What we do…
A key pillar of the Vision and Mandate of the LPRA is “to consider and promote all matters regarding the collective welfare of Lawrence Park and its preservation as a residential park area.”
If you are considering a renovation or rebuild within Lawrence Park, we encourage you to look at our Guiding Principles and Tips for Residents (below). The LPRA maintains a Development Committee, a goal of which is to help neighbours work together and reach consensus on development issues.
The Chair of the Development Committee can be reached at Development@LPRA.ca if you have any questions.
Committee of Adjustment Meetings:
The North York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment reviews applications for minor variances for construction in our neighbourhood. This panel meets every two weeks, usually on a Thursday.
The meeting schedule is available online.
Detailed Information on any current variance application can be obtained by searching the City of Toronto Application Information Centre at this link http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/mapSearchSetup.do?action=init. Street address is required.
The Development Committee of the LPRA is available to help you understand this process if you are interested in construction on your property or have questions about proposed development in the neighbourhood. Please email Development@LPRA.ca with questions.
The latest updates from our neighbours…
49-51 Lawrence Avenue and 84 Weybourne Crescent
The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) rendered a decision in December 2017 on the appeal made by the developer regarding his application to construct townhouses and an apartment building on the 3 lots located at 49 & 51 Lawrence Avenue and 84 Weybourne Crescent. The OMB decision denied the appeal and rejected the application. After the OMB denied the appeal, the applicant requested a Section 43 Review of the decision on the premise that, among other things, the OMB breached the principles of procedural justice and erred in law. If granted, this request could have led to another expensive, lengthy trial at the OMB. Happily for Lawrence Park, the Section 43 Review was dismissed by the OMB in late June 2018 and the OMB delude that the initial decision to refuse this application will stand.
The Board of the LPRA would like to extend sincere thanks to all the neighbours who worked so hard to oppose this development. In particular, the residents of Weybourne Crescent who partnered with the LPRA to create Support Good Planning in Lawrence Park to finance the defence of the case and the many Lawrence Park residents who generously donated funds for that purpose.
This decision marks another important victory for the Yonge-Lawrence neighbourhood!
The final decision is available here:
June 7, 2018
Mr. David Bronskill
Goodmans LLP Barristers & Solicitors
Bay Adelaide Centre – West Tower
333 Bay Street, Suite 3400
Toronto, ON M5H 2S7
Counsel for Yonge Lawrence Dev LP
Dear Mr. Bronskill,
RE: Section 43 Request for Review
Decision and Order of Member Lanthier issued December 13, 2017
OMB Case No.PL151111
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) acknowledges receipt of your Request
for Review (“Request”) of the Decision and Order of Member David Lanthier issued on
December 13, 2017 (“Decision”), in the above-captioned case number PL151111. The
Decision was issued prior to the date on which the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act
was proclaimed, being April 3, 2018. The Request is submitted on behalf of your client,
Yonge Lawrence Dev LP (“Applicant/AppeIlant”) and is filed pursuant to section 43 of
the Ontano Municipal Board Act. Sections 2 and 35 of the Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal Act authorize the Tribunal to continue the review of a decision of the Ontario
Municipal Board (“Board”) following the repeal of the Ontario Municipal Board Act.
The Board Rules to Dispose of a Request
Pursuant to subsection 17 (2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance
and Appointments Act, 2009, SO 2009, c 33, I have been delegated authority by the
Executive Chair of the Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario to dispose of all
aspects of your Request.
Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) sets out the process
to review a Tribunal decision or order. Rule 25.07 provides that a request may only be
granted if it raises a “convincing and compelling case” that one of the listed errors in this
Rule is applicable. This Rule reflects the high threshold which has been established by
the Board to review or reconsider a decision, and I am only authorized to exercise this
review power when this threshold has been met. The Rules deliberately set this
requirement for a person to establish a “convincing and compelling case” in recognition
of the importance and the profound effect that our decisions have on both private and
Background to the Request
The Decision considered the appeal of two applications submitted by the
Applicant/Appellant to the City of Toronto (“City”) for approval; an Official Plan
Amendment (“OPA”), and a Zoning By-iaw Amendment (“ZBA”) seeking to amend City
Zoning By-laws 438-86 and 569-201 3. The OPA and ZBA sought the necessary
authorization to permit the construction of a 19-unit double-row townhouse development
with parking garage and central courtyard (“proposed development”) on three
consolidated residential lots, namely, 49 and 51 Lawrence Avenue East and 84
Weybourne Crescent (“Property”). The Property is in an area designated as a
“Neighbourhoods” in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). The Applicant/Appellant appealed
the two applications pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990
(the “Act”) after the City failed to make a decision on each within statutory time periods.
The Board set out eight relevant issues for determination at paragraph 8 of the
Decision. The central issue in the appeal was whether the proposed Development is
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (“PPS”) and conforms to the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoes (“Growth Plan”).
The City opposed the proposed Development and argued that that the OP expressly
prevents this type of housing and density in this area pursuant to its designation as
“Neighbourhoods” and the prevailing building type. Also opposing the proposed
development at the appeal was a group named Support Good Planning Lawrence Park
Inc. (“SGPLP”), and three participants: Lawrence Park Ratepayers Association,
Lawrence Park Heritage Committee, and a resident.
