Visual Impact of proposed 66 Baby Point Rd.

The top image is a rendering of the visual impact that the new home at 66 Baby Point Rd. will have on the streetscape if the Minor Variance of moving the house forward 8-3/4 ft. is granted.

The middle image is a rendering of the visual impact on the streetscape with the home situated on the required setback line.

The bottom image is the streetscape prior to demolition of the original house at 66 Baby Point Rd.

Register your concern about approval of this Minor Variance with your Councillor:

Katherine

Assistant to Sarah Doucette

Toronto City Councillor, Ward 13

councillor_doucette@toronto.ca

66 Baby Point Road - Setback Variance

Facts:

The proposed new home to be constructed on the empty lot at 66 Baby Point Rd. is 6,000 sq. ft.

It is 2.2 times larger than the immediately adjacent 12 homes
It occupies 90% of the allowable lot space
It uses 99% of its allowable width at 66 feet
It is twice as large as 68 Baby Point Rd. despite claims that they are comparable in size(5941 vs 3033 sq.ft.)
It will be closer to the street by 1/3 of the depth or dimension of the east wall of the old home

66 Baby Point Rd - Minor Variance Application

The Bozinoff's have applied for a Minor Variance for the planned new dwelling at 66 Baby Point Road.

They want to move it forward 8.75 ft towards the sidewalk, on the basis that this will restore the street scape.

Recall that the original request for a Variance in 2009 was to increase landscaping space. (note EW orientation of original pool design). The latest plan (bottom) now has it aligned North/South.

Is this the real reason ?

Community Meeting 66 Baby Pt Rd. June 21, 2011

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

C of A Hearing of June 9, 2011 was Deferred

The Scheduled hearing of June 9th, 2011, before the Etobicoke York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment to decide on an Application for a Minor Variance was deferred on the basis of improper procedure and due process.

In addition, Councillor Doucette submitted a letter calling for deferral as a consequence of lack of engagement with the community by the Applicant, Mrs. Cynthia Anne Bozinoff and Agents.

The Deferral is for four(4) weeks to provide the Applicant time to deliver copies of relevant plans and drawings to the members of the Baby Point Community present at the hearing.

The hearing is rescheduled for Thursday July 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm in the York Community Council Chambers , 2700 Eglinton Ave.

The Applicant has applied for a variance to the front setback line in order to move the planned 5,940 sq.ft dwelling forward 2.67 m (~10 ft). This is illustrated in the above diagram that shows the footprint of the demolished previous home in red, and the present front setback line in blue

The new dwelling (blue outline) is 2.3 times larger than the previous home and will occupy 96% of the allowable building lot space.

66 Baby Point Rd.

This wonderful example of an Arts & Craft style house that populates the majority if not all of Home Smith's Humber Valley Survey developments is facing demolition in the very near future.

The trees are cut, the gas is off, the overlooked water service is now secured and the owners finally remembered to come and unlock the door to let Hydro do its thing.

It is now a dead house and no longer a home. The evisceration has started. The antique 19th Century all marble fireplace imported yesteryear from Europe has felt the hammer. The eight inch planked solid oak floors will be the next to go. Then the 4-1/2 ft. walnut/oak wainscotting. The finale will be the dust that settles around the custom crown molded celings when they come crashing down. The chandeliers will never see light in this splendid house that was once a home.

New trees, new lawn, new home, none will replace this one being torn from the ground.

The Demolition of 66 Baby Point Road Continues

Another Utility bites the dust!

Not anymore...They are knocking me down!

November 27th., 2010

The water is off and the trees are gone
The lawn is not cut and the tenant has gone
The hydro is not off but that won't be long
Now only a dead house but once a home...
No music, no laughter, not a hint of a song!

Not anymore, they are knocking me down.

Demolition marches On - November 26, 2010

November 26th., 2010

Utility Crew arrives to shut off water at 66 Baby Point Road

Workman asks "Are these people nuts ?"



Now ain't that the truth... the Emporer's clothes fable in our own front yard.

The common man knows reality when he sees it day in & day out

Update on Impending Demolition of 66 Baby Point Rd

Update:

November 24th saw the utility people arrive to cut of the electricity to 66 Baby Point Road. Demolition Derby is just around the corner even though winter is almost upon us.

