Councillor Doucette arranged a Community Meeting with Mr. Lorne Bozinoff this past Tuesday evening at the Baby Point Clubhouse. At that time Mr. Bozinoff undertook the task of presenting updated drawings of the home to be constructed at 66 Baby Point Road. He described several changes that have been made to the plans. He then presented his justification for a minor variance for this development.
He indicated that the new dwelling will now be in the style of an Arts and Crafts home with square footage of 5,941 sq.ft. He also noted that the garage had been moved back and the dormer window design had changed. In addition, he stated that the roof line had been altered and was now two feet lower than previous.
He indicated that despite these changes he still required a Minor Variance to move the home forward of the normal front setback line. In addition to a permit from the TRC to transgress the Humber Ravine Protection Zone, the owner has applied to the Etobicoke/York Committee of Adjustment to move the south east corner and the rest of the proposed house 2.67 meters (8.75 feet) beyond the prevailing setback line. ( In red above is the footprint of the previous home)
Mr. Bozinoff claims that this will re-establish the appropriate "en echelon" placement of the homes along the curve of of the north perimeter of Baby Point Circle and restore the authenticity of the historic sight lines of this specific section of Baby Point Road. His submission was echoed by a local resident of Baby Point Crescent who disagrees with the general consensus in the community that the appropriate placement for the new home is on the established setback line that runs corner to corner between the adjacent properties.
Although he acknowledged the fact that the new home is very large, he argued that the bylaw requirement that the new house be placed on the established set back line would taint the aesthetics of the street scape.
It is perhaps appropriate to recall that the dimensions of the new dwelling will be 2.3 times larger than the previous demolished property and twice as large as adjacent properties. It will occupy 90% of its allowable coverage and will have a frontage of 66 ft., which is 99% of the allowable dimension of the front elevation.
The requested minor variance of of 2.7meters (or approx. 9 feet), is 1/3 of the dimension of the entire east wall and footing of the old dwelling. This is hardly a minor variance.
In rebuttal, Mr. Bozinoff made a comparison of the proposed new dwelling to the adjacent neighbour immediately to his west at 68 Baby Point Road, in which he described the two homes as being essentially the same. This is a misstatement that cannot go unchallenged.
The metrics of the proposes property is 5,941 sq, ft excluding the attached garage (+500 sq.ft.) The Bozinoff property will average 6,500 sq.ft including the attached garage floor space. MPAC data reveal that the area coverage of 68 Baby Point Road is as follows: built 1925, sq.ft. 3033.
In fact, the difference between these two compared properties is ~100% (double). That puts the lie to the statement that they are comparable in size. Additionally, it puts in question the validity of other statements of a similar kind.
The essential issue that remains outstanding is the merits of the Application for a Minor Variance and this will be presented in the subsequent Blog Posting