At the hearing, the Board qualified a number of expert witnesses from all parties and
heard opinion evidence on planning, architecture, and design aspects of the proposed
development. Throughout the Decision, the Board considered and thoughtfully weighed
the evidence provided and concluded that the proposed development did not represent
good planning and was not in conformance with the objectives, policies, and
development criteria in the City’s OP. In particular, the proposed development did not
comply with the policies that relate to the preservation of the physical context and
character of Neighbourhoods, including policies 2.3.1, 126.96.36.199, 4.1; 4.1.1, 4.1.5, and
5.3.1. Accordingly, the applications were denied and the appeals were dismissed.
Disposition on the Request
The Request alleges that the Board breached the principles of procedural fairness and
erred in law and fact. The Request makes a number of submissions alleging the Board
failed to give sufficient weight to certain submissions oftheApplicant/Appellant and did
not adequately consider the opinion evidence provided by its planner, Mr. Peter Smith. I
find the Request does not meet the threshold to warrant a review as set out in the
Board’s Rules and is dismissed for the reasons below.
First, the Request submits the Board erred in law and violated procedural fairness by
failing to address policies 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 of the City’s OP. In particular, it alleges the
Board ignored the intent of OP policies and major streets by only comparing the
proposed development to “detached dwellings” and “created a test that couid never be
met”. I do not agree with this assertion as the Decision is specific to the proposed
The allegation in paragraph 12 of the Request is misleading by its suggestion that
paragraph 34 sets out an exhaustive list of policies considered by the panel. Paragraph
34 is explicit that it only highlights some sections of the OP to which the panel was
directed. It does not hold itself out as an exhaustive list of policies the Board considered
and it is inappropriate that the Request hints that it does.
Furthermore, the allegation that the Board failed to consider or did not place enough
weight on the two policies is without merit. The Decision provides extensive reasons to
explain the Board’s finding that the applications did not meet the test required by the
provincial planning regime. The Board thoroughly canvassed and disposed of these
issues at paragraphs 30, 38, 44, 48, 49, and 79 of the Decision. Further, the fact that
the proposal is on a major street did not go unaddressed by the Board and is disposed
of at paragraph 79 of the Decision:
presence of the Lawrence transit station which is sufficient to alter the findings
of the Board. The Board is of the view that although there may be compelling
reasons to see a low-rise townhouse development, such as the one […] proposed, made available to home buyers in the City, these circumstances do
not trump planning policies that exist nor alter the requirement for conformity
with the Official Plan policies relating to Neighbourhoods.
Second, the Request alleges the Board erred in law and violated procedural fairness by
failing to appropriately analyze the OPA application. The Request submits the Board
concluded that o/i/ythe ZBA was not appropriate and was required to provide a more
comprehensive analysis of the OPA application. The Requests alleges the approach
taken by the Board diminished the statutory right to a hearing of this private application
provided by s. 22 of the Act.
It is common practice for the Board to consider applications together which are
necessary to implement one development proposal. These are commonly referred to as
companion or related applications. In the Decision, the Board considered the two
applications together as the “proposed Development”. The Decision relied upon many of
the same grounds in its assessment of the two applications—the proposed ZBA and
OPA—and determined that they are not appropriate and do not represent good
planning. It is not an error of the Board to undertake a concurrent analysis of the
applications. The Request is a mischaracterization of the reasons provided in the
On this ground, the Request further alleges the Board failed give sufficient weight to
provincial policy to override the OP and, in particular, failed to adequately consider the
evidence provided by planner Smith regarding the applications’ conformity with
provincial policy. This argument is redundant with the third ground alleged by the
Request, in which you submit the Board erred in law by incorrectly applying s. 3(5) of
the Act by failing to give sufficient weigh to the PPS and Growth Plan.
This argument was advanced at the appea! and discussed at length in the Decision. As
the Request properly points out, these arguments were disposed of at paragraphs 77,
78, and 79 of the Decision, in which the Board did not agree with the
Applicant/Appellant’s submissions that provincial policy permits intensification in
contravention with the City’s OP. The Board found that this approach “ignores the
fundamental designation of the OP as the most important municipal vehicle used to
implement the intensification policies of the OP pursuant to s. 4.7 of PPS.” At paragraph
79, the Board clarifies:
If the Development is to be built it must be built at a location that is in
conformance with the Official Plan and the provincial policies relating to
intensification and not in spite of the Official Plan that properly implements
those provincial intensification policies. […].
As explained in the Decision, the OP properly implements the PPS at the property and
there is no error with this finding. A request for review is not an opportunity to reargue
the issues disposed of in the Decision.
Finally, the Request alleges that the Board erred in law and violated procedural fairness
by failing to hear and consider evidence regarding conformity with the Growth Plan as
amended in July 2017. First, the Request submits the Board breached the rules of
procedural fairness by not requesting supplementary submission from the parties.
Second, the Request submits the Board relied on certain provisions in rendering its
Decision that have since been amended, and in so doing therefore erred in law. The
Request did not include any case law.
While the Request alleges the Board erred by relying on language and policies referred
to in the Growth Plan that have since been deleted and replaced, the Request does not
provide any submissions on how the Decision does not conform with the 2017
amendments to the Growth Plan. The Request fails to suggest or even allude to how
the application of the amended Growth Plan would alter the central findings of the
Decision. I cannot find the Board breached the rules of procedural fairness by not
requesting supplementary submissions from the parties, nor do 1 find the Board made
an error of law.
For all of these reasons, the Request does not establish a “convincing and compelling
case” that the Board breached the principles of procedural justice or erred accordance
with the Rules to warrant a review. The Request is dismissed and the Decision remains
in force and effect.
James R. McKenzie
Associate Chair, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal