A controversial Ontario Municipal Board decision has inspired a councillor’s vision for a made-in-Toronto version of the quasi-judicial panel.

Councillor Adam Vaughan wants to enact a section of the City of Toronto Act that allows the city to assume control of the process that governs planning when it relates to minor variances.

The city recently lost a seven-year fight over an illegally built addition to a house in Harbord Village when the OMB ruled in favour of the homeowners.

If the city were to set up its own board, it could take on issues like the Tseng family’s home addition, built without permits, and leave the OMB as an appeal board to deal with squabbles over big developments.

Vaughan has been livid with the OMB for a long time, but it reached a boiling point after the board found in favour of the Tseng’s addition.

The case dragged on through divisional courts, a committee-of-adjustment hearing and two OMB hearings. All decisions went in favour of the city except the last, which came down in mid-July.

Vaughan said the case will be the “poster child” for the OMB issue in the next elections, municipal and provincial.

“It will be the centerpiece of what I’ll be talking about.”

The idea still needs fleshing out, Vaughan said, from figuring out the proper fee structure to deciding who would preside over the panel.

Toronto isn’t the only city in Ontario upset about OMB decisions. It has a black eye in most municipalities. Municipal Affairs Minister Linda Jeffrey addressed that issue in late August, promising a review of the beleaguered board.

“We’ve heard from you and we’ve heard from the public that the rules can sometimes be too complex and the delays and appeals can be frustrating,” Jeffrey said of the OMB in speech to the Association of Municipalities Ontario.

“This frequently contributes to conflicts between municipalities, developers and community groups . . . We want to make it simpler and more effective.” she said.

The parameters of the review will probably be announced in early October, said Jeffrey’s spokesperson, Mike Maka.

Toronto council, in an earlier fit of pique with the OMB, voted 34-5 in February 2012 to seek to free itself of the board.

NDP MPP Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina) took notice and now has a private member’s bill, Bill 20, that proposes exactly that — evicting Toronto from the OMB.

Where Vaughan’s local appeals panel would only deal with minor variances, Marchese’s proposal would return all planning power, enforcement and decisions to the city.

Marchese is also infuriated with the recent OMB decision on the Tseng household. “It makes fun of the rules that are set by the city,” he said. “To have an unelected boy of people having such a power is, in my view, wrong.” Marchese’s bill passed second reading in March with support from all three parties.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

But Robert Swayze, a municipal law expert, worries that shifting the OMB’s powers back to the city will be problematic. “That’s when it gets political,” Swazye said, “and then that’s when NIMBYism takes over. I dare say one of the reasons Toronto has become a world-class city is due to the OMB.”

A version of the OMB, a body unique to Ontario, has been around for a century. It has its roots in settling railway disputes, but has morphed into hearing appeals on land planning issues, often pitting communities against large developers.

Appeals are heard by one to three members. In the Tseng case, it was decided by one person, Susan de Avellar Schiller, who essentially said the extension fits in with the neighbourhood, despite vehement opposition from Vaughan, the Harbord Village Residents Association and neighbours.

“We may not be able to demolish this oversized extension,” Vaughan said, “but we certainly can demolish this oversized bureaucracy. It’s time for the OMB to go.”

OMB vs. Toronto’s proposal

OMB: An unelected board hears applications and appeals related to municipal planning, hearing disputes on everything from building permit issues to zoning bylaws and subdivision plans.

City panel: Would deal with "minor variance" issues, meaning small changes or exceptions to existing land use or development restrictions contained in zoning bylaws

Read more about: