51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE

DUNPAR WITHDRAWS FROM OMB HEARING

2011-09-21T16:35:00.012-04:00

After aggressively blocking public objections in the courts and in the absence of any meaningful City or Provincial vigilance, Dunpar earlier this year successfully gained ownership of the G-zoned, lakefill waterfront portion of the site for a mere registration fee of about seventy bucks. The land was handed over by our Provincial land watchdog (the Land Registry Office) without a public hearing and without any answers to the many questions and concerns the community still has.

It was expected that Dunpar would return to the Ontario Municipal Board this coming November with their absolute title in order to continue the appeal. They have, instead, decided to withdraw (See Councillor Grimes' communication below).

We have been advised today by the City Solicitor  that Dunpar's solicitor has made the following statement to the Ontario Municipal Board:

"...given the passage of time since the adjournment of the hearing they ( Dunpar)  have concluded that they wish to consider alternative development options for the property and as a result they do not wish to re-start the hearing.  As  a result I have been instructed to advise that they are withdrawing their outstanding appeals filed with the Board involving this property (Board Files No. PL090404 and PL090405)." 

We do not have any further information regarding Dunpar's intention for this site. At this time there are no additional, new or changes to this  development applications on file with the City for 51 Lake Shore Drive

Councillor Grimes 

Mr. Zanini's next application to build on that property must conform to the City's Official Plan and its Zoning Bylaws and must include genuine consideration of the community's wishes through a sincere and open consultation process!

FULL TEXT OF SLAPSUIT JUDGEMENT

2011-04-18T14:55:00.001-04:00

Here is a link to the full decision made April 6/2011 by the judge at the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice regarding the slapsuit (Zanini v. Wadon) against the last objector to Zanini's application for absolute title to the G zoned land on this site.

JUDGE DECIDES IN ZANINI'S MILLION DOLLAR SLAPSUIT

2011-04-16T20:05:00.008-04:00

Nine community residents formally objected to Mr. Zanini's application for absolute title to waterfront land shown on City of Toronto zoning maps as G - open space, parkland so that he could build townhouses right down to the water.

The community had been told by the City that the zoning designation was "a slip of the pen" and that they "could not find any paperwork to support the zoning". True, zoning does not necessarily mean that the City owns the land but there had to be a reason for this designation, one that actually covers almost all of the South Etobicoke shoreline.

It has always been the contention of the community that the G designation was applied because of illegal lake fill done by landowners to increase the size of their property and because of lake fill done by the municipality to protect the shoreline after Hurricane Hazel and later storms - to be set aside for future waterfront parkland.

So nine objections were filed to get to the bottom of this and to have questions about a possible land grab of public land answered in a public hearing at the Land Titles Office, the City's position being totally inadequate. (Follow this link to see details in one of the objections.

Zanini immediately filed a million dollar slapsuit against all nine. Eight, under threat and duress, withdrew. One held his ground.

Zanini's suit asked the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice to

invalidate the objection
and grant Mr. Zanini title to the G zoned land!

On April 6th 2011, the judge made her decision.

She decided that the resident's objection was invalid and would be expunged
She dismissed Mr. Zanni’s motion for a determination anddeclaration that he is the registered owner with absolute title

(There will be provided on this blog a link to the full eight-page judgement as soon as it it is made public.)

So, where does that leave us? The application for absolute title will now go to the Land Titles Office unopposed , without any objections.

The community sincerely hopes that the Director of Land Titles will

do due diligence
hold a public hearing
examine all the issues around this precedent-setting application
give weight to the letters that residents have sent him
demand that the City of Toronto fully explain the G zoning
ask the Province to give details of its examination of Crown rights in this matter
make Zanini prove his claims for legal title and provide evidence of accretion
make a decision based on Provincial and Municipal policies regarding public access to the waterfront

- before the Director considers just signing it off!!

DIRECTOR OF TITLES REPLIES

2011-01-07T12:17:00.002-05:00

Kate Murray, Director of Titles at the Land Registry Office, wants to maintain her office's current hands-off approach to the issues surrounding ownership of this parcel of unregistered waterfront land.
SLAPP suits don't matter; intimidation of the community doesn't matter; forced public silence doesn't matter; a probable public land grab doesn't matter.
She says the matter will only come to their official attention if the applicant requests it.
That is, if Mr. Zanini's legal threats and bullying tactics don't work because an enlightened judge eventually throws out his SLAPP suit against the last remaining objector and declares "might does not necessarily make right" and Dunpar has no other choice.
Remember, the objections were made with the hope that there would be a much-needed public hearing at which questions would be answered and provincial policies on unregistered waterfront land examined.
This is a very disappointing response from our provincial government which one assumes is watching out for public interest and supports public engagement. Maybe not!
(DOUBLE-CLICK ON THUMBNAIL FOR LARGER VIEW OF HER REPLY)

COMMUNICATION WITH LAND TITLES OFFICE

2010-12-28T09:49:00.001-05:00

After the letter from the Minister of Natural Resources was shared with the community (see previous post), the Minister of Government Services, Harinder Takhar, was contacted. We wanted to point out to him that there were still many unanswered questions regarding public claims on the unregistered G zoned portion of the property and that a proper public hearing should take place before any land was transferred to the developer. We also wanted to make sure that he was aware that some residents, in order to get answers and reach resolution, had objected to the title application and that their sincere input had been unceremoniously met with by million dollar lawsuits from Dunpar. (Eight residents withdrew; one has not and he is currently fighting the lawsuit based on the position that he has the right and reasonable grounds to object).
Kate Murray, MOGS's Director of Titles, responded to that letter.
(Click on the thumbnail below to see the letter)

One of the objectors responded to her letter with the following (She has not yet replied) ....

Ministry of Government Services

20 Dundas Street West

4^th Floor

Toronto

Ont. M5G 2C2

December 21, 2010

Attention: Kate Murray, Directorof Titles

Re: Application for Absolute Title for 51 Lake Shore Drive,

Lot 103 PLAN 1478, (PIN 07612-0131) by John Zanini ofDunpar Developments

Thank you for your letter of July 20, 2010. (I have attached a copy of that letter forreference.)

The process you describe in your letter for filing anobjection to a title application aligns with what I also understand it tobe.

I would like to let you know what has happened since thespring.

I, along with eight neighbours, did in fact file anobjection. We did this for tworeasons.

We were described in a letter from the applicant’s counsel as “interested parties” in this matter and, as it were, felt “invited”. That letter also contained details and a form for filing an objection. The local newspaper, the Etobicoke Guardian, also carried another general call for “interested parties” to comment on the application. In a call to your office, we were also told that, because this was a waterfront matter, there needed to be wider notice given for the offering of comments and/or objections than just to the actual adjacent landowners.

There are big and still unanswered questions about the unregistered waterfront part of the property that the applicant is claiming. One of the questions addresses the fact that the land is zoned open space/parkland and, to date, no one has given the community a reasonable explanation as to why on City of Toronto zoning maps it looks like an extension of the adjoining park - Prince of Wales Park. Is this a matter of a property developer acquiring what looks like public realm land? Another question asks why did the municipality assign a G zone to the unregistered parcel in the first place? G zoning is never on private property. Was it because it was originally set aside for future parkland after the municipality did lakefill and shoreline protection following storm damage? Granting the applicant ownership also would violate City and Provincial policies about opening up the Lake Ontario waterfront to the public.

All nine of the objectors felt strongly that, as communitymembers who have closely followed matters regarding this property for over fouryears and very much interested in the protection of the public interest on theSouth Etobicoke waterfront, we had the right and reasonable grounds to make anobjection.

We expected that the applicant’s counsel would make adiligent and honest attempt to explain things and resolve the issues with usand give us some answers – just as you described in your letter to me. Failing a successful outcome with that, weanticipated that a hearing might be required to give a fuller and more publicairing to the matter – again, a process just as you detailed in your letter.

Instead, each one of us, without any effort made atresolution on the applicant’s part, was served with a million dollarlawsuit. (I believe this type of actionby developers is commonly called a SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against PublicParticipation - and that there is actually a move at this time to make themillegal in Ontario).

Eight of the objectors, in the face of such intimidation andunder duress, withdrew their objections. One decided to carry on and defend himself at the Supreme Court ofJustice, an endeavour that he is finding both costly and stressful.

