Forest Hill playhouse the subject of OMB hearing

In the proud tradition of condominium proposals filled with bedroom-sized apartments and towers that rise a dozen or more storeys above their neighbours, a children’s playhouse was the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing between its developers and the city on Tuesday.

During a day-long hearing at 655 Bay St. headquarters of the OMB, lawyer Andrew Biggart, appearing on behalf of applicant Michael Kuhl, and expert planning witness John Lohmus, an associate with planning firm IBI Group, presented their case for why Kuhl should be allowed to construct a three-level, 6.4-metre wooden playhouse with a balcony on top — an “accessory structure” in OMB parlance — in his Forest Hill backyard.

“I know it’s obvious, but who would be the likely user of the structure?” Biggart asked his witness during questioning.

“The children of the household,” Lohmus answered.

Kuhl first brought his application before the Committee of Adjustment in July. The committee unanimously refused the proposal, supporting both a municipal planning report that recommended rejecting the application on grounds that included its “three-storey” height and a letter submitted by four neighbours on nearby Alexandra Wood, who contend the balcony would violate their privacy.

Kuhl appealed the committee’s decision to the OMB.

During his expert testimony, Lohmus contended that calling the playhouse a “three-storey” structure was unfair, as typical adult ceilings are at least nine feet high and each floor of Kuhl’s application rose fewer than six feet. It has been partially built within city guidelines.

Lohmus also noted that, based on his personal recommendation, two of the original proposal’s four balconies — which would have been overlooking neighbours’ swimming pools — had been eliminated, leaving two that would be facing the main yard.

Regarding height, Lohmus emphasized the layout of the backyard: 5 Forest Wood opens onto a downhill ravine, with its current 3,218-sq.-ft. deck constructed on wooden piers. The 233-sq.-ft. playhouse is located at the bottom of the backyard, its entrance 4.5 metres below the deck’s viewing height, he said.

The city, represented by lawyer Alexander Suriano, did not appear convinced by Lohmus’s argument.

During his cross-examination of Lohmus, Suriano made it clear that he believed constructing the playhouse at the bottom of the ravine would not solve the city’s issues with its height, nor did he believe Lohman had adequately addressed concerns with the effects the proposal would have on the ravine itself.

In a July 17 report from the city’s Urban Forestry Ravine and Natural Feature Protection department, city staff noted that Kuhl had not applied for a permit to “alter the grade and injure the trees” related to the construction, and that by doing so without a permit he would be committing an infraction.

During the hearing, both of Kuhl’s representatives said he would be willing to plant an appropriate number of native trees as compensation.

A decision by adjudicator W. R. Winnicki is expected to take several weeks.

— This story has been updated to include information about the July 17 city staff report.