39 Sharron Drive Variance Requests File Number A0634/18NY October 11 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Opposition to 39 Sharron Drive Variance Requests File Number A0634/18NY October 11 th, 2018 Toronto Prepared by Allan Parkin Owner of 35 Sharron Drive Page number 1 of 9

1000 Meter Radius of 39 Sharron, C of A Applications History Data as of Jan 11 2018 • The following data is a synopsis of 460 C of A decisions from 2008 to date that have been individually reviewed to prepare the conclusions presented. • 209 applications were for demolition and new builds • The trend in new build applications is up, • 2010 = 12 Applications • 2016 = 55 applications • It is understandable that City Planning is overwhelmed and pressured into making decisions. • The conclusions are 39 Sharron’s Variance requests exceed the norms for Leaside in its entirety. Not only for the applications accepted but also for applications refused. • Most recently 41 Sharron Drive (File Number A0968/17NY) was refused in its entirety. Comparisons of the two applications are presented subsequently. • We ask that the Variance Application be refused in its entirety Page number 2 of 9

Sharron Drive Applications History 2008 to 2018 • There have been 9 renovations/rebuilds on Sharron Drive since 2007 that have been built within the By Laws, no C of A applications were made • In addition 3 applications have gone to C of A, Numbers 12, 33, 34, 39 Sharron • # 12 was accepted by C of A in 2008 • #’s 33,34 and 41 Sharron were recently denied in their entirety due to neighbors and community activism objecting to the mass and scale of the Plans on such a small street • 39 Sharron is asking for 15 Variances that significantly exceed those variances already denied on 33,34 and 41 Sharron applications. And yet the same opposition arguments apply to 39 as applied to all previous applications. • When the Committee denied the Application for 41 Sharron Drive a Committee member perceptively made the following comments: In reference to the Owner’s claim that “they love the neighborhood and want to live here” the Committee member responded • “You say you bought the house because you like the neighborhood… therefore the character of the area that you say you like should show up in the house being built (it doesn’t)”. In reference to the Owner’s presentation of revised variances at the Committee meeting the Committee member responded • “the changes you are making are cosmetic; you cannot keep making micro -changes and expect to satisfy the neighbors; you have to start from the character of the neighborhood itself” The objections to the requested Applications are not only objections to the egregious nature of the variances requested, which are not “minor” variances, but also to the out of character design of the house, its mass and scale on such a small street. There have been a number of successful redevelopments on Sharron, including mine, that were achieved without requesting Variances. These decisions were driven by a sense of fairness, respect for our neighbors and respect for the community we love. This application, like many already denied, is driven by greed and a disrespect for everything a civil society values. We ask that the Committee reject this application in its entirety. Page number 3 of 9

39 Sharron’s application wer ere com ompared to to al all l 161 161 de demoli lition C C of of A de decis isions s made in Nor orth th an and So South Lea Leasid ide. . 39 Sharron’s application exceeds the norms for 161 161 ne new bu buil ilds in Lea Leasid ide. The eg egregio ious na natu ture of of the Vari ariances s com ompared to to the nor norms al already refused ar are illu llustr trated be belo low. Detail De iled Da Data on on sl slid ide 6 Exceeds the variance % requested and denied for Sharron Drive Applications 2008 to Jan 2018 39 is requesting 5.4% variance Range of heights refused from 3.5% to 5.4% 39 is requesting 58% variance Range of Side setback 1 refused from 25% to 49% 39 is requesting 161% variance Range of Side setback 2 refused from 49% to 73% 39 is requesting 27% variance Range of FSI refused from 10% to 23% 39 is requesting 10.3% variance Range of Lot Coverage refused from 3.7% to 5.7% West Side Eaves Pojections one request 100% 39 is requesting 100% variance Exceeds the variance % requested and refused for Leaside in its entirety; 161 Demolition Applications 2008 to Jan 2018 39 is requesting 5.4% variance Average of heights refused 6.0% 39 is requesting 58% variance Average of Side setback 1 refused 33.0% 39 is requesting 161% variance Average of Side setback 2 refused 45.0% 39 is requesting 27% variance Average of FSI refused 17.0% 39 is requesting 10.3% variance Average of Lot Coverage refused 8.00% Page number 4 of 9

In In additi ition to o th the e varia iances pres esen ented on on th the e pri rior slid lide, e, 39 Sharron is is als lso o req equesting th the e fol ollowing variances es th that t have e bee een den enied ied or or not ot req eques ested on on Sharron Dr Driv ive. You ou can see ee th the e extreme natu ture of of th the e varia iances req equested ed con onti tinue e belo elow; Page number 5

39 Sharron’s application compared to all 161 demolition C of A decisions made in North and South Leaside. 39 Sharron V Varia iances exce ceed ed th the e nor orms for or new build ilds for or Lea Leaside in in its its en enti tirety (da data do download fr from om Cit City web ebsite as as of of Jan Jan 11, 11, 2018 2018) Page number 6 of 9

In reviewing the below OMB decision, which favored the appellant who opposed the Minor variances, the OMB decided that not only should numerical variations be considered but also, “fit”, appropriateness of design and impact on the neighborhood. In the case of 39 Sharron Drive, our opposition to the application is based on; • the egregious nature of the 15 numerical deviations, which are not “minor” • the overwhelming mass and inappropriateness of the design relative to the streetscape • The complete disregard for the impact of the design on the immediate neighbors, the streetscape and the character of Leaside. We ask that the Committee consider the numerical arguments presented and also the OMB reasoning presented below (Variances were denied) and reject 39 Sharron Drive’s application in its entirety OMB Decis isio ion rele levant t to to this his app pplic licatio ion for or Var aria iance: App ppella llant: Na Natalia lia Sab abat App pplic licant: Chris istin tine Moo oore Subje ubject: t: Minor Var aria iance Var ariance from om By-la law No No.: 43 438-86 86 Prop operty y Add ddress/Descrip iptio tion: 11 116 6 Bels lsiz ize Driv ive Mun unic icip ipali lity ty: City ty of f Toronto Mun unic icip ipal l File le No. No.: A06 0676/1 /16TE TEY OMB Cas ase No No.: PL161130 OMB File PL1 le No. No.: PL1 PL161130 OMB Cas ase Nam Name: Sabat v. Tor oronto (Cit ity) y) Page number 7 of 9

The Committee rejected the 41 Sharron Drive application in its entirety (Jan 2018). Now that 41 Sharron has been built, its overwhelming mass and impact on the streetscape can be seen. 39 Sharron Drive is requesting even bigger variances, building even closer to its neighbors. The below photos show the out of character design of 41 Sharron that 39 wants to replicate on a larger scale. We e ask th that t th the e Com Committee ee con onsider th the e OMB B decis ecision and den eny th the e variances and th the e in inappropriate mass, im impact and ch character of of th the e 39 Sharron Dr Drive e applic lication. • 39 Sharron Drive is in the center of this picture. • The Variances requested will produce a structure even larger and taller than the completely out of character and inappropriate design of the 41 Sharron box (on the left in picture) Page number Page number 8 of 9

To further emphasize the egregious nature of the Variances requested, the applicants Plan is presented. It illustrates the scale of the house, even more overwhelming than 41 Sharron Dr. and it will overwhelm the street. Page number Page number 9 of 9

Thank you for your consideration. Please help us protect the beauty of our neighborhood with developments that are appropriate and considerate of the community that exists Page number 10