Needless to say, the applicant’s heavy-handed response hasalso had a chilling effect on the community’s expectation of voice, fairnessand due process in civic engagement.

The community and I would appreciate your comments on thismatter, particularly with regard to the applicant’s legal action. Is what he has done considered part of thenormal process? Do we really have asituation here where money may end up trumping the public’s only opportunity tograpple with this large, precedent-setting, issue, one that could influenceforever the development of the South Etobicoke waterfront? Has silencing sincere inquiry now become alegitimate part of what we assumed was a fair, public, participatory process?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours truly

Cc Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore

LETTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXTENT OF CURRENT PUBLIC CLAIM FROM MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

2010-12-28T09:23:00.001-05:00

Linda Jeffrey, the new Minister of Natural Resources, wrote to Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and outlined her ministry's current position on this property. Laurel had asked for clarification following inquiries from her constituents. The letter states that her staff have concluded their investigation, reaching an agreement with the developer, and that the matter is now with the Land Titles office.
The letter is archived below. (Double-click on images for better view)

However, the same old questions are raised ....

· Did MNR have all the evidence required tomake their decision?

· Was their investigation thorough enough?

· Did the City of Toronto fully explain toMNR why this lakefill land is shown as "open space" (parkland) onCity zoning maps?

· If there is no "evidence" tosupport either legal or illegal lakefill on this additional 60 odd feet, whydefault to "legal"?

· Why not declare there is a current lack ofevidence to support either claim and let it go to a public Land Registrytribunal where all parties can present their case?

· How cozy is the relationship between MNR,the applicant, the applicant's "expert" witnesses and the applicant'scounsel?

· Why is there no onus on the applicant toprove (at a tribunal) that the lakefill was done legally (Le. on dry, accretedlakebed)?

· Why have'nt the former owners of thisproperty applied for absolute title over the last 100 years?

· What stopped them? (knowledge that it wasreally public land?)

SLAPP SUITS

2010-10-26T20:12:00.001-04:00

The Ontario Attorney General of Ontario is beginning to tackle the issue of SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).
A new advisory panel will suggest possible content for legislation that would help prevent lawsuits from being used to silence critics by imposing long and costly court processes on them.
Its advisory panel apparently reported to the AG on September 30, 2010

See the news release Protecting Freedom Of Expression In Public Debate

MINISTER "RESPONDS" TO OMB IRREGULARITIES

2010-10-01T17:23:00.002-04:00

Rick Bartolucci, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, has replied to Lakeshore Planning Council's letter of July 2nd, 2010. In that letter, LPC drew the attention of Jim Bradley, the Minister at that time, to a number of "irregularities" regarding the developer's appeal before the OMB. The developer's grounds for the appeal are based on his assertion that the City delayed his building application.
LPC's detailedletter containing information pertaining to the proposal indicates that, in fact, the developer appears to be responsible for the delay and questions whether the application should have been forwarded to the OMB in the first place. LPC had hoped that the information provided might help staff determine howpolicy could be changed to avoid this kind of situation in the future.
Here is the new Minister's far from adequate reply.

WARD 6 COUNCILLOR CANDIDATE PRESS RELEASE

2010-09-25T08:17:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

September 21, 2010

MUNICIPAL CANDIDATE SUED BY DEVELOPER

FORCED TO WITHDRAW OBJECTION TO LAND CLAIM

Residents of New Toronto have been slapped with a million dollar lawsuit by a developer unless they withdraw their objections to his application to the Land Registry offices for absolute title to a disputed piece of land. Neighbours objected because they believe part of the land being claimed by the developer is publicly owned waterfront.

At 51 Lake Shore Drive land zoned “G Open Space” next to the shoreline was created by dumping fill in Lake Ontario. Local residents want this land transferred to the City or Conservation Authority to protect public access to the waterfront which the community has enjoyed for decades.

“This is bullying and intimidation” said Jem Cain of Sixteenth Street; who has been involved in the community’s efforts to ensure that the development proposal maintains a window on the lake from the Waterfront Trail. The residents want to know what regulatory statute allows the developer to claim the majority of landfill in front of his property (zoned Open Space). The residents turned to the Ministry of Natural resources for help in protecting what they believe is public land.

Ms Cain is a candidate for City Council in Ward 6 and is reluctantly withdrawing her objection to the application for absolute title. “The letter from the developer’s lawyer states that the appropriate forum to voice our concerns is the OMB and then demands that we sign away our democratic right to object,” says Ms Cain. The issue of who owns the land is before the Land Registry Offices and not the OMB. “Other residents and I have been forced to withdraw because we cannot afford to risk this outrageous claim for damages.”

Surveys of the lot at 51 Lakeshore Drive show the southern limit of the land in 1909. A 2006 survey shows that approximately 75 feet of additional land extended the lot out into the lake between 1909 and 2006. There do not appear to be any official records of when lake filling occurred or how much of the property is accreted land. Residents asked the Ministry of Natural Resources to identify and protect the land that is publicly owned. The Ministry is only claiming approximately 25 feet of landfill and has not communicated the logic behind that decision to the community.

“The only official communication I have received is threats from the developer’s lawyers. Absolutely nothing has been communicated directly from the Ministry of Natural Resources or Land Registry regarding decisions on who really owns the land,” said Ms Cain.

The developer has demanded that the residents withdraw the objections they have filed with the Land Registry Office and sign a document stating they have no objection to the developer’s application.

The developer’s proposal for seven residences on the lot will be heard by the OMB only after the issues surrounding land ownership are resolved. The site is currently occupied by a vacant building which was once a small nursing home for seniors. It sits close to the street frontage on Lakeshore Drive with the disputed area along the lake’s edge as backyard.

The current zoning will permit the development of a semi-detached dwelling unit or a single-family home. The developer is seeking approval to build six large semi-detached dwelling units and a large single family home.

“Redevelopment that reflects good planning and fits in with the existing neighbourhood would be acceptable to the neighbours. A brick fortress of seven four-story residences is out of character with this neighbourhood and will ruin the panoramic view of Lake Ontario and the city skyline that is enjoyed by thousands of people who use the Waterfront Trail year round,” says Ms Cain.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jem Cain

131 Sixteenth Street, Toronto, Ontario M8V 3J9

416-259-7328 jemcain@gmail.com

jemcain.ca

DUNPAR 'SLAPP'S RESIDENTS WITH MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

2010-08-17T08:38:00.005-04:00

On July 5^th, some community members submitted objections to Dunpar’s application for absolute title to a sizable amount of waterfront land on the site beyond the land described in the survey that came with the developer’s title when the property was bought. They feel strongly that this land, described as open space parkland on City zoning maps, is public land and should not just be given automatically to the developer, at least not without an adequate explanation of what looks like a virtually undefended land grab of public property. (Here is a link to one of the objections.)

The City says it has no claim on it (yet inexplicably identifies it as parkland!) and it looks like the Province has settled for a claim on what amounts to little more than the rocks at the waterline! Both jurisdictions have increased public waterfront access as policy!!

The community members expected that their objections, in the absence of objections from the City and the Province, would lead to a public airing of the issue and an explanation from Dunpar as to why they should be given the land and under whose authority. The community expected answers from the developer, a sincere attempt at resolving the objections by the developer’s counsel and a public hearing at the Land Registry.

Instead, Dunpar’s lawyers informed the objectors that a legal action has been initiated against them at the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice for what they claim is willful obstruction to the developer’s endeavours and that damages to the amount of one million dollars will be sought. The lawyers have told the objectors that if they withdraw their objections the lawsuit will be dropped. Some of the objectors have, under duress, decided to withdraw their objections in the face of this threat.

This amounts to blatant intimidation by a developer with deep pockets in order to limit public participation in the planning of their community in order to get what they want. This practice by powerful developers to muzzle opposition has become so common that it now has its own term – SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. (A Google search of this term will describe its chilling effect on communities and the efforts by some North American jurisdictions to outlaw the practice. Here is a link to a recent article in the Globe and Mail about it.)

The adversarial and non-communicative approach taken by John Zanini, owner of Dunpar, to resolve development issues on this site with the community needs to stop.

