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 11th, 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
• f 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
• verwhelmed 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

• mpared to

to al all l 161 161 de demoli lition C C of

• f A de

decis isions s made in Nor

• rth

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

• f the Vari

ariances s com

• mpared to

to the nor norms al already refused ar are illu llustr trated be belo low. De Detail iled Da Data on

• n sl

slid ide 6

Page number 4 of 9

Range of heights refused from 3.5% to 5.4% Range of Side setback 1 refused from 25% to 49% Range of Side setback 2 refused from 49% to 73% Range of FSI refused from 10% to 23% Range of Lot Coverage refused from 3.7% to 5.7% West Side Eaves Pojections

• ne request 100%

Average of heights refused 6.0% Average of Side setback 1 refused 33.0% Average of Side setback 2 refused 45.0% Average of FSI refused 17.0% Average of Lot Coverage refused 8.00% Exceeds the variance % requested and denied for Sharron Drive Applications 2008 to Jan 2018 39 is requesting 10.3% 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 39 is requesting 58% variance 39 is requesting 161% variance 39 is requesting 27% variance 39 is requesting 100% variance 39 is requesting 5.4% variance 39 is requesting 58% variance 39 is requesting 161% variance 39 is requesting 27% variance 39 is requesting 10.3% variance

In In additi ition to

• th

the e varia iances pres esen ented on

• n th

the e pri rior slid lide, e, 39 Sharron is is als lso

• req

equesting th the e fol

• llowing

variances es th that t have e bee een den enied ied or

• r not
• t req

eques ested on

• n Sharron Dr

Driv

• ive. You
• u can see

ee th the e extreme natu ture of

• f

th the e varia iances req equested ed con

• nti

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

• rms for
• r new build

ilds for

• r Lea

Leaside in in its its en enti tirety

(da data do download fr from

• m Cit

City web ebsite as as of

• f Jan

Jan 11, 11, 2018 2018)

Page number 6 of 9

OMB Decis isio ion rele levant t to to this his app pplic licatio ion for

• r Var

aria iance: App ppella llant: Na Natalia lia Sab abat App pplic licant: Chris istin tine Moo

• ore

Subje ubject: t: Minor Var aria iance Var ariance from

• m By-la

law No No.: 43 438-86 86 Prop

• perty

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.: PL1 PL161130 OMB File le No. No.: PL1 PL161130 OMB Cas ase Nam Name: Sabat v. Tor

• ronto (Cit

ity) y)

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

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

• nsider 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

• f th

the e 39 Sharron Dr Drive e applic lication.

• 39 Sharron Drive is in the center
• f this picture.
• The Variances requested will

produce a structure even larger and taller than the completely

• ut of character and

inappropriate design of the 41 Sharron box (on the left in picture)

Page number 8 of 9 Page number

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

• f the community that exists

Page number 10