Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Condominium Development

  1. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 938 v. Wei

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Industrial Development, Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Jane Wei operates the Middlefield Kumon Centre for mathematics and reading in the second floor of an industrial condominium in the City of Toronto. Some years ago, the City advised the applicant to obtain a variance for that use, which she did in 2006 and 2008. She had to reapply again in 2013 as the variance was only valid for two years and upon reapplication, the Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 938 appealed the Committee’s variance decision to the Board, alleging that the centre represented problems for the building management. Two other corporations with factories nearby, appeared to oppose the variance as well: Owens Corning Insulating Systems Canada LP and Trench Canada.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    For the purposes of this appeal, the Board finds no evidence on which to suppose any digression from the four statutory tests at this time. The variance to the applicable Zoning By-law of the City of Toronto is authorized in accordance with the decision of the Committee of Adjustment. The Board found that, if the Motion were granted, the established situation would be compromised primarily on the basis of an apprehension – unproven – that a non-party might have difficulties with MOE at some indeterminate point in the future.


    Document(s):



  2. Whiteley v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The City of Guelph passed Zoning By-law 2010-19022 to permit a residential condominium townhouse development in Guelph. Whiteley appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment to the Board. The Applicant seeks approval for 45 dwelling units including the existing single, 28 cluster townhouses and 16 multiple attached dwellings on the eastern portion of the site, east of a union gas easement and adjacent to the open space valley lands. The Appellant questions the safety, visual impact and environmental aspects of the development.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The appeal is dismissed as to By-law 19022 based upon the reasons he advanced above and the findings of the Board. By-law 19022 is found to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City of Guelph Official Plan in effect. By-law 19022 represents good planning and is in the public interest. There is appropriate regard for the Provincial interests in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the protection of ecological systems.


    Document(s):



  3. Springhill Development Corp. and Dahmer and DeGraff v. City of Orillia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicant wishes to build an 8-storey condominium building on the site containing 74 residential units. This is an appeal to the Board under subsection 34(19) and 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 2001-173 of the City of Orillia and from a decision of the City of Orillia to refuse approval of Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied there are sufficient controls relating to the Site Plan and the Holding Zone in the By-law to provide for a good development. In this case, the Board finds that the proposed development will have a minimal acceptable impact on the neighbours. While there will be impact to properties surrounding the condominiums development and some sunlight and privacy will be lost, overall the Board finds the impact acceptable, recognizing that the proposed development may set a precedent for what can be developed along the waterfront.


    Document(s):