LETTER FROM LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL TO MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ABOUT POLICY ISSUES IN DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION

2010-07-12T12:57:00.002-04:00

LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL

185 FIFTH STREET, TORONTO ON M8V 2Z5

www.lakeshoreforum.ca

Sent via fax: (416) 585-6470 &

Jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

June 30, 2010

The Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17^th Floor
777 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5

The Honourable Jim Bradley,

Re: 51 Lake Shore Drive, Etobicoke – Official Plan and Rezoning Amendment and Site Plan Applications

I am writing to you on behalf of the Lakeshore Planning Council, a local community group in South Etobicoke.

We are respectfully requesting recommendations as to how we would bring forward a policy change that will not allow a developer to submit changes to a development proposal, after the required deadlines for a City Council decision on the Zoning By-Law (120 days) and Official Plan Amendment (180 days) have passed.

We have a situation where the applicant has submitted plans to permit the development of six-semi-detached dwelling units and one single detached dwelling unit on a waterfront property zoned R2 and G (open space).

The developer submitted his proposal in August 2008 and then withdrew the proposal in December 2008.

On April 17^th, 2009, the developer re-submitted a change to his proposal after the required deadline for a Council decision on the Zoning By-Law Amendment (January 1, 2009) and Official Plan Amendment (March 1, 2009).

On April 29th, 2009 the developer 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.

...2

We feel that the developer is responsible for the delay and the application should not have been forwarded to the OMB. How can we change this?

Moreover, a preliminary report was not made available to the Etobicoke-York Community Council for review and therefore there was no public meeting on this application to afford public comments.

The application has been adjourned sine die at the OMB.

The applicant is applying to the land registry office for absolute title of the property. To date, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has claimed a portion of the shoreline. The community is claiming that the lands between the original 1909 survey and the lands claimed by the MNR belong to the municipality because they are zoned open space G (see map below for current zoning, and map on following page highlighting the lands in question).

Note: Proposed City of Toronto zoning by-law harmonization maintains this G zoning.

Detailed information pertaining to this proposal, which may help staff determine how policy can be changed to avoid this situation in the future, is attached.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you need clarification or have any questions. I can be reached at 416-571-8221.

We look forward to your response,

Paul Chomik, P. Eng.

Lakeshore Planning Council

cc The Honourable Laurel Broten, MPP

Mayor & Members of Toronto City Council

Gary Wright, City of Toronto, Chief Planner

Mark Wilson, Chair, & Board of Directors, Waterfront Toronto

D. Keith Laushway, Chair, & Board of Directors, Waterfront Regeneration Trust ...3

51 Lake Shore Drive –

Official Plan and Rezoning Amendment

and Site Plan Applications

Application for a single family dwelling unit (2007)

1. The site, Lot 103 Plan 1478 (1909 survey) was purchased on January 4, 2007.

2. The new owner submitted an application to amend the Official Plan and the Etobicoke Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling on June 5, 2007. The application is submitted for lands that are zoned G in the Official Plan and are not owned by the applicant.

3. A preliminary planning staff report dated September 18, 2009 recommending a community consultation meeting, among other directions, was adopted by the Etobicoke York Community Council is circulated: http://lakeshoreforum.ca/content/51-lake-shore-drive-preliminary-report

4. Please Note: Attachment 3 & 4 of the above-noted planning staff report indicates that the property is “subject to confirmation of property delineation”.

5. On December 5, 2007 a community consultation meeting is held.

6. The applicant subsequently withdraws this application to permit a house on the site.

Application for 7 townhouses (2008)

7. On August 12, 2008, the applicant submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications and an application for Site Plan Approval to permit a four-storey townhouse block consisting of seven townhouse dwellings: Gross Floor Area: 19,134 sq ft Floor Space Index: 1.51 Lot Coverage: 61.42%.

8. The local Councillor holds an informal community meeting on November 27, 2008. Approximately 140 residents attend the meeting and reject the applicant’s proposal.

9. In December 2008, the applicant advised planning staff that they would not be proceeding with the townhouse proposal and that he would be submitting a revised proposal for the applications.

10. On this basis, city staff did not prepare a Preliminary Report but awaited the revised resubmission for reporting purposes.

11. On January 1, 2009, the required deadline for a Council decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment passes.

12. On March 1, 2009, the deadline for a Council decision on an Official Plan Amendment also passes.

13. On April 17th, 2009, the applicant 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%

14. April 29th, 2009, City of Toronto Clerk’s Department receives a notification that the applicant 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.

Application headed to the OMB

15. At the Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting of May 14^th, 2009, a motion is approved to direct the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, to report to its June 9, 2009 meeting on the revised plan for development at 51 Lake Shore Drive.

16. May 22nd, 2009, Planning Staff report recommends that the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, to report directly to the City Council meeting on July 6, 2009, in order to establish the City’s position at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-21375.pdf

17. This decision effectively by-passed a discussion of this application at the Etobicoke-York Community Council where issues of landownership could have been raised. Moreover, the public would not get an opportunity to comment on the staff report.

18. City Council on August 5 and 6, 2009 deferred consideration of the 51 Lake Shore Drive application to its next regular meeting on September 30, 2009. City Council did not meet on July 6^th, 2009 because of the labour dispute. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-22673.pdf

19. On September 29, 2009, Planning Staff submit a report as a Supplementary Agenda item http://www.lakeshoreforum.ca/content/51-lake-shore-drive-%E2%80%93-request-direction-report for the September 30, 2009 City Council meeting recommending refusal of the application, instructions to direct the City Solicitor to oppose the application at the OMB and in the event the application is approved, to impose the necessary site plan approval as determined by staff.

Ontario Municipal Board hearing November 23, 2009

20. The November 23^rd, 2009 hearing of the 51 Lake Shore Drive application is adjourned on the morning of November 25, 2009. We believe that the applicant submitted to city staff a non-registered survey dated December 4, 2009 in support of their application.

21. The original 1909 survey for this property is considerably smaller. These lands were the subject of much landfill. The OMB Member indicates that he cannot make a decision for a property that is not owned by the applicant.

Land Registry Office – Obtaining Absolute Title of the Properties

22. On December 9, 2009, the applicant submits an application to the land registry office for absolute title of the lands.

23. The Ministry of Natural Resources claims 25 ft of the shorelines measured from the shoreline to the top of bank. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KE2EncHb58s/TBO-3QYDQQI/AAAAAAAAAJc/IMJCzT9svRk/s1600/survey0001.jpg

24. On June 3, 2010, the applicant applies to the Land Registry Office for the remainder of the lands on the property. The community and the municipality has until July 5, 2009 to demonstrate that the lands zoned G (open space) are landfill and public lands. Maps provided as attachments to the following report: http://www.lakeshoreforum.ca/content/51-lake-shore-drive-%E2%80%93-request-direction-report

25. The original 1909 lot 103 registered plan 1478 for this property demonstrates that the applicant is claiming as part of the registered plan additional lands. We believe, that the lands between the 1909 survey and those claimed by the Ministry of Natural Resources are public lands (as shown on map, page 3).

CITY REFUSES TO OBJECT TO PARKLAND GRAB

2010-07-12T12:49:00.003-04:00

The City Solicitor informed the community on July 5th, 2010, just hours before the deadline for submitting objections to Dunpar's application for absolute title, that the City "has no legal grounds to object".

In spite of the City having put parkland zoning on the southern portion of the property and the evidence from many City planning maps that shows that there is a continuous swath of parkland running from Prince of Wales Park along the shore, the City is saying that they can't find the paperwork!!!

Not only that, but the Mayor's own Community Liaison Officer has refused an invitation to come out to the community and explain just why the City shows waterfront land on this and adjacent properties as parkland yet seems willing to hand it over to this developer without a fight. The City recently paid $4 million to expropriate a similar size shoreline piece to complete the linear park in Mimico. The people already have a claim on this piece. Go figure!

WE ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO GET THE WATERFRONT RIGHT AND THE CITY SEEMS TO BLOW IT ALMOST EVERY TIME!

RESIDENTS OBJECT TO DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC PARKLAND

2010-07-12T12:27:00.000-04:00

TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, AT LEAST EIGHT RESIDENTS SUBMITTED NOTARIZED OBJECTIONS TO DUNPAR'S APPLICATION FOR ABSOLUTE TITLE TO THE LAND ON 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE (MINUS THE SMALL SHORELINE STRIP CLAIMED BY THE PROVINCE). THE OBJECTIONS WERE HAND DELIVERED TO THE DEVELOPER'S LAWYER ON JULY 5TH , THE DEADLINE DATE.