If 66 Baby Point Road was like the family homestead above, then demolition would be understandable. However, truth be told, it isn't and in spite of statements by the owners that this Arts & Crafts style home has "bad bones" this claim challenges credulity... a home with wide planked oak floors, wainscoting to covet and so on!

All this and more have waited for a new owner with imagination, sensitivity to local concerns and a commitment to heritage preservation.. It is not to be!

Robert Home Smith, Conn Smythe and the ghosts of Babys' past, among others, are probably rolling over in their graves at this display of architectural sacrilege and hubris.

Destruction of 66 Baby Point Rd. Site starts To-day

November 11, 2010 Tree Cutters Arrive

Baby Point Heritage Foundation

We have completed the incorporation of

The Baby Point Heritage Foundation (BPHF)

August 20,2010 as an incorporated entity under Industry Canada guidelines.

http://www.babypointheritage.ca/indexbph.html

Response to New Bylaw Re:Density Allowance

BY eMAIL

pgmc@toronto.ca

August 19, 2010

City Clerk

Attn: Merle MacDonald

Administrator, Planning and Growth Management Committee

Toronto City Hall

100 Queen Street West

10th Floor, West Tower

Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2

Dear Madam:

RE: Written Submission with respect to the Proposed City Wide Zoning By-law in relation to proposed Zone RD (x1209) and the exceptions on Baby Point Road from the proposed Zoning By-law

I am writing on behalf of the Baby Point Heritage Foundation, which is a corporation, with respect to the above noted matter which I understand is to be considered by City Council at their meeting of August 25/26, 2010.

The Baby Point area is a truly significant community from a cultural heritage perspective. Originally a Seneca village, the lands were then settled in 1816 by James Baby, a member of the Family Compact, before being developed by Home Smith commencing in 1912. The focus of this area is the ‘Point’ which is located on a peninsula of land or ‘point’ overlooking the Humber River, generally in the area west of Humbercrest Blvd.

The Baby Point Heritage Foundation has recently been formed to ensure that the heritage of this remarkable area is protected for future generations through the creation of a Heritage Conservation District. The Board of the Foundation currently consists of four committed individuals from the neighbourhood including the undersigned.

Based on our review of the proposed By-law, the majority of the ‘Point’ is proposed to be zoned “RD(x1209)” with two properties, one of which is 66 Baby Point Road, being exempted from the Zoning By-law apparently because of recent development approvals.

The proposal for 66 Baby Point Road generated considerable concern in the neighbourhood because of the ‘over sized’ building which is proposed. This building, while it conforms with the existing zoning regulations, is completely out of keeping with the heritage character of the area. It is through the review of this application that we, and others in the neighbourhood, became aware of issues with the existing zoning regulations.

In reviewing the most recent version of the proposed City-wide Zoning By-law, we expected that the concerns with the current By-law would be addressed. Unfortunately, based on our review, that does not seem to be the case. In fact, the regulations do not appear to take into account in any material way the unique character of this area. It is our understanding from a review of the various reports that these regulations have not been developed on the basis of any area study. In the absence of any study, we believe this by-law, if passed, should be very conservative in introducing new standards into any part of the City, and most particularly in a heritage area such as Baby Point. However, that does not seem to be the case.

The specific concerns we have identified with the “RD(x1209)” Zone are as follows:

1. Conservation Overlay

The Bylaw includes a Conservation Overlay which applies to the majority of the land in the RD (x1209) Zone. The Conservation Overlay prohibits development below the stable top of bank or shoreline hazard limit. It also contains a provision in Section 600.30 (4) which states:

"If a shoreline hazard or stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, the portion of the lot below the shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank is not included in the calculation of the floor space index for the lot."

This appears to address an issue with the current zoning by-law. However, the section appears to be flawed in that it refers only to floor space index as a measure of permitted density. This is an issue because the proposed new zoning applicable in the RD (x1209) Zone, does not appear to include a floor space index regulation. Instead the RD (x1209) Zone includes only a maximum coverage requirement. As a consequence of this difference in wording it is questionable whether subsection (4) would apply in the RD (x1209) Zone . This is a concern because if it does not apply, then density from the portion of a lot below the top of bank can be used as part of the calculation of the coverage for any house along the ravine, which includes a significant number of homes on the ‘Point’. This would contribute significantly to the potential for new development which is out of keeping with the heritage character of the area.

