Annex residents to fight condo project
Margaret Atwood and other well-heeled Annex residents are fighting a proposed 8-storey condo on Davenport Rd.

thestar.com
By BETSY POWELL
Aug. 28, 2017

Celebrated author Margaret Atwood, grocery store magnate Galen Weston, their spouses, and others have joined forces to fight a proposed mid-rise condo development in their beloved Annex neighbourhood.

City planning staff is recommending Toronto and East York Community Council agree to alter city planning rules so the proposal can proceed to council for approval.

“Overall, given the site and context, planning staff find the height and massing...to be acceptable,” says a staff report on next week’s community council agenda.

Even if council approves the development, the battle could still play out at the Ontario Municipal Board, the provincial agency that has final say on all planning decisions in the province.

The proposal calls for an existing two-storey commercial building at 321 Davenport Rd., south of Dupont St., to be demolished and replaced by an eight-storey building with 16 condo units and 30 parking spots in a two-level garage.

The proposed structure exceeds height and density rules so requires zoning bylaw amendments, typical of most condo building applications in Toronto.

“We have always believed that our development approach to 321 Davenport is the right one, and we will continue to advocate for our proposed scheme,” Danny Roth, a spokesman for Alterra Developments, wrote in an email.

After the community raised concerns last winter, the developer revised the proposal, modifying the front and rear facades “to fit better within the surrounding context,” the staff report says.

But several high-profile Annex residents, particularly those living in homes on Admiral Rd. with rear yards facing the Davenport property, are outraged by the proposal. They’ve sent emails, letters and a petition to city officials objecting to the “hulking presence.”

“I join my neighbours in their concerns about setbacks that violate bylaws, and about privacy issues, and about the precedent such large violations of bylaws would set, not only for the neighbourhood but for the city,” Atwood wrote in a letter to local Councillor Joe Cressy, who sits on that community council. He could not be reached for comment Monday.

Atwood included a link in her June 5 email to a newspaper story about a court case regarding shared trees.

There are no trees on the proposed site. But the proposed development has an impact on six privately owned trees located on three neighbouring properties, the staff report says.

“Neighbours must get permission to alter or damage a shared tree. It is against the law to act otherwise,” Atwood wrote, urging councillors to postpone a vote on the proposal back in June, pending further study on a tree “alleged” to be unhealthy. Without a proper assessment, “the developers may find themselves being sued,” she wrote. “That would be unfortunate; as such cases can drag on for a long time.”

(On Monday, she wrote in an email to the Star it would be premature to comment further but said any statement would have to come from all neighbours.)

Novelist Graeme Gibson, Atwood’s husband, suggested the proposed plans “hover close to a brutal and arrogant assault on a community that has been here since the 19th Century.”

Canadian businessman Galen Weston Jr., chair and president of Loblaw Companies Ltd., and his wife Alexandra, live on nearby Bernard Ave. and sent an email to Cressy in June outlining their concerns.

The development “designed as is, will change the neighbourhood in such a negative capacity and will devalue all of the assets we currently love about living here; it will no longer be the ideal place for our young family to grow up,” their email said.

The couple added: “This building is an invasion on our privacy, our community and an environmental assault on our neighbourhood.”

Artist/photographer Scott McFarland and his wife Cleophee Eaton, a member of the Eaton department store family, also emailed a long list of objections and suggestions to Cressy.

If, for instance, there are balconies, they should face Davenport, or, if they are permitted west, “they should be Juliette-style balconies.” They warned city planners not to repeat mistakes made in the past.

“We have made diligent efforts to communicate openly with our neighbours in the hopes of resolving any concerns they may have through the redevelopment process,” Roth’s emailed statement said.

“That said, our respect for the process and our sincere desire to reach agreement with stakeholders does not mean that the future of this site should be left solely in the hands of a few vocal residents. There is a planning process established, with mechanisms for resolving disputes, and we are fully committed to proceeding with that process.”