Law Times

Law Times • June 27, 2011 FOCUS PAGE 9 continues after council voted to send last year's new set of planning rules back for reconsideration recently. At the time it took eff ect, munici- Toronto reconsiders 'infamous' zoning bylaw T BY GLENN KAUTH Law Times oronto's long-running eff ort to move amalgamation forward with a comprehensive zoning bylaw continue to vary throughout the city. Th e bylaw also set a common defi - nition for measuring height. But while that sounds relatively mundane, things weren't so simple. In some cases, the changes meant a property owner might not be able to get a minor variance from the zoning rules. Th e big problem, according to Cos- pal and planning lawyers said property owners would need to be vigilant about protecting their rights under the new bylaw. It appears that's exactly what happened after the City of Toronto found itself facing 694 appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board. Th e move to rescind what Aird & Berlis LLP partner Eileen Costello calls a now "infamous" bylaw certainly surprised a lot of people. But she notes the eff ort was worthwhile given the desire to have a common set of rules following amalgama- tion of the city's six former municipalities 13 years ago. "It was a laudable undertak- ing by the city," she says. "Th ey were faced with a situation where they had bylaws for all of the former municipalities. Th ere re- ally was a maze of local regulations." Th e comprehensive zoning bylaw enact- ed last year was largely about establishing a common language for describing the city's land-use standards. It set, for example, a citywide calculation for density based on a fl oor-space index rather than gross-fl oor area. But the actual density limits would tello, was the lack of a meaningful tran- sition period for implementing the new rules. So some property owners might have obtained a minor variance while the old bylaw was in eff ect but found themselves unable to get a permit to ac- tually make the modifi cations once the new rules took hold. As a result, some- one might have later ended up having to seek a height variance and face neigh- bours and a committee of adjustment once again in order to build an exten- sion to a house in accordance with the new standards. "I think if they're going to do it again, they really need to have a transition pe- riod," says Costello. "Basically, the harmonized bylaw ended up collapsing under its own weight," says Barnet Kussner, a leader of WeirFoulds LLP's municipal, planning, and development practice. Kussner notes his fi rm acted for about 25 clients who appealed the bylaw's provi- sions. In his view, while people will always be unhappy with changes to the rules, the goal now should be to minimize appeals Online toxics database planned Continued from page 8 implement this regime," says Finney, who nevertheless wonders about the resources available to Toronto Public Health to do things like provide a map for residents to track chemicals where they live. Th e idea, however, was to give residents information on toxic substances that may aff ect them and provide a push for businesses to reduce their use and emissions through, for example, pressure from the public. So far, Whate says the plan is to make the infor- mation available through some sort of online database. Still, he notes the city would like to go beyond that. At the same time, Whate defends the program against con- cerns about the cost. "Th ere are benefi ts to tracking," he says, noting that businesses can take advantage of the new information they have on their use of chemicals by fi nding ways to reduce it and save money. SUBSTANCES REQUIRING DISCLOSURE • Acetaldehyde • Acrolein • Benzene • 1,3-Butadiene • Cadmium • Carbon tetrachloride • Chloroform • Chromium (hexavalent) • Chromium (non-hexavalent) • 1,4-Dichlorobenzene • 1,2-Dichloroethane • Dichloromethane • Ethylene dibromide • Formaldehyde • Lead • Manganese • Mercury • Nickel compounds • Nitrogen oxides • Particulate matter • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons • Tetrachloroethylene • Trichloroethylene • Vinyl chloride • Volatile organic compounds DAVID PAYNE | WENDY MOORE JOHNS | DAVID TENSZEN Since 1936 Thomson, Rogers has built a strong, trusting, and collegial relationship with hundreds of lawyers across the province. As a law firm specializing in civil litigation, we have a record of accomplishment second to none. With a group of 30 litigators and a support staff of over 100 people, we have the resources to achieve the best possible result for your client. Moreover, we are exceptionally fair when it comes to referral fees. We welcome the chance to speak or meet with you about any potential referral. We look forward to creating a solid relationship with you that will benefit the clients we serve. YOUR ADVANTAGE, in and out of the courtroom. TF: 1.888.223.0448 T: 416.868.3100 W: www.thomsonrogers.com Source: City of Toronto Untitled-1 1www.lawtimesnews.com 6/20/11 12:08:59 PM to the OMB through a revised version. "I cer- tainly tend to advise my clients that they should as much as possible try to get in on the ground fl oor," he says, noting the city has sent out no- tices to parties that ap- pealed the bylaw off er- ing to meet with them and hear their concerns. "Th is is going to be a much more fulsome op- portunity to shape the policy." Tom Wall, a City of Toronto lawyer who handles appeals before the OMB, notes the one-hour meetings will take place throughout June, July, and August. "We're looking at the issues they've raised and determining whether or not they're viable," he says. Following the meetings, staff will 'I think if they're going to do it again, they really need to have a transition period,' says Eileen Costello. council for approval by February. "We'll have to see. It's a pretty short time frame," Wall responds when asked if the pro- cess is feasible. Th e city's move to nix the comprehensive zon- ing bylaw was certainly a shocker for many people, but the appeals it created were not. Last year, one lawyer predicted it would result in a "minefi eld" of legal challenges. But as Costello notes, there has been a side benefi t to the city's de- cision to go back to the drawing board in the face of the 694 OMB appeals given that the board no longer has to schedule those cases. "Suddenly, you can get a quick hearing," she says. Her hope, then, is for a set of rules that send the appellants a proposed solution to see if it resolves their complaints. Th e resulting report would then be subject to a public meeting in October. Th e idea, Wall notes, is to come up with a proposal for a revamped comprehensive zoning bylaw that would address the concerns and "diminish as many appeals as pos- sible." Th e new version would go before includes a transition period. As well, she'd like to see more consistency from staff in how to interpret the bylaw, something she says people weren't getting up until now. In the meantime, she's advising clients to act quickly now that the old zoning bylaw pro- visions are once again in eff ect for the time being. "Get your applications in for your building permits now," she says. TRUST you're putting your reputation on the line. It's all about trust well placed.

• Cover
• Critical View
• Child Protection
• Focus On Muicipa; & Planning Law