Preliminary Evaluation Report No. 2

Official Plan Amendment Application No. SP98001

1144070 Ontario Limited - PMG Planning Consultants

Port Union Village - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1) refuse the subject application; and

(2) direct the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in support of this position.

The Scarborough Community Council:

(1) reports having requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, report directly to City Council on April 15, 1998 on the responses received from the two School Boards; and

(2) submits the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To report further to Scarborough Community Council as directed on February 18, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Scarborough Community Council defer consideration of this application until applications for rezoning and draft plan of subdivision are submitted to enable staff to thoroughly assess the impact of the proposed official plan amendment.

Background:

Scarborough Community Council on February 18, 1998, deferred my Preliminary Evaluation Report dated February 5, 1998, to permit consultation with the community and also requested that I obtain comments from the two School Boards and report their response to the April 1, 1998 meeting.

Comments:

(1) It was understood at the Scarborough Community Council meeting on February 18, 1998, that Councillor Ron Moeser indicated his intention to consult with the community regarding this Official Plan Amendment application and the deferral would allow the opportunity to do so. My staff were not invited to participate in any information meetings or sessions in this regard.

(2) I have requested the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division, and the Toronto Catholic School Board to comment upon the proposed Official Plan Amendment. To date, only the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division has replied through its Solicitors, Borden & Elliot, whose letter is attached to this report.

The School Board strongly objects to the proposal to reduce the area of the Community Facilities and School designations within the Secondary Plan (OPA No. 858). The Board further requests a copy of the application P98001 and timely notice of all future applications, reports and meetings scheduled with respect to the former Manson Insulation Inc. property.

The Toronto Catholic School Board has not responded to date, however, I will report further upon receipt of its comments.

(3) Solicitors for Yellow Moon Homes, on February 23, 1998, appealed the Official Plan Amendment Application P98001 to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to S.22 (7) (a) of the Planning Act on the basis of failure by the Council of the City of Toronto to give Notice of a public meeting within forty-five (45) days of submission of their client's application. The appeal by Davies, Howe Partners is attached.

(4) PMG Planning Consultants, on behalf of Yellow Moon Homes, on March 9, 1998, submitted a revised draft plan of subdivision to the City and the Ontario Municipal Board. This revised plan reflects the community park and schools sites reductions proposed in Official Plan Amendment application P98001 and is submitted as a revision to draft plan of subdivision No. 55T-95015 already under appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board.

(5) A pre-hearing date at the Ontario Municipal Board has been scheduled on April 27, 1998, with respect to the appealed applications.

Contact Name:

Carl Januszczak, MCIP, RPP.

Principal Planner, Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-7034

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: januszcz@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following report (February 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

PMG Planning Consultants has submitted an official plan amendment to amend the General Policy of the Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan which requires that a minimum of 2.6 hectares of land shall be made available for new schools for both the Public and Separate School Boards in combination with a minimum 3.2 hectare community park. The amendment proposes to amend this policy to reduce the minimum area required for new schools to 2.4 hectares and to 2.6 hectares for the community park.

Recommendations:

That the Scarborough Community Council defer consideration of this application until applications for rezoning and a draft plan of subdivision are submitted to enable staff to thoroughly assess the impact of the proposed official plan amendment.

Background:

Council, on September 16, 1997, considered my Preliminary Evaluation Report on applications to amend the zoning by-law and for a draft plan of subdivision submitted by PMG Planning Consultants for the property commonly referred to as the Manson lands. The applications proposed to permit the redevelopment of approximately 9.8 hectares (24 acres) for 26 single detached and 158 street townhouses, including a block for the consolidation of an elementary school site and blocks for park and the Village Common. In considering my report, Council refused the applications as submitted.

Solicitors for Yellow Moon Homes Inc. (the prospective purchasers of the Manson lands) subsequently appealed both the rezoning and draft plan of subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board. To date neither a pre-hearing nor a hearing date has been scheduled.

Comments:

As stated by the applicants the purpose of the Official Plan amendment is to reduce the minimum size of the community park and the school blocks to implement their "modified" draft plan of subdivision. However, until such time as the applicants have filed new rezoning and draft plan of subdivision applications to supplement their requested Official Plan Amendment, it would be premature to consider this application.

Contact Name:

Carl Januszczak, MCIP, RPP.

Principal Planner, Community Planning Division

Phone: (416)396-7034

Fax: (416)396-4265

Email: januszc@city.scarborough.on.ca

Mr. Michael Melling, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, appeared before the Community Council, on behalf of Yellow Moon Homes Inc., in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following communication (March 12, 1998 ) from Mr. Rick F. Coburn, Solicitor, Borden and Elliot:

"I have been given for reply a copy of your letter dated March 5, 1998 addressed to the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division. By way of background, we appeared as counsel for the former Scarborough Board of Education during the lengthy hearing in respect of the Port Union Village Secondary Plan (OPA No. 858) held by the Ontario Municipal Board. The hearing resulted in the designation of certain lands for Community Facilities-Schools within the Plan boundaries, including lands owned at that time by Manson Insulation Inc.