FYI, HERE IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS..... (The documents referenced with letters of the alphabet can be viewed by double-clicking on the thumbnails below)

July 3, 2010

Re: Application by John Zanini registered as Instrument No. AT2251251 amended by Instrument No. AT2398356 to be registered as owner with an absolute title of Lot 103, Plan 1478, City of Toronto Lot 103, PLAN 1478, City of Toronto (PIN 07612 – 0131 LT) under Subsection 46(2) of the Land Titles Act

My name is **********

I live in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario.

I make oath and swear as follows:

I am a 29 year resident of the neighbourhood surrounding this property and live at ** ******* Street, Toronto, Ontario .

I have knowledge of this property known as 51 Lake Shore Drive with regard to Dunpar’s various applications since 2007 to develop the site and I have a particular interest in this matter.

I believe that if title for the whole site down to the water (minus the Province’s claim of approximately 25 feet extending up from the water’s edge shown in the applicant’s survey) were to be granted to John Zanini, public land set aside by the municipality for much-needed parkland in our community, would be lost. Here are my arguments to support my objection to the application…….

1. When John Zanini bought the property in April 2007, the survey referenced as “property description” on his title (07612-0131 LT) is the 1909 plan of subdivision survey (Lot 103, PLAN 1478). That survey clearly shows the property that he bought does not extend to the shoreline and the dimensions fall far short of the survey he is submitting with this title application. (According to the 1909 survey, the west boundary is 66.14 m (217 feet) in depth and the east boundary is 51.2 m (168 feet) in depth)

· SEE “PROPERTY TITLE” – DOCUMENT A

· SEE “1909 PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 1478, LOT 103” – DOCUMENT B

2. The 1926 New Toronto Fire Insurance map (PLAN 83) approximates the property boundaries of the 1909 survey and reinforces the fact that this property does not extend anywhere near the shoreline. The web reference for that map is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/NewTorontoFireInsuranceMap1926.jpg

· SEE “1926 GAGE FIRE INSURANCE MAP, PLATE 83” – DOCUMENT C

3. The enclosed Property Detail Report for 51 Lake Shore Drive from “Geowarehouse”, which has access to Ontario land registry and property tax assessment information, shows the property as “not on water” and perimeter and area calculations that, in my opinion, are based on the boundaries of the aforementioned 1909 survey.

· SEE “GEOWAREHOUSE REPORT” – DOCUMENT D

4. When proportions are scaled to known adjacent property boundaries, the dimensions of this property as per the 1909 survey are exactly the same as the R2 portion of the site shown on the City’s most recent zoning map and currently on their website. The web reference for that map is http://map.toronto.ca/imapit/iMapIt.jsp?app=ZONING

· SEE “CURRENT CITY PROPERTY ZONING MAP, 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE” – DOCUMENT E

5. The City’s zoning map shows the rest of the site as G zoned – open space – an unbroken extension of Prince of Wales Park along the shore.

· SEE ABOVE

6. According to Citizens Concerned for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront’s “Towards an Ecological Restoration of Etobicoke’s Waterfront”, Prince of Wales Park is a lakefill public park constructed from excavated material in 1968 when the municipality built the R.L. Clark water filtration plant. The web reference for this is http://www.ccfew.org/TERSE300.PDF

· SEE ”TOWARDS THE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF SOUTH ETOBICOKE, PAGE 25 – DOCUMENT F

7. I believe that, when the Town of New Toronto was merged in to the Borough of Etobicoke, illegal lakefill that had been done by New Toronto waterfront owners over the years to extend their property and lakefill work done by the municipality after storm damage and to expand public space as with Prince of Wales Park was all claimed by the Borough of Etobicoke, zoned G and set aside for future waterfront parkland in a Borough that, by necessity, could only make waterfront parks by filling in the lake.

8. To my knowledge, G zoning is never applied to private property. (What landowner would willingly consent to having part of his property zoned “open space”?)

9. I believe that the only land that John Zanini should have title to is the land shown in the 1909 survey and referenced on his property title, that he was fully aware of those property boundaries when he bought the property and that he should be given title to only that portion of the site. The lands between the 1909 survey and those claimed by the Ministry of Natural Resources on behalf of the Province are, I believe, public lands reserved for parkland and should not be granted to a developer to build private residences.

· SEE “MAP SHOWING G-ZONED PORTION OF 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE” – DOCUMENT G

LETTER TO MAYOR MILLER DEMANDING ACTION ON WATERFRONT LAND GRAB OF PUBLIC SPACE

2010-07-12T11:40:00.001-04:00

Attention Mayor Miller - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Ref: 51 lake Shore Drive

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 5^th 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.

See www.fiftyonelakeshoredrive.blogspot for background

NOTICE OF OMB DECISION JUNE 14, 2010 TO ADJOURN "SINE DIE" UNTIL LAND TITLE SETTLED - Double click on thumbnails to read

2010-07-12T11:36:00.001-04:00

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ADJOURNS HEARING FOR THE SECOND TIME OVER THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP

2010-06-14T17:20:00.011-04:00

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 5^th, 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.

LETTER FROM LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL TO MAYOR MILLER AND CITY COUNCIL

2010-06-14T16:53:00.001-04:00

DOUBLE CLICK ON THUMBNAILS FOR ENLARGED VIEW
Lakeshore Planning Council

OMB HEARING RECOMMENCES ON MONDAY

2010-06-12T14:11:00.002-04:00

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.

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ISSUE

2010-06-12T13:50:00.012-04:00

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 Council public meeting, it was decided that the Council should immediately write to CityCouncil with the community's concerns about this.

NEW APPLICATION FOR LAND TITLE BY DUNPAR

2010-06-07T07:51:00.006-04:00

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)

YET ANOTHER "REVISED" SITE PLAN

2010-06-07T07:28:00.001-04:00

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.

NEW SITE PLAN BASED ON MNR'S LAKEFILL INVESTIGATIONS

2010-05-27T12:58:00.005-04:00

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.

DOUBLE CLICK ON DRAWINGS FOR BETTER VIEW

MNR RESPONDS TO RESIDENTS' LETTERS

2010-05-21T09:34:00.001-04:00

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 20^th 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 SUPPORTS RESIDENTS

2010-05-20T07:21:00.004-04:00

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.

Click on thumbnail for larger view.

LAND TITLE TO BE RESOLVED SOON?

2010-05-18T10:20:00.004-04:00

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.

We’ll see what happens on Friday!

OMB OFFICIAL NOTICE OF RECOMMENCEMENT OF HEARING ON JUNE 14/2010

2010-03-24T08:35:00.001-04:00

LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL LETTER TO COUNCILLOR GRIMES

2010-03-24T08:06:00.002-04:00

LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL

185 FIFTH STREET, TORONTO ON M8V 2Z5

February 26, 2010

Councillor Grimes

Toronto City Hall

100 Queen Street West,

Suite C48 Toronto, ON

Dear Councillor Grimes,

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.

Sincerely,

Richard Ciupa, Acting Chairperson

Lakeshore Planning Council

cc: Honourable Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore

Honourable Linda Jeffrey, Minister of Natural Resources

Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto

Michael Ignatieff, MP Etobicoke-Lakeshore

Mark Rapus, Senior Planner TRCA

Brian Haley, City of Toronto Counsel

Chris Hislop, Aggregate Inspector Ministry of Natural Resources

TODAY'S OMB PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE REF LAND TITLE

2010-03-12T11:38:00.003-05:00

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 21^st. 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 14^th 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.

LETTER TO COUNCILLOR GRIMES REQUESTING THAT CROWN LAND ON THIS SITE REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC REALM TO FURTHER THE VISION OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL PLAN

2010-02-23T10:03:00.001-05:00

February 16, 2010

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

LATEST STATEMENT FROM LAUREL BROTEN, MPP ETOBICOKE-LAKESHORE

2010-02-23T09:56:00.002-05:00

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2010

“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.”

Laurel Broten. MPP

Etobicoke-Lakeshore

OMB DECISION AGAINST DEVELOPER IN BEACH SIMILAR TO 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE

2010-02-23T09:54:00.001-05:00

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.

