‘Minor variances’ can be a major issue for Toronto builders
Queen St. building typifies the city’s loose approval of problematic projects, critics say.
Thestar.com
April 23, 2015
By Betsy Powell
As someone who buys and renovates buildings, Morey Papier says he’s not anti-development.
Nevertheless, Papier was at the Ontario Municipal Board recently appealing a committee of adjustment’s decision to approve a five-storey medical centre at 1895 Queen St. E., near Woodbine Ave. A two-storey house will be razed to make way.
“As a landowner, I should be celebrating that they want to put up this,” Papier said, pointing to an artist’s rendering of the proposed building. “I just couldn’t stand the process - absolutely not appropriate.”
To construct the building, the firm behind the project applied to a committee of adjustment requesting five minor variances.
But what constitutes a “minor” variance? That’s the question at the heart of this and many other disputes over Toronto projects.
At the OMB hearing, land use planner Michael Manett, representing Papier, argued the proposed development does not meet the requirements for minor variance under Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act.
“The proposed development would have a mass that is significantly larger than adjacent dwellings and will impact the overall streetscape of the block,” Manett argued.
The developer should have instead applied for a zoning bylaw amendment, “which has more extensive requirements for approval and provides the opportunity for a more fulsome review and analysis by city staff,” Manett said.
Aaron Cheng, an architect with C & Partners Inc., says he was following the directions of the city planning department, which was “very welcoming to the project.”
“Since we’ve been through a comprehensive site plan with the city, we were told to apply for the minor variance.”
Last December, a committee of adjustment considered the application at Toronto City Hall. Fourteen items, including the application for 1895 Queen St. E., were listed on the agenda between 12:30 and 1:30 pm. Overall, 37 applications were scheduled that day.
Because he is in the real estate business, Papier says he knew enough to attend the meeting, but most wouldn’t have a clue. “With a committee of adjustment hearing, the only time anybody finds out about it is when they put an 8-by-10 sign in a window, 10 days before,” he says during a break in the two-day OMB hearing.
“You have to be lucky to find out there actually is a hearing, and most people have no idea what the procedure is like. You have to run to city hall to get the paperwork. It’s almost a secret process.”
David Faed, a lawyer who lives near 1895 Queen St. E., also showed up to the committee of adjustment to voice his and a neighbor’s opposition to the project, but was “cut off” from speaking after seven minutes.
“They do so much there (at the committee) that they are pressured, and it’s not a fair hearing,” says Faed, who also attended last week’s OMB hearing. “The process doesn’t allow anyone to provide a full-blown analysis of anything.”
The committee of adjustment approved the plan in a 2-1 decision. Papier appealed. He owns several properties along Woodbine, including a three-storey commercial/residential building on the corner at Queen - “the gateway to the Beach” - that he bought in 1996.
“This is an important case because it’s going to set a precedent,” he says.
Lawyer Robert Holland, who also represented Papier at the OMB hearing, said in an interview the medical centre is the latest example of inappropriate projects “sliding through” committees of adjustment.
“It’s simply a gross departure from what is eligible or contemplated by a minor variance,” Holland told the Star’s Sean Wetselaar.
Lawyers for Cheng argued the project followed the Queen St. E. urban design guideline, something agreed to and approved with public input from the local BIA and other stakeholders.
“In fact, our building is smaller than what was allowed in the guidelines,” Cheng wrote in email.
Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon (Ward 32, Beaches-East York) supports Cheng’s application.
The variances comply “with the intent and purpose of the planning regime for this portion of Queen Street East ... and will bring commercial vibrancy and professional services to the area,” she wrote in a Jan. 7 letter to council. She asked council to authorize that a city lawyer and a representative from the planning department attend the OMB hearing.
The planning department took no position at the OAC hearing.
Edward Birnbaum, McMahon’s executive assistant, who has a background in planning, said the proposed building is “not a significantly larger building than is allowed or what was there.”
“The committee could have told him (Papier), ‘No, this is major, not minor,” he said this week.
“On the face of it, it does look like it’s appropriate to go to the committee of adjustment, but we’ll let the OMB have their opinion.”
Councillor John Filion, (Ward 23, Willowdale) who sits on the city’s planning and growth committee, shares the concerns raised in the case now being decided by the OMB.
Committees of adjustment are dealing with cases they weren’t intended to handle.
“In my area, it’s all builders, it’s not somebody building a new deck, and there’s some strange configuration with the elevation of the property,” Filion told the Star.
“It’s pretty much all builders, all stuff that involves a fair bit of bucks, and it’s wanting a variance because they want a variance and they can make more money building a bigger house.”
City spokesman Bruce Hawkins said in an email to the Star that the minor variance process “was appropriate for this proposal.” Among the variances approved by the committee of adjustment was a height increase from 12 metres to 15.8 metres, or one extra storey.
