Committee of Adjustment – May 14, 2014

Hearing Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Council Chambers – North York Civic Centre – 5100 Yonge Street

Applications for Leaside area projects:

  • A242/14NY – 140 Leacrest Rd.
  • A250/14NY – 86 Vanderhoof Ave.
  • A256/14NY – 80 Divadale Dr.
  • A257/14NY – 27 Fleming Cres.
  • A280/14NY – 49 Rumsey Rd.

Requested variances for these projects (PDF)

Drawings for these projects (PDF)

27 Fleming Cres.
27 Fleming Cres. from street
27 Fleming Cres.
27 Fleming Cres. from rear yard

27 Fleming Cres.

The LPOA has particular concerns about this project. For background, please read LPOA Co-President Geoff Kettel’s article in the May 2014 edition of Leaside Life.

The LPOA has submitted the following letter to the Committee of Adjustment opposing the application for 27 Fleming Cres.:


The Committee of Adjustment,
North York Civic Centre,
5100 Yonge Street,
North York, Ont.,
M2N 5V7.

May 8, 2014.

Re: 27 Fleming Crescent,
File No. A257/14NY

Att: Dan Antonacci,
Manager & Deputy Secretary Treasurer North District Panel.

Dear Mr Antonacci,

The Leaside Property Owners Association provides this correspondence to express our opposition to the request for variances to the zoning by-laws with respect to this property. This is request is for retroactive approval for a building that is already built and largely completed, (a fact which is not noted on the Notice of Committee of Adjustment application). The application involves a new two-storey dwelling with an integral garage at grade constructed without seeking approval, and demolition of the single storey dwelling formerly present on the site for which approval was given only for a renovation, not a new build.

This property file began its life as a “renovation” of a one storey home on a standard size Leaside lot. There is no site constraint which would have forced this development to not comply with the existing by-laws. Rather, it appears that the owner deliberately filed architectural drawings that it never had any intention to follow, as is proven by the fact that when the violations were noted the owner elected to flout the by-laws and ignore the City’s stop-work order. Now that the house is essentially built from the inside, the owner is attempting to use that fact to seek “forgiveness”, knowing it would never have obtained permission in the first place. Aside from the dangerous precedent that “forgiveness” would create in these circumstances, where the house has a .85 FSI, the owner’s conduct has caused enormous frustration, outrage and annoyance for the neighbours who are justifiable distressed by the City’s failure to take action in a situation as egregious as this.

The issues demonstrated at this property include the following:

  • Intentional filing of inaccurate architectural drawings
  • Failure to seek appropriate approvals prior to construction
  • Invalidation of “renovation” status due to deliberate removal of over 50% of the original walls
  • Holding an invalid building permit, and failure to display permit
  • Continued construction despite a stop work order issued by city staff
  • Causing a change of grade to effect conformity to the zoning by-laws
  • Seeking retroactive approval (building illegally constructed)

The following are the 7 requested variances (eliminating overlap between the bylaws):

  1. Section 10.20.40.10. (1), By-law No. 569-2013.
    Proposed building height of 8.44M, WHEREAS maximum building height of 7.2m is permitted. This is 1.12M over permitted.
  2. Section 6.3.3, By-law No. 1916 and Section 10.20.40.10.(1), By-law No. 569-2013.
    Proposed Floor Space Index (FSI) of 0.85 times the area of the lot, WHEREAS a maximum FSI of 0.60 times the area of the lot is permitted. This is 41.66% over permitted.
  3. Section 10.20.40.70(1), Bylaw 569-2013
    Proposed minimum required front yard setback is 9.17M whereas 9.2 is required
  4. Section 10.20.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013
    Proposed minimum north side setback 0.95M whereas 1.2M is required
  5. Section 10.20.40.70.(3), By-law 569-2013 and Section 6.3.3 By-Law No. 1916
    Proposed minimum required south side setback is 0.24M whereas 1.2M is required.
  6. Section 10.20.40.10, By-law No. 569-2013.
    Proposed first floor height above established grade is claimed to be 1.35m whereas maximum permitted is 1.2M.
  7. Section 10.20.40.50.(1) By-law No.569-2013
    Proposed area of the rear platform (deck) at or above the second storey is 10.2M whereas the maximum permitted is 4.0M.

In addition, it appears that not all the variances pertinent to Leaside Bylaw (1916) and City of Toronto 569-2013 have been identified.

The house as built is too high, too large, and out of character with the existing streetscape on Fleming Crescent and the rear–yard perspective from Cameron Crescent.

This property is located in the part of Leaside that has a maximum permitted FSI of 0.6 (versus 0.45%) i.e. it is already in the more dense part and the house exceeds by an incredible 42 per cent this already generous provision.

It goes without saying that this application is not in keeping with the provisions and intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-laws and the Character Guidelines for the Community of Leaside, each of which are intended to preserve the character of the neighbourhood.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and request that the application for variances be deferred for verification of additional variances, or if this is not agreed to, that it be rejected.

For your information the LPOA is pursuing a request through the Councillor that the City take immediate action to pursue all legal avenues, including court action, to enforce compliance with the building and zoning regulations with respect to this property.

Yours truly,

Geoff Kettel for

Geoff Kettel and Carol Burtin-Fripp
Co-Presidents, LPOA

cc Councillor John Parker


Letter sent to Councillor John Parker re: 27 Fleming Cres.:

May 8, 2014.

Councillor John Parker
City Hall
100 Queen Street West, Suite A13
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

Re: 27 Fleming Crescent in Leaside

Dear Councillor Parker,

The Leaside Property Owners Association requests that you make a Motion at next week’s North York Community Council as follows:

  • That North York Community Council recommends that City Council direct staff to take immediate action to pursue all legal avenues, including court action to enforce compliance with the building and zoning regulations with respect to the property at 27 Fleming Crescent.

This property file began its life as a “renovation” of a one storey home on a standard size Leaside lot. There is no site constraint which would have forced this development to not comply with the existing by-laws. Rather, it appears that the owner deliberately filed architectural drawings that it never had any intention to follow, as is proven by the fact that when the violations were noted the owner elected to flout the by-laws and ignore the City’s stop-work order. Now that the house is essentially built from the inside, the owner is attempting to use that fact to seek “foregiveness”, knowing it would never have obtained permission in the first place. Aside from the dangerous precedent that “foregiveness’ would create in these circumstances, where the house has a .85 FSI, the owner’s conduct has caused enormous frustration, outrage and annoyance for the neighbours who are justifiable distressed by the City’s failure to take action in a situation as eggregious as this.

The issues demonstrated at this property include the following:

  • Intentional filing of inaccurate architectural drawings
  • Failure to seek appropriate approvals prior to construction
  • invalidation of “renovation” status due to “accidental” removal of walls
  • Holding an invalid building permit, and failure to display permit
  • Continued construction despite a stop work order issued by city staff
  • Void construction permit due to non-compliance
  • Causing a change of grade to affect conformity to the zoning by-laws
  • Seeking retroactive approval (building illegally constructed)

An article in the April edition of Leaside Life (“Builder won’t stop, city does nothing” provides more background on the matter.

In summary, we request that the city takes immediate enforcement action to ensure compliance with its by-laws.

Yours truly,

Geoff Kettel for

Geoff Kettel and Carol Burtin-Fripp
Co-Presidents, LPOA

Join the Leaside Residents Association today!

Holler Box