LAUREL BROTEN'S OFFICE KEEPING RESIDENTS UP TO DATE

2010-01-26T18:11:00.004-05:00

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.

DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR DUNPAR'S TITLE APPLICATION

2010-01-15T09:03:00.001-05:00

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.

DUNPAR APPLIES FOR ABSOLUTE TITLE

2010-01-09T12:38:00.001-05:00

On December 9^th, 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 12^th 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.

OMB'S OFFICIAL NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT

2009-12-04T08:49:00.000-05:00

DOUBLE CLICK ON THUMBNAILS TO VIEW

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE OMB THIS WEEK

2009-11-26T09:37:00.003-05:00

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!

OMB HEARING - LETTER FROM COUNCILLOR GRIMES

2009-11-25T21:20:00.000-05:00

OMB HEARING - IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND

2009-11-21T13:27:00.000-05:00

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

NOW IS THE TIME TO SHOW THE OMB HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT DUNPAR'S APPLICATION

2009-11-09T11:56:00.009-05:00

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.

SEE YOU ALL THERE
The address of the OMB is 655 Bay Street, Suite 1600.

LAKE VISTAS FROM 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE

2009-10-21T10:16:00.009-04:00

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.

CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTED STAFF REPORT THIS MORNING

2009-09-30T11:46:00.008-04:00

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 " .

STAFF REPORT FINALLY POSTED - RECOMMENDATIONS FAVOURABLE!

2009-09-29T22:25:00.005-04:00

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.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/bgrd/ey28.49b.pdf

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 SUPPORTS CITY SOLICITOR REPRESENTATION AT OMB

2009-09-28T21:12:00.004-04:00

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"

LETTERS ARE BEING CIRCULATED ..

2009-09-28T21:06:00.001-04:00

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."

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 30TH - AGENDA POSTED

2009-09-26T07:59:00.003-04:00

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.

DUNPAR LAWYER'S LETTER - 1

2009-09-25T12:27:00.005-04:00

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.

DUNPAR LAWYER'S LETTER - 2

2009-09-25T12:25:00.000-04:00

DUNPAR LAWYER'S LETTER - 3

2009-09-25T12:20:00.001-04:00

ANOTHER LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL....

2009-09-24T19:46:00.001-04:00

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,
Sincerely,
Fourth Street Resident

GO FIGURE!

2009-09-23T18:43:00.006-04:00

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 .

PLEASE NOTE!

2009-09-23T18:30:00.002-04:00

REMEMBER TO WRITE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE 4 P.M. TOMORROW WITH YOUR VIEWS ON WHETHER THE CITY SOLICITOR SHOULD REPRESENT THE CITY AT THE OMB HEARING ON NOVEMBER 23RD.

INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LOCAL RESIDENT AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER

2009-09-23T18:28:00.001-04:00

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,

Jem

__________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Sincerely,
New Toronto Resident

_________________________________________________________________________

From: mdelgra@toronto.ca
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 <mdelgra@toronto.ca>
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

STAFF REPORT NEEDS TO GO TO COMMUNITY COUNCIL BEFORE CITY COUNCIL

2009-09-11T09:32:00.005-04:00

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 etcc@toronto.ca
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

TRCA REJECTS NEW PROPOSAL

2009-09-11T09:28:00.004-04:00

On June 16^th, 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.

OMB HEARING NOVEMBER 23RD

2009-09-07T17:32:00.003-04:00

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

OMB HEARING INFO

2009-08-21T08:16:00.002-04:00

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

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/english/eStatus/eStatus.html

and enter the case number PL090404

CITY COUNCIL RESCHEDULES DUE TO STRIKE

2009-08-21T07:45:00.001-04:00

INTERESTED PERSONS:

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:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/decisions/2009-08-05-cc38-dd.htm

City Clerk

OMB 51 LAKE SHORE DR - CASE NUMBER PL090404

2009-07-27T12:04:00.002-04:00

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 Dr	Dunpar Developments Inc.	Open	PL090404

No Hearings have been scheduled for this case.

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

LAST NIGHT'S LPC MEETING WITH IRENE JONES

2009-06-12T08:05:00.008-04:00

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

LAST MINUTE CHANGE FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING

2009-06-11T16:33:00.002-04:00

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.

ETOBICOKE GUARDIAN COVERAGE OF COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING

2009-06-11T06:55:00.002-04:00

(Double click on image for larger view)

DUNPAR'S SITE DRAWING FOR REVISED PROPOSAL

2009-06-09T21:22:00.005-04:00

(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.

SIX SEMIS AND ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL WENT TO COMMUNITY COUNCIL TODAY

2009-06-09T20:39:00.005-04:00

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 6^th. 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.

IF YOU CAN'T ATTEND COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING ......

2009-06-04T11:15:00.006-04:00

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 etcc@toronto.ca

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

councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca

Mark Grimes, Councillor, Ward 6

councillor_grimes@toronto.ca

Greg Garcia-Hobson – City Planner

ghobson@toronto.ca

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .....

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 INVOLVED

2009-06-04T10:55:00.003-04:00

CCFEW (Citizens Concerned for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront) have a keen interest in development on this site. Check out their website
http://www.ccfew.org/html/what_s_up.html#060109

DUNPAR REPRESENTATIVES INVITED TO LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL

2009-06-04T10:52:00.001-04:00

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 11^th. 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 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/etobicokecodes/0894_350.pdf

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.

GOING TO COMMUNITY COUNCIL JUNE 9TH

2009-06-01T20:45:00.009-04:00

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 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ey/agendas/2009-06-09-ey28-ai.htm 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 etcc@toronto.ca
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.

WHAT NEXT?

2009-05-15T18:31:00.004-04:00

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 ghobson@toronto.ca
See previous post for Community Council information
Monday, December 1, 2008
COMMUNITY COUNCIL - AGENDA, DEPUTATIONS
http://fiftyonelakeshoredrive.blogspot.com/2008/12/community-council-agenda-deputations.html

TIMELINE SHOWING DEVELOPER'S APPLICATIONS

2009-05-15T17:36:00.008-04:00

. 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.

DUNPAR GOES TO THE OMB!

2009-05-11T10:50:00.003-04:00

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.

SITE TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES

2009-04-06T07:03:00.001-04:00

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.

NEW PROPOSAL FROM DUNPAR COMING SOON!

2009-04-01T21:13:00.008-04:00

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 ghobson@toronto.ca 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

DUNPAR WITHDRAWS APPLICATION

2008-12-12T12:14:00.008-05:00

This community notice was hand-delivered this morning to residents living close to the site. Double-click on image for larger view.
The community should be proud of its efforts to make its opinion heard and for standing up to this developer. It is a victory for the neighbourhood and for those who defend our City's Official Plan.
However, it's not over yet. Dunpar will surely come back seeking approval for another type of development. Remember their first application to build a monster home on green space at the water's edge - it did not take the community long to figure out that a property severance and a row of townhouses up to Lake Shore Drive was probably going to come next. This site has huge profit potential for a developer.
However, we can always hope that Dunpar, having seen once again the resolve of Lakeshore residents, will content itself with a development that falls in line with the City's zoning and planning policies.
It is unfortunate that Councillor Grimes, in this notice, chooses to acknowledge only one of the community groups involved in the issue. Many others worked hard to bring the matter to the community's attention and their efforts go unrecognized.
Please add your comments to this post by clicking on "comments" below. Comments can also be read the same way.

COMMUNITY COUNCIL - AGENDA, DEPUTATIONS

2008-12-01T11:42:00.007-05:00

As of today (Dec 1st), the agenda for the Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting on January 13th, 2009, has not yet been set. The agenda will close on December 16th, 2008 and will, hopefully, include the staff report from Planning on 51 Lake Shore Drive.

Agenda items and other related information can be monitored at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2008/agendas/ey.htm (make sure you put 2009 in the selection box)

The meetings are held during the day in two sessions, 9.30 to 12.30 and 1.30 to 6.00. They usually last just the one day. At the Councillor’s request, an evening session can be pre-scheduled (7.30 to 10.00). For this to happen, Councillor Grimes would have to be convinced that a lot of residents wanted to make deputations and that the evening session was the most appropriate.

Public deputations can be made to the Council at the beginning of the meeting’s scheduled agenda. Individuals are only allowed five minutes to depute. If a lot of people wish to make a deputation, it is strongly suggested, in order to hold the Council’s attention, that similar points are not endlessly repeated but different arguments are raised in a pre-planned fashion by successive speakers.

In order to make a deputation, make sure that 51 Lake Shore Drive is on the agenda first. Then call to secure a time slot - Sandra Domotor, City Clerk, at 416 394 8083 or her assistant Glenda at 416 394 8101. Requests for a time slot can be made up to the day preceding the Council meeting. They will also allow speakers who turn up on the day of the meeting to ask for a slot.

Deputation information is available at http://www.toronto.ca/city_council/deputation.htm

IF YOU ARE GIVEN A TIME SLOT, PLEASE CONTACT JEM CAIN AT jemcain@gmail.com SO THAT DEPUTATIONS CAN BE COORDINATED.
THANKYOU.

DEVELOPER'S SITE DRAWINGS

2008-11-28T13:54:00.003-05:00

If you were unable to pick up a copy of the developer's site drawings, double-click on these images.

You can also e-mail Terry Smith at tz.smith@sympatico.ca to arrange to see the original copy handed out at the meeting.

MASSIVE TURN-OUT AT PUBLIC MEETING

2008-11-28T11:53:00.008-05:00

The Assembly Hall auditorium was packed last night with as many as 140 residents who were there to protest Dunpar’s application to build townhouses on the site. The city planning department asked for community input … and they sure got it! There was a virtually unanimous show of hands in disagreement; speaker after speaker offered up all of the points of concern that have troubled the community and which have formed the content of the dozens of written submissions sent in to Greg Hobson-Garcia. No one spoke in favour of the proposal. Although maybe "not a priority" for our Councillor, many spoke about a community desire to have the City exporpriate the site, or, at least, the southern half on green space, and turn it into a waterfront park.

With so many counts against the application, plus the opposition of the community, the Councillor and the Conservation Authority, major breaches of the Official Plan and Zoning and inconsistencies with past OMB decisions, it is virtually inevitable that the planning department will eventually report to Community Council that it has decided against Dunpar on this proposal. In fact, the developer’s representative, Tom Giuancos, made no attempt whatsoever to even “sell” the project to the community.

The planning staff said their intention is to report to the Etobicoke-York Community Council on January 13^th, 2009 where the real decision will be made. The council is made up of eleven west-end City Councillors. These Councillors have the authority to accept the planners’ recommendation, modify the recommendation or overrule it.

Last night, Councillor Grimes reaffirmed his opposition to this proposal and said that he would vote against it at Community Council and ask the other Councillors to oppose it. He also said that, if any modifications were made to the application, there would be another public meeting. He would not, however, commit himself to an ongoing opposition to any townhouse development on that site (for example, a new application for six, not seven, townhouses). He also said that he would direct the City Solicitor to defend the City’s position should the developer appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Community Council meetings are public and residents can make short deputations. In order for anyone to do this, they need to know the meeting date and they need to get on the deputation list by calling Sandra Domotor, Etobicoke-York City Clerk, at 416 394 8083. Submissions can also be sent to the eleven individual Councillors prior to the meeting. A submission, for example, could be the same one that you sent to Greg Hobson-Garcia with an explanatory add-on.

Councillor contact information is available at http://www.toronto.ca/committees/council_profiles/torontowest.htm

WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

COUNCILLOR GRIMES - COMMUNICATION BIAS?

2008-11-28T11:51:00.006-05:00

During the public meeting, Councillor Grimes said that he would work with ourlakeshore.net to communicate with the community and that the people behind that organization should be the “spokespersons for the community”.

At the meeting, there was representation from many other community groups: CCFEW, Good Neighbours, LAMP, the Lakeshore Planning Council, the New Toronto Historical Society, Lakeshore Environmental Gardeners, the BIA, Friends of Sam Smith Park, 51 Lakeshore Drive blog spot, the Lakefront Homeowners Association, the Watershed Coalition, Spirit of the Lakeshore as well as ourlakshore.net. There were probably other community groups at the meeting as well.

All of these groups and individuals care very much about our neighbourhood and deserve information on proposals in Ward 6. Councillor Grimes needs to understand that the more community groups he communicates information to, the more people in Ward 6 he can reach. It is hard to understand why he would shut any of his constituents out by choosing to only work with a select few, shunning the rest.

As our elected representative, he is required to communicate the same information to all interested community groups equally.

MORE COMMUNITY OPINIONS

2008-11-27T08:02:00.002-05:00

The community group “Our Lakeshore” hosts a blog about 51 Lake Shore Drive. There are many comments from community residents that make for interesting reading. Here are the links …..

http://www.ourlakeshore.net/main/?p=130
http://www.ourlakeshore.net/main/?p=126

DUNPAR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ON SAND BEACH

2008-11-20T10:02:00.006-05:00

There is an example of a Dunpar lakeside, four storey, townhouse development on Nautical Lane at the foot of Sand Beach Road. (Sand Beach runs south from Lakeshore between First and Royal York). The development extends to the new seawall at the water's edge. The buildings are very tall without any sight lines in between. The private enclave is isolated from the community, protected by a fence, "No Trespassing" signs, motion and sound detectors and security cameras. There have been water's edge access issues between residents and neighbours, particularly with regard to the community garden that was planted this summer in the public space next to the development . One of the photographs shows the fence that was erected down to the water to prevent people from accessing the beach in front. A townhouse in that development is currently listed at $749 000.

SNOW REMOVAL PROBLEM

2008-11-12T07:42:00.002-05:00

The site plan does not provide anywhere to store snow removed from the side drive. The snow will be piled on the side streets where parking is already an issue, or on the green space where salt and contaminants will leach into the soil. Jennifer from Fourth Street posted these photographs to illustrate the snow storage problem we had last year at Fourth and Lakeshore Drive.

SEEMS THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC MEETING - DETAILS.

2008-11-11T12:13:00.003-05:00

THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION MEETING WILL BE ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH., 2008, AT 7 PM, IN THE ASSEMBLY HALL.
Make sure you get your submissions in as soon as possible.
An example of a recent letter from a neighbour is posted below
(Click on image to see larger version)

EXAMPLE OF RECENT LETTER SENT TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY ROBERT ON FOURTH STREET

2008-11-11T12:05:00.004-05:00

Councillor Mark Grimes:

This letter is in response to an application submitted to the City of Toronto planning division for the development of a parcel of lake front property with an existing structure at 51 Lakeshore Dr. The purpose of this letter is to outline my concerns regarding the proposed application and the impact this will have on both my neighbours and the neighbourhood in general. I respectfully request that I be kept informed of any meetings or matters regarding this application by email.

Last Thursday Oct 23, I attended an informal meeting with many of my neighbours in a roundtable discussion to learn what the current plans are for this property. In lieu of a copy of formal plans for the property, a sketch was drafted by one of the attendees from the original plan. It should be noted that the developer would not release a copy for our pursual. It should also be noted that while this application was submitted for approval on August 12, 2008 there is still no notice of the application posted on the property. As a long time resident of the area (20 years), I am compelled to voice my concerns regarding this application as I understand it.

1. A four story townhouse complex with seven units.
The size and height is totally unreasonable for both the lot size and the general character of the neighbourhood. I understand that a change in zoning would be required. The city should honour the current zoning rules for density as they are correct for this area and not allow site specific zoning changes where it is inappropriate. This area is primarily 1, 1 1/2 and 2 story single family homes. This structure will overwhelm the area in its size and height. The structure is to be built 20 inches within the property line, therefore there is no front or back yards, just a wall 4 stories high blocking any view of the lake that we and users of the waterfront trail currently enjoy.

2. Future of the mature trees on 4th street south of Lakeshore Dr. The plan includes many of the mature trees that are currently there but I have real concerns for the long term health of the trees. If as a rule of thumb, the canopy of a tree is similar in area to the root system, these trees will suffer severe stress from the excavation that will be required and will most likely loose a substantial portion of their roots which will eventually result in their death.

3. Parking. As a parking permit holder on 4th street, I find that often there is difficulty in finding a spot already and often have to park up a ways up on 4th and not close to my home. The plan does not include any guest parking so this will only reduce the limited amount of spots available for myself and my neighbours.

