party appeal rights for CoA decisions. City Planning in its response noted that staff are reviewing what changes, if any, should be made to CoA rules or procedures given the changes to the appeal regime.
Finally, the response addressed the additional information we submitted regarding serious concerns with the minutes from the July 18, 2024 hearing of the North York CoA. Specifically, the issue raised was a major discrepancy in the recording of letters received in objection and support, relative to what was publicly visible on the City’s Application Information Centre (AIC). The minutes showed over 70 letters of support for the application whereas in fact there were none! In fact, more than 70 individual correspondences were received in objection. City Planning agreed to correct the minutes and have them re-approved by the Committee. They apologized for this “unintentional mistake.”
While the City Planning response was comprehensive, the LRA feels that this whole process involving use of a CoA application to add additional storeys deserves investigation by the Toronto Ombudsman in its mandate to “hold the City of Toronto accountable to the people it serves.” We believe that it may reflect “systemic concerns of serious unfairness by the City government,” in how it deals with development applications, especially in light of the elimination of right of appeal of decisions of the CoA further to Bill 23.
And the legislative changes that disempower residents? Well, that deserves serious discussion in advance of a coming provincial election.
