(Report dated April 22, 1998, addressed to Scarborough Community Council, from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings.)

Subject:PRELIMINARY EVALUATION REPORT NO. 2, Official Plan Amendment Application SP98002, Zoning By-law Amendment ApplicationSZ98001, Subdivision Applications T98002 to T98004 inclusive, Ontario Hydro (Graywood Investments Ltd.), Part of Lots 33 & 34, Concession 2, Part of Lot 33, Concession 3, Part of Lots 33 & 34, Concession 4, Highway 401 to south of McNicoll Avenue, L=Amoreaux and Sullivan Communities Scarborough Wexford, Scarborough Agincourt

Purpose:

In considering my Preliminary Evaluation Report on the above noted applications by Graywood Investments Limited, Scarborough Community Council, on April 1, 1998, directed that I report further on how the applications do not conform to Official Plan Amendment 1001, and on concerns expressed by the community.

Recommendations:

That Scarborough Community Council receive this report for information.

Comments:

(1)The former Scarborough City Council, in September, 1997, approved Official Plan Amendment 1001 which added an Open Space designation to the existing Ontario Hydro Corridor designations in L=Amoreaux, Sullivan, Maryvale and Dorset Park Communities. As well, Special Study Areas were identified to provide for Council=s future consideration of applications for Place of Worship at three locations. (The Secondary Plan Schedules from the amendment for L=Amoreaux and Sullivan Communities, now subject to the Graywood applications, are attached).

(2)In addition to the Ontario Hydro designation, under existing Official Plan policies the Open Space designation would provide for a variety of uses on the corridor such as Arecreation or amusement areas, private or City owned parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other large tracts of land associated with municipal services or utilities@. The Plan also indicates that where privately owned lands are designated Open Space, the designation does not imply that the land is free and open to the general public or that it will necessarily be purchased by the Municipality or other public agency.

(3)The specifics of the Graywood applications were detailed more fully in my previous Preliminary Evaluation Report dated March 18, 1998 (see attached). Aside from the proposed neighbourhood parks and open space for stormwater purposes, the predominant residential and commercial uses proposed by Graywood are clearly contrary to the intent of Official Plan Amendment 1001 in regard to both the Open Space designation and two Special Study Areas established. (A third Special Study Area on the north side of Finch Avenue is the subject of separate development applications by the adjacent First Alliance Church as reported separately to the Scarborough Community Council on April 1, 1998.)

(4)Beyond the fundamental desire in the community to see the corridor retained as open space, various concerns and positions on the future use of the corridor, should it receive some development, have been expressed by the community at recent information meetings, through direct contact with staff, and at the Scarborough Community Council meeting of April 1, 1998. These concerns can be summarized as follows:

(a)AShould Official Plan Amendment 1001 fail at the Ontario Municipal Board, the community and the City need a >fall-back= position on corridor development@:

Many residents have expressed concern that some aspects of Graywood=s development could well be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. There is a desire that the current applications be reviewed technically and discussed with the community as a basis to negotiate changes to the proposal and appropriate conditions of any approval.

(b)AThe proposed development is too dense and would be out of character with the adjacent neighbourhoods@:

The proposed residential densities within the corridor are substantially higher than in the abutting neighbourhoods. Concerns have also been expressed that the greatest densities and highest proportion of semi-detached units would occur north of Finch Avenue.

(c)AThe proposed public walkway system will be unsafe@:

Concerns have been expressed over the long, possibly unsafe stretches of public walkway suggested on adjacent Consumers Gas lands, which are not part of the current applications.

(d)ADevelopment of the corridor will aggravate historic problems of flooding and low water pressures in the adjacent neighbourhoods@:

A great many residents have expressed concerns that stormwater drainage, related flooding and water pressure impacts from the Graywood development will likely worsen existing conditions. The City=s review of Graywood= servicing report is not complete.

(e)AResidential development of the corridor will cause school overcrowding@:

Concerns have been expressed about the adequacy of schools to accommodate children generated by the development, since residential use of the corridor was never considered in the original planning for local schools. Responses on this question have not been received from the two school boards.

(f)ATraffic volumes, speeds and accident risk on local streets will increase@:

A traffic impact assessment to respond to these issues has not yet been submitted by Graywood for review, but is in preparation.

(g)AThere is an inequitable distribution of the proposed parkland@:

The current proposal only identifies additions to existing neighbourhood parks south of Finch Avenue that abut the corridor. No neighbourhood parkland has been identified in the area north of Finch having the greatest number of proposed units, particularly semi-detached units, and highest density overall because of the larger number of small lots.

(5)On April 20, 1998, the City of Toronto received a Motion Record submitted by the solicitors for Graywood to the Ontario Municipal Board, requesting consolidation of Graywood=s Official Plan Amendment application referral with the hearing on Official Plan Amendment 1001. Graywood has also on April 22, 1998 appealed its Zoning application and is seeking consolidation in a similar manner. Consolidation of the appeals will be considered by the Board at the May 1, 1998 Pre-Hearing Conference. (The Motion Record has been distributed by the solicitors to the six affected Ward Councillors and all persons who received Notice of the Pre-Hearing).

Conclusion:

Aside from the fundamental Aopen space versus development@ question, the above issues are not unexpected and commonly arise with any major development initiative, particularly in-fill development. The challenge of course is to identify conducive and compatible development that integrates well with the surrounding community while minimizing detrimental impact. This is succinctly set out in Policy 2.4.1.3 of the Official Plan for the former City of Scarborough:

Council shall maintain the stable residential character of existing neighbourhoods and communities. New development proposals shall have regard for compatibility with adjacent land uses and designations, particularly with regard to dwelling units type, density and height.

I am of the opinion that the current Graywood zoning and subdivision proposals clearly do not adequately satisfy this policy as well as the above, quite valid, concerns of the community, and I do not support the applications as presented. Substantial changes to the development concept are required. As I recommended in my previous report, these changes would best be addressed through the usual course of application review, submission and evaluation of requested technical studies, full public and agency consultations, and further negotiation with Graywood. I continue to encourage this approach for a full and thorough consideration on future use of the corridor by all interests, as set out in my previous report dated March 18, 1998.

Contact Name:

Rod Hines, Principal Planner

(416) 396-7020

(416) 396-4265 Fax Number

hines@city.scarborough.on.ca

(Attachments are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)