O.M.B. Referral No. 1 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381 -

Specific Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue -

North York Official Plan Part C.9.140 (UDOP-38) -

North York Centre

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, recommends that Council rescind the adoption of Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having directed the appropriate staff to do all things necessary to have the repealing by-law before the next meeting of Council scheduled for October 1, 1998.

The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

This report provides background information for the public meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998 on Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan, which is the Specific Policy from Official Plan Amendment No. 381 (the Uptown Plan) regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. The site specific Official Plan amendment, and application UDZ-98-08, which seeks to implement the policy, have both been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Financial Implications:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that North York Community Council receive this report for information.

Background:

88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue has an area of approximately 0.58 hectares, and is in the stable residential area next to the west boundary of the Uptown redevelopment area. The subject site is bounded on the east by the proposed Service Road and, in the interim, Willowdale Presbyterian Church, on the west by the St. Edwards Church lands, and on the south by Ellerslie Avenue. Most of these lands overlook the recently completed park on the south side of Ellerslie Avenue, which includes the relocated Dempsey House. Two single family dwellings at 98 and 100 Ellerslie are across the street from the western portion. To the north, the site is bounded by the side yards of single family dwellings at 1 and 2 Basswood Road, and the rear yard of 69 Churchill Avenue.

The specific official plan policy C.9.140 deals with these lands, and reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding the Residential Density One designation . . . development of these lands for residential purposes is permitted provided that the maximum density on the lands is FSI=1.0, and the maximum height of any permitted residential or accessory building shall be 11 metres or three storeys, whichever is the lesser. If these lands are to be redeveloped, vehicular access for this use shall be taken from the Uptown Service Road, and not from Ellerslie Avenue."

The policy was established by Item D.2.17 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381, originally inserting it as a new paragraph in Part II, Section 1, D (b) "Other Specific Development" in the District 11 Plan. OPA 381 was adopted by Council on May 19, 1993. When Official Plan Amendment No. 377 consolidated residential policies of the District Plans into the Comprehensive Official Plan, this policy was relocated to Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan. OPA 377 was adopted on May 25, 1995.

This item in OPA 381 was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on July 11, 1996 in response to concerns expressed by the Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations (YSARA). Local residents also filed objections to this item, represented by Mr. Donald Gray of 69 Churchill Avenue. North York and Ministry staff facilitated mediation attempts, but were unsuccessful. No OMB Hearing has been held on this matter yet.

An application has been filed (UDZ-98-08) seeking to implement the policy with a zoning bylaw amendment that would enable development of a 66-unit 3-storey townhouse project on the subject lands and properties directly to the east (70 to 84 Ellerslie Avenue). The applicant for the proposed rezoning wrote to the OMB on April 27, 1998, requesting that the Board schedule a Hearing on the OPA 381 referral.

The preliminary staff report on the rezoning application, dated June 9, 1998, was received by Community Council on June 24, 1998. At its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted the June 24 recommendations of Community Council, that:

"site specific Official Plan Policy part c9.140 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381 be re-opened . . . and . . . staff be authorized to schedule a public meeting to determine whether the subject lands should be included in the development area."

Schedules A, B and D from the June 9 preliminary report on the application are also attached to this report. They show the location of the lands covered by the specific policy C.9.140, the official plan designations and current zoning of the subject lands and vicinity; and the properties that are part of the rezoning application.

Schedule E to this report contains an annotated chronology outlining the steps leading to the inclusion of this specific policy in OPA 381 and the subsequent referral to the OMB. Written submissions from the public on this matter are attached in Schedule F.

Discussion:

Early in the Uptown Plan process, conflicting positions on the designation of these lands were apparent. A group of owners of some of these lands made submissions noting the potential of the site, and requested to be included in the Uptown redevelopment area. Other submissions opposed the extensions of the Uptown boundaries.

In an October 1992 report responding to submissions on the second draft of the Uptown Plan, staff indicated that development of the subject lands is not necessarily be dependent on them being included within the boundary of the Uptown Plan. Staff recognized that the lots are very deep and, if assembled, have redevelopment potential. They lie between the location of the proposed Uptown Service Road and the St. Edwards Church property. Staff did not support redesignating the properties to be within the Uptown, but instead advised that development could be considered under official plan policies applying to residential areas.

This opinion was reiterated in a December 1992 report responding to submissions on the third draft of the Uptown Plan, and a specific policy was proposed for the District 11 Plan that is generally similar to the policy which was ultimately adopted in 1993. That report also noted the properties are situated between a large parcel containing a place of worship and lands identified as part of the Buffer Area within the Uptown Plan. The report included the following staff comment:

"If the owners ... filed a joint application for redevelopment, the redevelopment of these lands, in conjunction with or separately from lands within the Uptown, could be considered. A low rise form of development, consistent with that proposed in the Buffer Area, may be appropriate. The inclusion of a special policy in the District 11 Plan ... would foster redevelopment of an appropriate type, without establishing a precedent by moving the Uptown boundaries."