2. Coverage/Setbacks

The proposed Bylaw as currently drafted would allow a maximum coverage of 50% of the lot area. Previously the maximum floor space index was 0.4 and there does not seem to be any coverage requirement. The change from the floor space index approach (which relates to the total gross floor area of the building as a percentage of the lot area) to a coverage figure which looks at only the percentage of the lot occupied by a building and with the coverage being a maximum of 50% would appear to allow a significantly larger building foot print then currently permitted.



Further, there does not appear to be any front yard or rear yard setback requirements and the side yard requirement is very minimal at 0.45 for lots under 12m frontage and 0.75 m for lots over 12 m frontage.

The combination of the effect of these new regulations would again appear to contribute significantly to the potential for new development which is out of keeping with the heritage character of the area.

3. Exemptions from the By-law

As noted, two properties are excluded from the proposed new zoning by-law. This area was originally planned in a comprehensive manner. That is a key part of the cultural heritage value of the neighbourhood. It is important that all properties be subject to the same rules with respect to future development.

Based on these concerns, we are requesting that Council defer consideration of this By-law, or at least the RD (x1209) regulations, until appropriate changes can be made to develop regulations for the Baby Point area which will assist in preserving the unique character of the community, rather than allowing for the potential of development which is out of keeping with its unique heritage character. These changes should reflect a more detailed examination of the area and input from the affected community.

Thank you for your consideration of this request, and should you have any questions please contact the undersigned.

Please also accept this letter as written confirmation of our request to be notified in writing of any and all further meetings and notices (including the Notice of Decision for the Zoning By-law).



Your truly,

Dr. Robert Galway

Chairman Baby Point Heritage Foundation

62 Baby Point Road, Toronto M6S 2G3

c.c. Councilor Wm. Saundercook

© 2010 Microsoft Terms Privacy

Proposed Footprint of 66 Baby Point Road

Judge for yourself what a 6500 sq ft House will be like related to the two neighbouring houses and a 1.20 metre set in at the sides.

Hi, I'd like to share a Google Maps link with you. 

 Link:

 http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=43.657365,-79.49376&spn=0,359.998069&z=20&layer=c&cbll=43.657365,-79.494015&panoid=sBZKn5xPKPkXafb_zw4_rQ&cbp=12,266.89,,0,-2.21

Forum Research & Lorne Bozinoff Connection to TTC Revealed

Excerpt from "The Villager April 29, 2009
by Lisa Rainford

After a professional connection came to light between Bozinoff's market research business, Forum Research, and the TTC of which Saundercook is commissioner, the councillor sought advice from the integrity commissioner, who said the information only became known after the entire process had been approved.

Baby Point residents wondered if Saundercook's decision to support the project had anything to do with Forum Research's work for the TTC.

However, Saundercook said he hadn't heard of the connection until April 23. "Had I been aware prior to the application, I would have had to explain, but this was clearly not the case," said Saundercook.

For the complete article in MS Word "click" the Title or
see first letter page above right.

April 23, 2010; Inside Toronto Article - OK to Demolish 66 Baby Point Road

LISA RAINFORD
• Apr 23, 2010 - 4:48 PM
• Inside Toronto article

For complete article go to the first "Page" posted opposite or to this link:

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/805069--homeowner-allowed-to-demolish-baby-point-home

Homeowner allowed to demolish Baby Point home.

More than 150 people - 90 per cent of the neighbourhood - have registered their opposition against the project, saying its mass and density is greater than twice as large as the homes around it. The adjacent homes average 2,700 square feet. The Bozinoffs house would be two and a half times larger than the average, said neighbour Robert Galway, who has lived in the area for 40 years.

"I don't understand council's decision when you have a fact like that staring you in the face," he said.

Mary Anne De Monte-Whelan, a Baby Point resident for the past two decades, said most homes in the area have been restored to some extent or another.