4. Changes to the existing shoreline.
The plan includes landfilling the shoreline to extend it further into the lake. This will have unknown results of shoreline erosion as it will change current wave patterns.

5. Changes to bylaws and zoning.
To approve this plan, it will require several changes to existing bylaws and zoning laws. The purpose of these rules is protect the homeowner, community, and shoreline of Lake Ontario from inappropriate development, if the City of Toronto is serious about its goals to preserve the shoreline and access to the waterfront, then it must honour the bylaws and zoning that it has put in place.

In closing, I must again state that these are the facts only as I know them. Any future public meetings must have the official proposal available for the public to view. This structure is certainly not in the best interest of the neighbourhood, community or the many people who use the waterfront trail. Given the limited amount of waterfront property remaining in Toronto that has not been developed, maybe the City of Toronto could purchase and lease the property with the existing structure or use it in a way that benefits its taxpayers.

CCFEW INVOLVED IN ISSUE

2008-11-07T07:38:00.003-05:00

Citizens Concerned for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront, or CCFEW, are also very concerned about the proposed townhouse development and its impact on the waterfront. CCFEW was instrumental in forcing developers and the City to create public access to the waterfront when the condos were being built at Humber Bay Shores. They have remained waterfront watchdogs and guardians.
They will be discussing the issue at their next Planning meeting on Monday, November 10th, 7:30pm at LAMP, 185 Fifth Street. Please feel free to attend. Monthly meetings are used mainly to discuss current issues, projects and policy positions. They are always open to anyone who is interested in attending.
Link to the issue on the CCFEW website .......

Revised 51 Lake Shore Drive development proposal

COMMUNITY MEETING INFORMATION.

2008-11-04T09:54:00.008-05:00

I talked to Greg Hobson-Garcia today and was both pleased and somewhat alarmed by what I heard. First, he has already received quite a few submissions from the community challenging the developer's application. (Keep sending them.) He has also received the report form the Toronto Region Conservation Authority saying they cannot support the application for a number of reasons listed in a previous post. He is waiting on reviews of the application from other City departments. The mayor is advised of the community's interest in this and has asked for feedback from the planners. If residents keep the pressure up, I sense that the Planning Department's decision in their final report will hopefully end up being a refusal.

Here's the problem, though. If that is the case, the Planning Act says that a final report that is a refusal can go directly to Etobicoke-York Community Council without the need for a public meeting first. At Community Council, the report would be presented and the eleven members (west Toronto Councillors) have the power to either rubber stamp the Planning Department's decision, modify it or instruct the planners to reverse their decision and accept it! The planners' job is merely to advise council; they have no authority - the politicians have total power.

So, that could mean, for example, that a motion could be put forward to limit the townhouse row to six units and it could be passed on the spot - all without a public meeting first. This on-the-spot-modification-to-pass-at-community-council has all happened before.

Greg is trying to set up the Community Council meeting for January. We should know exactly when during this month of November. At that public meeting, it will be possible for residents to make a short deputation. In order for anyone to do this, they need to know the meeting date and they need to get on the deputation list by calling Sandra Domotor, Etobicoke-York City Clerk, at 394 8083.

Meeting dates will be passed on by the planner to those people who have requested to be on his notification list. To do that, contact Greg Hobson-Garcia at 416 394 2615 or e-mail him at ghobson@toronto.ca. This is a new file from the earlier "monster home" application, so you need to make sure that you get on the list for this current one. We will also post the information on this blog.

We also need to be aware of the fact that a developer can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board when there is failure to announce a decision on an Official Plan Amendment by the City's Planning Department within 90 days of receipt of the developer's application. That time will be up in early December.

NEW SIGN FINALLY UP

2008-10-30T09:07:00.004-04:00

The new sign was finally put up on the site yesterday. It indicates who the developer is. Dunpar is a name well known to many residents and community groups in south west Toronto. There is a new file number for the current proposal. Please make sure that this file number is clearly indicated in submissions you make to the Planner.

SUBMISSION CONTACT INFORMATION:

Planner, Greg Hobson-Garcia ghobson@toronto.ca

Copy Councillor Grimes councillor_grimes@toronto.ca

Copy Mayor Miller mayor_miller@toronto.ca

TORONTO'S OFFICIAL PLAN

2008-10-30T08:14:00.002-04:00

To view an online, downloadable copy of Toronto’s Official Plan, authorized by the Province in July 2007, go to

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/introduction.htm

This comprehensive plan, long in the works and much anticipated, is constantly challenged by developers. We need to support City politicians and Planners in their efforts to defend it. Developers will effectively capitalize on any opportunity to utilize precedents set by any exemptions and deviations form the Official Plan with respect to their development proposals. This will further erode and weaken its integrity.

Many aspects of the proposed 51 Lakeshore Drive Townhouse development contravene the Official Plan.

COUNCILLOR GRIMES OPPOSES TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT

2008-10-30T07:57:00.003-04:00

Last week, a flyer from Councillor Grimes office was distributed to a few residences close to the site. Excerpts from that flyer are posted below ....

The Community Planning Department for Etobicoke-York District, has received an application that proposes the development of a townhouse complex at 51 Lakeshore Drive.
I have already informed both the Developer and the Planning Department that I am opposed to this application
Although it is not my decision alone to allow a development proposal to be approved or denied, I do not believe this type of development fits the ambience and structure of the neighborhood
Mark Grimes
Councillor
Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore

TORONTO REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

2008-10-29T17:14:00.004-04:00

On October 20th 2008, the TRCA informed the City Planner, Greg Hobson-Garcia, who is reviewing this Official Plan/Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Applications (08 192870 WET 6 OZ and o8192900 WET 06 SA), the proposed seven townhouses and seawall, that it cannot support the developer's application. It presented a number of arguments.........

The property is partially located in within a Regulated Area of the lake Ontario Shoreline and, as such, would need a provincial permit, which it does not have.

The southerly half of the property is designated Parks and Open Space Areas - Natural Areas. It appears that four of the seven units are proposed within that area! City official policy on those areas says that they should be kept in a natural state and development generally prohibited (See Chapter 4 of the City's Official Plan)

A portion of the site is part of the Natural Heritage System. The Official Plan specifies that the natural features in the system should be protected, restored and enhanced.

TRCA considers "hazardous lands" (shoreline areas where development is not allowed) to extend 27 meters inland from the existing toe of slope (to the water); the proposed development, including servicing, extends well into "hazardous lands". The TRCA does not support the construction of new shoreline works for the purpose of accommodating new development inside the hazardous areas.

It seems that, along with rejecting the proposal, the TRCA is giving a strong argument for the City to expropriate the property (or, at least, the southern half) and turn it into a naturalized, waterfront parkette. Add to that the fact that a portion of this property is zoned G (Green Space) and the Toronto Official Plan states in Chapter 2 that within G zones .....

Lands on the water's edge should become a network of public ally accessible open spaces.

Physical and visual barriers between the Cituy and Lake Ontario should be minimized

Public access to to lands along the water's edge should be increased and improved

The Waterfront Trail should be protected, improved and extended

Private development and public works on lands along the water;'s edge should maintain and increase opportunities for public views of the water and support a sense of belonging to the community
A PUBLIC WATERFRONT PARK ON THAT PROPERTY SEEMS TO BE A NO-BRAINER!

OLDER ETOBICOKE BY-LAW ORDERING BIG SETBACK FROM LAKE

2008-10-29T11:19:00.003-04:00

Etobicoke By-law 1991-41 (OMB Order 9100219)
This by-law from pre-amalgamation 1991 ordered a set back from the lake for any redevelopment on a number of properties zoned Residential R2 surrounding 51 Lakeshore Drive to be based on a measurement from the street line and not from the water. The water benchmark changes with water level, erosion, season etc. and is not consistent. The measurement from the south curb on Lakeshore Drive, on the western edge of the properties, is to be 19.8 meters. In other words, no structure can be built closer to the lake than that; the footprint of the existing building on 51 Lakeshore Drive just about conforms to that. The by-law was enacted to preserve "views to the south over the lake and east towards the City of Toronto", based on a 45 degree sawtooth pattern . 51 Lakeshore was also zoned R2 at the time but there was a nursing home on the site, allowable because of former pre-1975 R4 zoning. It was not listed in this By-law. To be consistent, however, it could be argued that the same setback should be applied because the property is also at a 45 degree angle and the same concerns about views are applicable.