The specific policy permits modest intensification of residential use of these deep lots, at a lower density than could be developed within the Uptown Buffer Area. Their redevelopment together with the adjacent lands within the Uptown is permitted, but they do not have to contain an identical building form. The specific policy also addresses concerns about traffic impact in the stable residential area, by requiring redevelopment to take access solely from the Service Road.

In the time since the adoption of the site specific policy in the D11 plan, lands across Ellerslie Avenue from the subject lands have been developed as a park, including the relocated Dempsey House. The connection from Ellerslie Avenue to the Service Road has been severed as well.

Conclusions:

During the drafting of the Uptown Plan, staff recommended a specific policy to permit some intensification of residential use of the subject lands, at a lower density than could be developed within the Uptown Buffer Area. The site specific policy also addressed traffic infiltration concerns through its requirement that access for new residential uses be taken from the Service Road only.

The policy is based on the concept of limited intensification in stable residential areas enunciated in the District Plan and subsequently in the Official Plan, while maintaining a defined and stable boundary of the major redevelopment area of the North York Centre.

Since the adoption of the original site specific policy, the site has been further buffered from other residential uses. The site specific policy is consistent with the principles of the Official Plan permitting limited redevelopment in stable residential areas, and concentrating major redevelopment projects in the North York Centre.

(A copy of the Official Plan Amendment and schedules referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

---------------

A staff presentation was made by William Hollo, Director, Planning Services, City Planning Division, North District.

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i)(September 2, 1998) from Jack and Viva Heaton, advising of their concerns with the proposed amendment;

(ii)(August 27, 1998) from Mr. Stephen H. Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors for 1205373 Ontario Limited, in support of the proposed amendment;

(iii)(August 26, 1998) from Mr. William Withrow, requesting clarification on why this matter is being re-examined;

(iv)(August 26, 1998) from Mr. D. Gregory Flude and Dr. Inese Flude, requesting the opportunity to address North York Community Council and commenting on the proposed amendment;

(v)(August 26, 1998) from Paul and Nina Cernavskis, expressing their concerns with the proposed amendment;

(vi)(August 21, 1998) from Eleanor and Ian Searle, advising of their opposition to the proposed amendment;

(vii)(undated) from Mr. Andris Cernavskis, advising of his concerns with the proposed amendment;

(viii)(September 14, 1998) from Jule Ryder, advising of his opposition to the proposed amendment;

(ix)(September 14, 1998) from E.J. and Elizabeth Tamalik, expressing their opposition to the proposed amendment;

(x)(September 1, 1998) from Sharolyn Vettese on behalf of the Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations and Steve Mullins on behalf of the Lansing Community Association, outlining their reasons for not supporting the inclusion of 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue in the Uptown Plan;

(xi)(September 14, 1998) from David and Judy Gainforth, expressing their opposition to the proposed amendment; and

(xii)(September 12, 1998) from Edmund and Judith McCabe expressing their objections to the proposed amendment.

The following persons addressed North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Stephen Diamond, Solicitor from the firm of McCathry Tetrault, on behalf of 1205373 Ontario Limited, property owners of 70 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue, who spoke in support of Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan, which is the Specific Policy from Official Plan Amendment No. 381 regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue.

During his submission, Mr. Diamond indicated that since the adoption of the Specific Development Policy, his client has reduced the scale of the proposed development on Ellerslie Avenue from 66 units to 47 units and would include a 1.1 ha public park on the lands municipally known as 76 Ellerslie. He also pointed out that the development would be of condominium rather than freehold tenure. Access to the development would be provided from Beecroft Road and as such there would be no traffic impact on the community.

Mr. Diamond requested that Community Council maintain its previous commitment given for this proposal. In his opinion the site is uniquely buffered to the west by a large parking lot, and is located adjacent to the City Centre and adjacent to parkland to the south. He also pointed out that redevelopment of the property will contribute a functional section of the Uptown Service Road in this location.

Mr. Diamond was also of the opinion that the proposed townhouse from of development provides for an appropriate transition of density from the existing high density development in the North York Centre to the stable low residential neighbourhood to the west. It would also supplement the public parkland complement in the area.

In concluding he suggested that the Community Council hear the concerns of the ratepayers and allow the public meeting on the rezoning application to proceed prior to the Ontario Municipal hearing on this issue.

-Mr. D. Gregory Flude, who expressed his concerns with the current process. Since the original Specific Development Policy and the current rezoning application are scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board in the near future, it is unnecessary, in his opinion, to amend the Official Plan at this point in time. He further indicated that the Specific Development Policy was the result of extensive deliberations by the City of North York Council in and before 1993 when all parties had the opportunity to make their views known and to have them fully canvassed. To seek to question the action of the City of North York council after such a short time period, where there has been no material change in circumstances is likely to bring the whole planning process into disrepute.

