\u201cIt had a simple, straightforward, family-oriented design,\u201d he said.\u00a0\u201cEverything looked great\u00a0\u2014\u00a0until it was time to put pen to paper.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The proposal was rejected outright last month by the Scarborough committee of adjustment,\u00a0a tribunal appointed by council to rule on requests by property owners to slightly bend zoning bylaws.<\/p>\n
Members said they found Malhotra\u2019s plan both inappropriate and undesirable \u2014\u00a0too tall for the street\u00a0at six storeys, even while they acknowledged its height would be within regulations\u00a0under a new law\u00a0and therefore not subject to their approval.<\/p>\n
For some local residents, the decision on Malhotra\u2019s proposal was a rare bright spot for the committee of adjustment, which has approved more than 90 per cent of applications in the last decade, according to city data<\/a>.\u00a0They applaud its members for empowering their fight to preserve their lowrise, suburban lifestyle.<\/p>\n Toronto developers were rattled by it. Planners, architects and housing advocates all expressed frustration with the committee of adjustment,\u00a0which they accuse of going rogue to try to counteract the city\u2019s push for so-called \u201cmissing middle\u201d or medium density homes as a vehicle for more affordable housing.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need consistency and predictability to deliver more housing,\u201d\u00a0said Malhotra, who has filed an appeal. \u201cWithout it, people, developers, institutions and sources of capital could be scared away.\u201d<\/p>\n Local opposition weighs in<\/p>\n Neighbours, admittedly, hated Malhotra\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n The developer said he was rebuffed or ignored when he knocked on the doors of the one- and two-storey homes near his property. Six neighbours\u00a0submitted letters to the committee<\/a>\u00a0of adjustment, opposing the project over privacy and parking concerns.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The lot at 397 Pharmacy Ave. where developer Romit Malhotra proposed to build a six-storey apartment building.<\/p>\n R.J. Johnston Toronto Star<\/p>\n One nearby resident said the proposed building would \u201cstand out as a significant eyesore,\u201d destroying the area\u2019s \u201cvisual harmony.\u201d\u00a0A next door neighbour worried that increased traffic on the street would make kids walking to school unsafe.\u00a0One person living the next street over wondered what the \u201ctarget demographic and income bracket for prospective tenants\u201d would be and whether their trash might attract coyotes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Bob and Sandra Lukewich have lived in the area for 30 years. They appeared at the committee hearing for the project last month to voice their objection. They said in an interview they were \u201cquite happy\u201d the proposal was rejected, even if it did conform to some city planning policies. The policies are wrong-headed, they believe, and committee was right to recognize that.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rendering of the rejected six-storey apartment building at 397 Pharmacy Ave. in Scarborough.<\/p>\n Noam Hazan Design Studio<\/p>\n Their beloved yard, where their grandkids come to play, would be overshadowed by the midrise \u2014 they\u2019d feel uncomfortable with it looming over at them, they said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe privacy issue is huge,\u201d said Sandra. \u201cThis is a very sweet little area. Why can\u2019t they just let this continue to be a sweet little residential area?\u201d<\/p>\n Bob said he only learned\u00a0about the development when the city notified him.<\/p>\n \u201cTo us, it\u2019s basically a rooming house,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s like 20-something rooms. To have 25 families, 50 to 60 people putting an excess strain on the sewer and water system in our area is something that shouldn\u2019t be allowed. We do appreciate the need for housing and all that, but it doesn\u2019t have to be this extreme.\u201d<\/p>\n Schematics for the rejected building show it would have had had space for 25 people\u00a0\u2014 not families. It had eight two-bedroom apartments, a four-bed with a den and a five-bedroom spanning two floors.\u00a0<\/p>\n Local councillor Parthi Kandavel also came out against the 10-unit building, writing in his own letter to the committee that it would be \u201cunprecedented\u201d in the low-density neighbourhood. Allowing it could entice more developers to build mid-rises there, which would not be fair to the people who moved to the area expecting \u201cstability\u201d and enduring quiet, wrote Kandavel, who did not return requests for comment from the Star.<\/p>\n \u2018Thankfully, I am not part of the city\u2019<\/p>\n None of these concerns matter, legally speaking.<\/p>\n As of September, developers no longer need to file rezoning applications to construct six-storey buildings on arterial roads, such as Pharmacy Avenue in Scarborough, where Malhotra\u2019s company owns this and another property. City council, including Kandavel,\u00a0voted in support of the so-called \u201cmajor streets\u201d policy change<\/a>\u00a0in 2024.<\/p>\n Local councillor Parthi Kandavel, who opposed the 397 Pharmacy Ave. development, voted in favour of city council\u2019s \u201cmajor streets\u201d policy change.\u00a0<\/p>\n R.J. Johnston Toronto Star File Photo<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that the surrounding area is lowrise is not, under the policy framework, a reason to prohibit apartments on major streets,\u201d said Malhotra. \u201cIn fact, that\u2019s what the major streets policy is supposed to provide.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n All Malhotra\u2019s planner needed from committee was permission to make the building a few feet longer and closer to its neighbours than regulations allow, in order to make the units a bit bigger and accommodate a parking space.<\/p>\n But that wasn\u2019t what committee took issue with.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we have here is an apartment building of 19 metres, six storeys, stuck right between two single-family homes,\u201d said committee member Eric Hou at the January meeting. \u201cI just can\u2019t see this being desirable or appropriate.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Hou also felt there wouldn\u2019t be enough parking, even though council voted in 2021 to\u00a0eliminate minimum parking requirements<\/a>\u00a0for most new builds with the goal of reducing development costs and encouraging transit use.<\/p>\n Developers on the project\u00a0argued that residents would make use of the bus stop right outside the property instead of driving. And while the building would tower over its immediate neighbours, there are apartment complexes with hundreds of units just down the street, the closest being about 400 metres away.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n At committee, Hou said he foresaw more six-storey proposals like this coming to his desk soon, now that they are technically legal. It was the first test of the new major streets bylaw at Scarborough committee.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is what the city has said is desirable,\u201d said Anne McCauley,\u00a0a veteran land-use planner and committee member since 2019,\u00a0of the project. \u201cThankfully, I am not part of the city. I\u2019m an independent committee member. I listen to what the city says. I don\u2019t have to always agree.\u201d<\/p>\n She moved to reject Malhotra\u2019s proposal. Her motion passed unanimously.<\/p>\n In contrast with committee\u2019s remarks during the hearing, the written notice of refusal made no mention of the building\u2019s height. It said the application was rejected because of Malhotra\u2019s minor variance requests, which included extending the balconies and building closer to the street than bylaws allow.<\/p>\n All five members of the Scarborough committee of adjustment declined interview requests from the Star.<\/p>\n A growing city needs housing<\/p>\n Malhotra described the Pharmacy project as modest, long-term homes for families priced out of property ownership.\u00a0<\/p>\n Decisions like the Scarborough committee of adjustment\u2019s threaten to\u00a0\u201cdemolish all the progress the city has made in housing,\u201d said to\u00a0Zakerie Farah, a member of advocacy group More Neighbours Toronto.<\/p>\n \u201cIf these committee members don\u2019t like city policy, they should resign,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat\u2019s the point of having these policies if a committee of unelected people can toss them away?\u201d<\/p>\n Who is on the committee?<\/p>\n The committee of adjustment has 35 members across four borough divisions. Many are experienced urban planners or architects. Some are real-estate lawyers. But nearly half of them have no training in planning and development mentioned\u00a0in their online biographies<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n