PAST OMB DECISION ON PROPERTY

2008-10-29T10:50:00.003-04:00

OMB Ruling 1 - File No. 07 227937 WET 06 OZ - December 6, 2007

An older application to develop the site was refused by the OMB. The decision said that the proposed new structure compromised the Toronto Official Plan and, if accepted, would "make it unenforceable" and "weaken its integrity". The Official Plan states that existing neighbourhoods should be "maintained and protected" and "any redevelopment in the area is required to conform to it" It declared it "imperative" that a three-dimensional architectural model of the proposed development and the surrounding neighbourhood be produced so that local residents can see how the proposed development physically impacts the community" and that, before any application for redevelopment is considered, a "survey of the current built form and structure of dwellings and lot sizes on Lake Shore Drive and Fourth Street be undertaken". The ruling goes on to say that "development applications for a particular property are not to be considered in isolation; the established scale and built form of existing buildings is to be maintained to preserve the character of a neighbourhood".

WRITING TO THE CITY PLANNER? SOME IDEAS FROM JEM CAIN

2008-10-29T08:36:00.009-04:00

The Planner, Greg Hobson-Garcia is asking for feedback from the community on the development. Please take the time to write the planner with your concerns and copy Councillor Grimes and Mayor Miller. The Planning file number is 08 192870 WET 06 OZ

Below are suggestions to include in your letters to the Planner, Councillor Grimes and the Mayor on the new proposal to demolish the existing building at 51 Lake Shore Drive and to build seven four-storey town homes and to make changes to the existing shoreline and stone coastal protection wall at this property.

Contact information for the Planner Greg Hobson-Garcia, Councillor Grimes and Mayor Miller is included at the bottom of this post.

If you agree with some of these arguments and wish to include them in your letter, please put them in your own words

1. The proposed development for seven four-storey town homes at 51 Lake Shore Drive does not fit the existing home size, height, front and side yard space of the rest of the neighbourhood.

2. The development application sign is not yet put on the property. The application date is August 12, 2008, yet the developer has not erected a sign regarding the town house development. As the weather gets colder fewer and fewer people have an opportunity to find out about this proposal that will impact the community and the view from the waterfront trail.

3. The community should be allowed to depute or present at the Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting when 51 Lake Shore Drive is on the agenda.

4. Anyone with an interest in this development needs to be copied on all notices or meetings regarding 51 Lake Shore Drive (you can call Greg Hobson-Garcia at 416 394 2615 or e-mail him at ghobson@toronto.ca

5. If the plan is revised, the community needs another public meeting. We want to be informed and consulted on revisions.

6. The City should expropriate all or part of the property, buy it and turn it into a waterfront parquette.

7. The waterfront at 51 Lake Shore Drive should be donated to the TRCA as part of any planning or development proposal.

8. The current zoning for the property should be respected and enforced; the property is not zoned for the proposed density. It is now R2 and would need to be changed to R4 for this kind of density.

9. Blocking public views of the lake contravenes the City of Toronto Official Plan. Once the view of the lake is gone we have lost it forever, there is no going back.

10. This land is part of the waterfront trail and should be protected.

11. If the new town homes are worth much more than the surrounding homes, tax assessments for all the homes in the area will significantly increase.

12. There is no visitor parking included in the plan. Street parking will be an issue, it already is.

13. At the December 5, 2007 public meeting on the previous application - the community asked if the developer wanted a town house development at 51 Lake Shore Drive, and the representative for Zanini repeatedly stated that the lot is not big enough for town homes. What has changed since that meeting?

14. The site plan does not provide anywhere to store snow. The snow will be piled on the side streets where parking is already an issue, or on the green space where salt and contaminants will leach into the soil.

15. The planner needs to bring the actual site plan including the lake wall changes to the public meeting. We need the details of the dimensions, height, and density of what is permitted on the site under the current zoning, bylaws and the official plan.

16. The developer should be directed to pay for a survey of the current built form of dwellings and lot sizes on Lake Shore Drive, and Fourth Street. This will establish the character of the existing neighbourhood of New Toronto that is to be "maintained and protected" under Toronto's Official Plan, and which any redevelopment in the area will be required to conform to.

17. The developer should be directed to pay for a three-dimensional architectural model of the proposed development, the surrounding neighbourhood and the changes to the lakefront and adjoining shoreline for the public meeting. This will allow local residents to see how the proposed development physically impacts the community. Most people have difficulty visualizing the impact of new structures on their neighbourhood and the view of the lakefront when looking at a two-dimensional drawing on paper.

18. Some mature trees would probably have to be removed.

If you want to share letters with people on the distribution list, please send to:
jemcain@gmail.com
I will forward them out to the distribution list.

If you are willing to allow us to post quotes from your letter on the blog for 51 Lakeshore Drive, please let me know in your e-mail.

We will include your name but remove your address and phone info because the blog is available to anyone world-wide who wants to view it.

I have called the clerk from the Etobicoke-York Community Council to find out the process to depute or present our comments to Community Council when 51 Lake Shore Drive is on the agenda. The next Community-Council meeting is November 18th and the agenda will not be set until two weeks prior to the meeting. You can check the agenda online at:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2008/agendas/ey.htm
Or you can call the Clerk's office at 394-8101, about two weeks prior to the meeting.

Send your letters, e-mails, faxes, voicing your concerns to:

Greg Hobson-Garcia, Planner
e-mail: ghobson@toronto.ca
Tel: 416-394-2615
Fax: 416-394-6063
City Planning, Community Planning Section
2 Civic Centre Court, 3rd Floor, Toronto, M9C 5A3

Councillor Mark Grimes
e-mail: mailto:councilor_grimes@toronto.ca
Phone: 416-397-9273
Fax: 416-397-9279
Mail: Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Suite C48, Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

Mayor David Miller
e-mail: mayor_miller@toronto.ca
Phone: 416-397-CITY (2489)
Fax: 416-696-3687
Mail: Toronto City Hall, 2nd Floor, 100 Queen St. West, Toronto ON M5H 2N2

Thank you for your concern and efforts to make our neighbourhood the best part of Toronto!

Jem

Jem Cain
jemcain@gmail.com
H: 416-259-7328

SOME DEVELOPMENT DETAILS

2008-10-28T17:24:00.004-04:00

Proposed building height 14.10metres 46.26 feet

Size of units

Lot 1 – 2,635 square feet

Lot 2 – 2,576 square feet

Lot 3 – 2,576 square feet

Lot 4 – 2,576 square feet

Lot 5 – 2,576 square feet

Lot 6 – 2,576 square feet

Lot 7 – 3,617 square feet

Disclaimer - we have nothing in writing on the development; all the measurements and drawings are from concerned residents asking questions on the proposal. At this point in time, we cannot get any hard info from the developer on the proposal

FOOTPRINT OF CURRENT BUILDING ON SITE

2008-10-28T17:21:00.002-04:00

Double click to view in larger frame

SITE PLAN SKETCHES

2008-10-28T16:26:00.007-04:00

These sketches were made from the developer's original drawings at the City Planner's office. We are posting our sketches because the site plan drawn by the architect is protected under copywrite and will not be available until the public meeting.
If you double-click on the photographs, you can view them in a larger frame.

SUGGESTED ACTION ON SIGN, MEETING DATES AND ZONING

2008-10-28T09:20:00.005-04:00

This old sign from the Planning Department of the City of Toronto is still lying around on the property. It refers to the September 2007 application by CIC Millwork to build a "monster home" at the lake end of the site. This was challenged by residents and the developer withdrew the application. Someone has changed the old sign to read "7 Town Houses" to reflect a new application by the same developer on August 12th. for a zoning change and variance for this site. The City is obliged to erect a new sign with the new details. This kicks off the public consultation process. Please call the planner (his name and phone number have not changed), inform him that there is no new sign yet, ask to be put on his contact list to receive updates about development on this site and ask him four questions. Answers can be posted as "comments" to this post if you wish.
1. When will the new sign be put up?
2. When is the public community consultation?
3. When will the Etobicoke York Community Council deal with this application?
4. This property is zoned R2. What exactly does this zoning allow to be built there?
Do not use the reference number on the old sign. It will have changed.