By your letter of March 5, 1998, our client received notice that on February 18, 1998, the Scarborough Community Council considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report by City staff concerning proposed Official Plan Amendment P98001 by 1144070 Ontario Ltd. and PMG Planning Consultants. According to the Preliminary Evaluation Report, and accompanying draft plan of subdivision, the applicants propose to reduce the size of the school blocks designated pursuant to OPA No. 858 from 2.6 to 2.4 hectares. In addition, the applicants propose to reduce the area of the adjoining community park from 3.2 hectares to 2.6 hectares.

A cursory review of the OMB's decision will confirm that both the public and the separate school boards were active participants in the hearing with respect to OPA No. 858. The OMB gave its approval for the Community Facilities-Schools designation after hearing extensive evidence from both school boards regarding the need for a school site of adequate size and configuration. This evidence included architectural and site planning evidence regarding the severe constraints imposed by a site of only 2.6 hectares, and the need for an adjoining park to accommodate school activities. In our submission, any further reduction in the size of the designated area for the school site or the adjacent park will severely compromise the viability of the school site and the ability of the school boards to provide adequate school services.

Accordingly, please be advised that our client strongly objects to the application to reduce the area of the Community Facilities - School designation within OPA No. 858. We respectfully request a copy of the application P98001 and timely notice of all future applications, reports and meetings scheduled with respect to the former Manson Insulation Inc. property."

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following communication (March 25, 1998 ) from Mr. Peter P. Kole, Senior Co-ordinator of Planning, Toronto Catholic School Board:

"The above-noted Official Plan Amendment Application proposes to reduce the size of the schools and park blocks from 2.6 to 2.4 hectares and from 3.2 to 2.6 hectares respectively.

The location and size of these blocks were designated by OPA No. 858 (Port Union Village Secondary Plan), which was the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Evidence was provided by both the separate and public school boards with respect to the need for a school site, and site planning matters pertaining to size, location and configuration.

The purpose of a jointly developed schools/park campus by the City of Toronto (formerly Scarborough), and the separate and public school boards is to maximize efficiencies and reduce the need for scarce resources. This was achieved during the review of OPA No. 858 and further scrutinized during the OMB hearing.

Based on the foregoing, the Toronto Catholic School Board will oppose the current application to reduce the size of the school site and park blocks."

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following communication (March 26, 1998 ) from Mr. Michael Melling, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners:

"We are counsel to Yellow Moon Homes Inc. Our client has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale in respect of 5241 Lawrence Avenue East, which is the subject of the above-referenced application. We are in receipt of the March 16th, 1998 "Preliminary Evaluation Report No. 2" of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings respecting this matter.

Please be advised that our client objects, in the strongest possible terms, to the report's recommendation. First, our client is opposed to the suggestion that it be required to file new applications for a rezoning and plan of subdivision. As the report itself notes, our client has already filed such applications, which are currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Second, it is our client's position that a public meeting should be held as soon as possible.

With respect to the first point, the Community Council will be aware from previous correspondence under my signature that our client's Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") application arose out of without-prejudice discussions with City staff of our client's by-law and subdivision applications. During those discussions, we were advised that the staff viewed an OPA application as essential. Our client has never agreed with staff's position. However, in the spirit of cooperation, and in the hope that the discussions could be concluded with a full settlement, our client agreed to file the OPA application. Disappointingly, this concession has now been turned against our client, and the application is being used as the basis for a highly technical and frankly unsupportable procedural objections.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and our strong view that new applications are unnecessary, I have today sent a letter to the City's solicitor, a copy of which is transmitted herewith, in which I indicate that, in the spirit of continued cooperation, we will recommend to our client that new applications for rezoning and a plan of subdivision be filed so long as the City waives any and all fees associated therewith and agreed to cooperate fully in getting the new applications processed and before the OMB as soon as possible.

With respect to the report declining to recommend a public meeting, I wish to advise the Community Council that it is our client's very strong belief that a public meeting should be called as soon as possible. The OPA application should be presented at it, along with the revised zoning and plan of subdivision, which reflect changes made in response to staff's comments at the without-prejudice meetings. Our client is prepared to cooperate fully in planning and conducting such a meeting.

Our client believes that the City has an obligation to the community to hold a public meeting. This belief is strong enough that, if the Community Council adopts the report's recommendation on April 1st, and declines to call a public meeting, our client will call one itself.

We therefore urge that you reject the report's recommendation and, instead:

1. schedule a public meeting to consider the OPA application and the amended zoning by-law and plan of subdivision; and

2. instruct staff that:

2.1 new zoning and subdivision applications are not required; or

2.2 if such applications are to be required, that the City will waive all associated fees, and will take all possible steps to ensure that such applications are processed and brought before the OMB as quickly as possible.

We are grateful for your kind consideration."