"Are we against improving homes? No, lots of us have done it, but there is a certain way of respecting the neighbourhood when you do it," she said. "I've lived in two Robert Home Smith homes and they were extremely architecturally strong homes. It can be done if there's a desire. There are many, many places you can go if you want a monstrous home. This isn't one of those places, they're not in Baby Point."

The optimal approach to this project would be to restore the present property to its former glory, said Galway, while retaining its architectural authenticity and the integrity of the streetscape.

"The architectural foresight of Robert Home Smith, the developer of the Baby Point area, was ahead of his time

His principles of property layout are deserving of respect and should not give way to architectural largesse as is the case associated with this application.

Even though the majority of the neighbourhood opposes the project, dubbed a "McMansion," Saundercook said the "chances at the Ontario Municipal Board were not very favourable to the opposition."

Saundercook said he wanted to work with the owner/applicant and not against him.

Asked how he is dealing with his neighbour's disapproval of his proposed new home, Bozinoff said, "We're mulling over the comments."

TTC and Forum Research

To view the Word Document with active links click on the above Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain public facts related to the 66 Baby Point Road story have come to the attention of the Concerned Baby Point Residents group. We would appreciate the thoughts of the community on these facts."

Specifically, the owner of 66 Baby Point Rd (Lorne Bozinoff) is owner of Forum Research, a Toronto market research Company with a long-standing relationship with the TTC, for which Bill Saundercook serves as Commissioner. Some residents are concerned that this relationship was not declared.

The facts:

1. Forum Research has a long standing commercial relationship of at least ten years with the TTC. They conducted targeted research projects in 2001 and 2002. Item: TTC Budget $198,320
www3.ttc.ca/search/results.jsp
Enter "Forum Research" in the search box!

2. Described in 2005 as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.
http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2418/_conv.htm
Scroll down to the Market Research Report Section

3. Forum Research continued in 2008 to be associated with the TTC as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor.
This is confirmed by this blog account posted February 10th, 2008.
http://www.nakedknitgirl.ca/

4. Forum Research continues to be associated with the TTC as indicated in the Forum Research Web site posting April 19, 2010. (Under Public Sector)
http//www.forumresearch.com/experienc.asp
Look under Kudos: "Experience" & scroll down to Public Sector.

5. Councillor William Saundercook has been a TTC Commissioner since 2005, and presently is in the running to be the next Chairman.
http://http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/764353---the-ttc-is-a-real-mess

Summary:

It is a matter of public record that the market research firm "Forum Research" has a decade long relationship with the Toronto Transit Commission acting in their words; "as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.

TTC and Forum Research

Certain public facts related to the 66 Baby Point Road story have come to the attention of the Concerned Baby Point Residents group. We would appreciate the thoughts of the community on these facts.

Specifically, the owner of 66 Baby Point Rd (Lorne Bozinoff) is owner of Forum Research, a Toronto market research Company with a long-standing relationship with the TTC, for which Bill Saundercook serves as Commissioner.

Some residents are concerned that this relationship was not declared.

The facts:

1. Forum Research has a long standing commercial relationship of at least ten years with the TTC. They conducted targeted research projects in 2001 and 2002. Item: TTC Budget - $198,320 (http://www3.ttc.ca/Search/results.jsp

2. Described in 2005 as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2418/_conv.htm

3. Forum Research continued in 2008 to be associated with the TTC as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor. This is confirmed by this blog account posted February 10th, 2008.http://www.nakedknitgirl.ca/?p=3677#comment

4. Forum Research continues to be associated with the TTC as indicated in the Forum Research Web site posting April 19, 2010. (Under Public Sector)

">htpp://www.forumresearch.com

">http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5297362/Baby%20Point%20Mtg.exe

5. Councillor William Saundercook has been a TTC Commissioner since 2005, and presently is in the running to be the next Chairman.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/764353---the-ttc-is-a-real-mess

Summary:

It is a matter of public record that the market research firm "Forum Research" has a decade long relationship with the Toronto Transit Commission acting in their words; "as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies."

