Toronto No7 Rosedale | 16.76m | 4s | Platinum Vista | Hariri Pontarini

Looks like the decision is out, appeals allowed, subject to settlement conditions adopted by council.

southrosedale.org

LPAT ruling permits Dale Ave. condominium proposal to proceed – South Rosedale Residents' Assoc

Dear Members, We have received disappointing news on the Dale Avenue development proposal. The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) has issued a decision that permits the development to go forward, subject to the conditions imposed by City Council. The SRRA, MyRosedaleNeighbourhood and our...
southrosedale.org southrosedale.org
 
The Tribunal rejected the resident associations’ attempt to cast the three mid-century bungalows as “ugly ducklings” that were actually swans: “On the Tribunal’s perception of the evidence, the existing structures have characteristics of middling interest for which there are limited grounds of value and minimal motivation to preserve.”
 
Blovertis said:
The Tribunal rejected the resident associations’ attempt to cast the three mid-century bungalows as “ugly ducklings” that were actually swans: “On the Tribunal’s perception of the evidence, the existing structures have characteristics of middling interest for which there are limited grounds of value and minimal motivation to preserve.”
Click to expand...

I think the main problem is that said resident associations tried to make it a three-in-one deal. Had they concentrated on just the Sun House--with the preliminary of the original HCD pre-emptively giving the Sun House its due--they might have had a leg to stand on. (With the three-in-one, the neighbouring properties wound up figuratively dragging the Sun House down to their "middling interest" level.)

And rightly or wrongly, I can definitely see a certain present-day heritage POV viewing the Tribunal's decision as reflective of the Ford-gov't paradigm shift outlined here.

nationaltrustcanada.ca

Future Heritage Designations in Ontario - National Trust for Canada

Ontario’s new More Homes, More Choice Act guts municipal ability to protect local heritage and gives final say over designation...
nationaltrustcanada.ca nationaltrustcanada.ca
 
Ha, a pretty interesting way to sum up the project from the Tribunal member:

[155] Interestingly enough, in summarizing the evidence of Dr. Bray in their final written submissions, counsel for the Associations references Dr. Bray’s acknowledgement in his oral testimony that the buildings on the south side of Dale Avenue are quite different architecturally from those on the north side (a number of which on the north side are B-rated) and his assertion that 5, 7 and 9 Dale Avenue are “the cygnets misperceived as ugly ducklings”.

[156] Counsel for the Associations footnotes this quote with the following guidance for the Tribunal: “Dr. Bray was of course referring to the classic Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale “The Ugly Duckling”, a story of “a homely little bird born in a barnyard who suffers abuse from the others around him until, much to his delight (and to the surprise of others), he matures into a beautiful swan, the most beautiful bird of all.”

[157] Counsel then goes on to say, “It is an apt metaphor for under appreciated mid-century modern buildings that are at risk in Toronto”.

[158] This bit of guidance, in fact, reflects in a much more elegant and literary way what the Tribunal has come to appreciate about the Property and attempted to express more prosaically above.

[159] It is a tale of transformation anchored to the primary geographic beauty. The Revised Proposal is the swan informed by the heritage attributes of the Property. On the Tribunal’s perception of the evidence, the existing structures have characteristics of middling interest for which there are limited grounds of value and minimal motivation to preserve.
 
Last edited:
Not done yet apparently...... residents are seeking leave to appeal

southrosedale.org

SRRA/MRN seek leave to appeal LPAT decision permitting Dale Ave. condo to proceed – South Rosedale Residents' Assoc

Lawyers on behalf of SRRA and MyRosedaleNeighbourhood (MRN) have filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal the July 4, 2019 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision permitting a development proposal for a 4-storey, 26-unit condominium building at 5, 7 and 9 Dale Avenue to proceed. The...
southrosedale.org southrosedale.org

Lawyers on behalf of SRRA and MyRosedaleNeighbourhood (MRN) have filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal the July 4, 2019 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision permitting a development proposal for a 4-storey, 26-unit condominium building at 5, 7 and 9 Dale Avenue to proceed.

The proposed development involves the demolition of three heritage-rated, single-family homes and associated landscaping. According to the filing, the development proposal “does nothing to conserve or maintain the existing significant heritage resources beyond retaining token elements of the rear landscaping at 7 Dale.”

As noted in a July 5, 2019 email to members, SRRA, MRN and our lawyers reviewed the decision in consideration of possible next steps. Our lawyers determined, among other issues, that the LPAT decision contains errors of law that include “failing to apply the applicable provincial and municipal heritage planning policies as required by the Planning Act.”

According to the filing, “The errors of law contained within the Decision are of sufficient public attention so as to warrant the attention of the Divisional Court. The Decision undermines the protections provided to significant heritage resources within a heritage conservation district.”

With respect to legal and other professional costs incurred through the LPAT process, they are now covered in full. This has been achieved mainly via donations received and committed, and through the expenditure of $50,000 in Association funds approved by the SRRA board.

The SRRA wishes to express our sincere gratitude to the many generous individuals who have supported this appeal.

The LPAT ruling can be viewed by clicking here.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the leave to appeal motion decision is out on Canlii, request refused.

2019 ONSC 6631 (CanLII) | My Rosedale Neighbourhood v. Dale Inc. | CanLII

Access all information related to judgment My Rosedale Neighbourhood v. Dale Inc., 2019 ONSC 6631 (CanLII) on CanLII.
www.canlii.org


[31] The difficulty of that argument though is seen in para. 150 of the decision discussed above. The tribunal recited the opinion of the respondents’ expert that even with new information about the architect, the grade or rating of the one house did not require change. The tribunal knew the information and still held that the houses themselves “had characteristics of middling interest”. Once again, it is not the legal test that the applicants truly contest. It is the findings of fact or the legal standards as applied to the facts as found that they are challenging. As such, they do not raise an issue of law on this head either.

Outcome

[32] In planning cases such as this one, the role of the court is to ensure that the law is understood and applied appropriately by those charged with the tasks of making the planning decisions. It is well understood that planning matters involve policy decisions as much or more than legal ones. It is not the role of the court to balance competing policies, weigh subjective aesthetics, or to make the political compromises that underlie planning decisions.

[33] In this case, I am not making any determination about the heritage value of the proposed development. Rather, I am considering the court’s role as overseer of the legality of the process and make the sole finding that the applicants have not raised any issues of law that arise for decision in this case for which leave to appeal to the Divisional Court may be granted.

[34] The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.

[35] The respondents who appeared (other than the City) seek costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis. The applicants argue that $15,000 is a more appropriate figure. In my view, this was a complicated matter with three distinct arguments that required significant time by counsel. A reasonable costs outcome considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the of issue of access to justice is for the applicants to pay to the respondents Dale Inc. and Dale II Inc. jointly and severally costs in the aggregate sum of $22,500 all-inclusive.
 
65u8wfea.JPG
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top