Mr. Flude further indicated that the Specific Development Policy makes good planning sense when the unique circumstances of these properties are considered. At present the Uptown boundary is a fence. It make no sense to establish a fence as the boundary when a natural boundary has been defined by the existence of Edward the Confessor Church which severs the block, cutting the east side from the west side. Feathering density trough a single family residential development doe snot materially change the nature of the land use in the area while ensuring that no one property bears the impact of a sudden change in density. In his opinion, removing the Specific Development Policy would destabilize the residential area.

-Ms. Ronda Margolese, who indicated that she supported the deletion of the Specific Policy from Official Plan Amendment No. 381 regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. In her opinion, the development proposed for those lands would have a negative impact on the surrounding community.

-Mr. Robert Weeks, who spoke in opposition to the development proposed for the lands on Ellerslie Avenue. In his opinion, the proposal is not in conformity with the Uptown Plan, is inappropriate and it would destabilize the area. He concluded by requesting that the boundary in the Uptown Plan not be changed in order to accommodate this development.

-Ms. Carol Gold, who spoke in opposition to the rezoning application for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. In her opinion, the proposal is precedent setting and goes against everything that the Downtown and Uptown Plans stand for. While she would have not objection to the lands being developed with infill housing, she did object to the proposed development.

-Ms. Sharolyn Vettese, on behalf of Yonge Street Area Ratepayers Associations, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Policy in Official Plan No. 381 regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. In her opinion, this Policy should be deleted from the Plan because it goes against everything that the residents have been working for in order to maintain a stable residential area. Throughout the evolution of the North York Centre Secondary Plan, being the Downtown and Uptown Plans, there have been two guiding principles. One being the protection of the stable residential neighbourhood adjacent to the redevelopment area and the other being the principle of ensuring that redevelopment did not take place outside the City Centre boundary. The Specific Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie is an anomaly to the City's established practice and policy.

Ms. Vettese requested that the Plan be adhered prior to matter being considered by the Ontario Municipal Board. The Plan should be protected otherwise it would encourage ad hoc development which in turn creates instability.

-Mr. Steve Mullins, President, Lansing Community Association, who informed the Community Council that a motion was passed at the general meeting held by the Lansing Community Association. that the Specific Policy regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue be removed from the Plan. The Association also had concerns with the rezoning application for these lands.

-Ms. Amy Profenna, who spoke in opposition to the development proposed for the lands on Ellerslie Avenue. Her primary objections were respect to increased traffic, the impact on property values and quality of life. She also believed that a natural buffer zone was needed between the high rise development in the City Centre and the existing residential area.

-Mrs. Anne Galilee, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Policy regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. She was concerned about the precedent setting nature of the development proposed for these lands and enlarging the boundary of the Uptown Plan.

-Mr. John Windisman. who spoke in opposition to the Specific Policy regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. He was also concerned with the density of the townhouse development proposed for these lands.

-Mr. Donald Gray, who expressed concern with the precedent setting nature of the development proposed for the lands on Ellerslie Avenue. In his opinion, there is nothing unique about the lands in question to warrant deviation from the Official Plan. He also believed that if the lands municipally known as 78 Ellerslie Avenue are not part of the land assembly, the requirement for the ring road cannot be satisfied.

-Ms. Marion Lick, on behalf of the Willowdale Central Ratepayers' Association; who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. She also explained the importance of preserving the stable residential communities and the tress throughout the Uptown and Downtown Plan areas.

-Mr. William Bevelander, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. He also indicated that he objected to suggestions made by the Solicitor for the property owner of the lands in question because there is no mention of the human factor. He concluded by stating that the stable residential area be maintained.

-Mr. Morry Smith, on behalf of the Lansing Community Association, who indicated that he would like to see the City and staff supporting the position of the residents. He was also concerned about the precedent setting nature of this proposal. In concluding he indicated that he supported the protection of the stable residential area.

-Ms. Mary Ann Cross, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue and requested that it be deleted from the Plan. She further indicated that she moved in this area to raise her family because of its quiet residential character. As such, she would be opposed to any redevelopment in the area

-Ms. Mary Ann Cross also read a communication from Marilyn Bunker outlining Ms Bunker's concerns with the Specific Development Policy relating to 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue/

-Ms. Flude, who spoke outlined her reasons for supporting the Specific Development Policy relating to the lands on Ellerslie Avenue.

-Ms. Neela Adamski, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy. She also stated many of the residents who moved into this area because of its stable residential character would eventually move elsewhere as a result of the negative impacts from redevelopment.

-Ms. Viva Heaton, who spoke in opposition to the proposed development on Ellerslie Avenue. Her primary concerns were with respect to increased traffic and precedent setting nature of the application.

________

A recorded vote on the recommendation was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion and Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:Nil

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Shiner and King

Carried