Panorama View of Baby Point Rd #70 to #60

click to enlarge image

This is a panoramic view of 60 Baby Point Rd through 70 Baby Point Road taken as a consecutive sequence of 15 pictures which have been converted into one panoramic image using proprietary software from UBC - "Autostitch"

The Architectural sketch of the planned 66 baby Point Road was inserted using the actual frontal dimensions of 64 Baby Pt and 68 Baby Point (53.25 ft and 53.5 ft respectively)as control dimensions. The planned frontal dimesion of 66 Baby Point Rd. is 60 ft.

Letter to Councillor Saundercook & L. Bozinoff - 15/4/2010

For before and after composite Montage see previous blog

April 15, 2010

Circulation: To the Residents of the Greater Baby Point Circle Area

Dear Councillor Saundercook and Mr. Lorne Bozinoff;

In reference to : EY35.4 Site Plan Application – Final Report and Site Plan Approval
(to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling for the lands at 66 Baby Point Road)

I have received the letter of April 7, 2010 from the City of Toronto in reference to 66 Baby Point Road

Let me say at the outset that more than 100 residents of the greater Baby Point Circle community, many who met with you and your client Mr. Bozinoff on the evening of March 25th, 2010 at the Baby Point Club, remain seriously distressed by the sequence of events that led to final approval of this project. This culminated in the defeat of the motion to defer this matter at City of Toronto Council on March 31st.

None of the concerns brought to your desk, or to the attention of Mr. Lorne Bozinoff, have been addressed in a significant or constructive manner. In fact, stated bluntly, the legitimate concerns of a majority of this established and historic residential community have been trivialized and marginalized.

That being said, I wish to recapitulate the three undertakings made by yourself at that meeting.

 To provide an overview of the Property Tax implications of this development

 To move for deferral of the upcoming motion to approve EY35.4 Site Plan Application.

 To provide the community at the earliest opportunity with an accurately scaled sketch of the frontal and east elevations of the proposed property.

The first item regarding Property Taxes has been addressed as previously confirmed.1

The inexplicable defeat of the motion in item #2 is a barrier to closure of this matter.

The final undertaking remains outstanding, although note has been taken of your remarks made to City Council March 31, 2010.

To quote; “’m convinced it is a true rendering of what the applicant intends to do”

As a consequence, a further analysis of the rendering of the impact on the streetscape of the frontal elevation of the proposed home for 66 Baby Point Road was undertaken.

Observations:
The sketch presented by Mr. Lorne Bozinoff to the community, and presented by yourself to Council,2 is not associated with any published metrics or any declaration that it is to scale.

When recompiled using the metrics of the adjacent homes including the horizontal dimensions of the buildings a more accurate estimation of the scale of the architectural drawing of the proposed home in proportion to the existing properties can be made. (eg #64 Baby Pt frontage 54 ft 3 in.)

 The horizontal dimension of the proposed home at 66 Baby Point Road is significantly under represented.
 The vertical dimension of the proposed home at 66 Baby Point Road is also significantly under represented.
 The magnitude of this under representation is in the range of 10-13 percent.

The effect of this misrepresentation is substantial as is illustrated below:

The east aperture between #64 Baby Point and #66 Baby Point is represented as being over eight feet (8 ft.) than will be the case when the property is built to the side set back parameters of 1.5 m on the west and 1.2 m on the east.

The roof height will be 4-1/2 feet higher than represented in the ”Bozinoff” sketch.

Recall that this proposed development is between 5,900 sq ft to 6,500 sq ft ., dependent on whether the attached garage is included. Suffice it to say that in either case the proposed home is more than twice (2x) the size of the average of the next ten adjacent homes in that immediate area. (2,724 sq. ft) (MPAC)

Regardless of whether or not these incorrect representations were deliberate or presented by mischance, the fact remains that this was a serious misrepresentation of the situation at hand.

Moreover, it is my considered opinion that there was no justification for any party presenting this material as an accurate representation of the visual impact that this mega home will have on the street scape of Baby Point Road in the vicinity of “The Circle”

To do so strains credulity.

In closing, Mr. Bozinoff and Mr. Saundercook , as per your committed action step to the Baby Point residents three weeks ago on March 25, the community asks once more to be provided on an expedited basis, accurate drawings and all relevant measurements of the 66 Baby Point Road plans.

Sincerely,
Dr. Robert Galway
66 Baby Point Road
On behalf of Concerned Baby Point Residents