Request for Direction

Appeal by the University of Toronto

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

Scarborough Official Plan Amendment No. 988

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April26, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report recommends a position to be taken by Council at the May 31, 1999 Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the University of Toronto proposed modifications to the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment 988 for the Highland Creek Community Secondary Plan.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)direct the City Solicitor to adopt the following positions at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the University's proposed modification to the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment 988, scheduled to commence on May 31, 1999:

(a)support modification of OPA 988 to restore any development rights which the amendment would have removed from the University's lands, such as semi-detached housing within the area presently designated for Low Density Residential Uses;

(b)support the addition of the following uses to the Institutional - Scarborough Campus designation, to facilitate partnerships by the University with other educational institutions and with the private sector, i.e.,

-training and educational facilities;

-scientific, technical research and development uses which have no noxious characteristics;

(c)oppose any further modifications of OPA 988 to implement the densities of development currently being proposed as being not supportable in the absence of adequate planning justification;

(2)request that the University of Toronto provide a municipally acceptable planning rationale and supporting studies to justify the land uses and densities being proposed so that Council and staff can properly evaluate the University's proposals with respect to impact on the Highland Creek and Morningside communities, parks and schools, piped services, traffic, environmental issues and other issues.

(3)direct the Director of Community Planning, East District:

(a)to continue to meet with representatives of the University of Toronto to obtain the information described in (2);

(b)to report to the Scarborough Community Council at its meeting of May 26, 1999, on the progress of these discussions and on the community information meeting scheduled for May 10, 1999, at the Highland Creek Elementary School; and

(c)to initiate a secondary planning process for the University of Toronto lands, similar to that successfully undertaken for the York University main campus, such process to include the University of Toronto, Ward Councillors and representatives of community associations.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 13,14 and 15, 1999, directed that staff report to Scarborough Community Council at its meeting of April 28, 1999, with recommendations for a City position to be taken at the OMB hearing scheduled for May 31, 1999, to deal with the proposed modifications to the City-initiated OPA 988 for the Highland Creek community.

The University of Toronto, without a formal application, proposes to significantly expand the uses presently provided for by the Highland Creek Secondary Plan for almost 60 hectares (150 acres) of its lands (Figure 1). (No change is being sought for the valleylands of the Highland Creek.)

Comments:

The University is seeking a density of 3 x site area for almost two thirds of this area, and 2 x and 1 x density over the balance of the lands. This could potentially result in 700,000 square metres (7.5 million square feet) of residential, commercial and other floorspace, even if the theoretically achievable maximums are discounted by 50 percent to allow for existing campus buildings, local roads, parks and environmentally unusable lands.

For perspective, the potential buildout exceeds the total built retail, office and residential floor space in the City Centre. The range of densities proposed for the University lands is similar to the density range planned for the City Centre, which is served by the SRT and a bus terminal.

Further, the U of T proposals are substantially more intense than the "pre-subway" densities provided for in the Agincourt Centre, which now has a GO station and a high order of bus service.

The Scarborough Official Plan contains policy statements regarding the form and density of dwelling unit types. The Ontario Municipal Board decision of March 29, 1999, confirmed the following policy statement, part of amendments resulting from a two-year planning process undertaken by planning staff with extensive community involvement. (Although the University lands are excluded from the effect of this policy at this time, it will apply to the immediately abutting lands.)

"The residential areas of the Highland Creek Community are characterized by detached dwellings on spacious treed lots. The preservation of this character within the established residential areas of the Community shall be the principal criterion in evaluating development proposals. Residential infill and redevelopment shall be compatible with the existing residential character consistent with the provisions of Section 2.4.1.3."

Section 2.4.1.3 of the Scarborough plan states that:

"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."

Section 2.4.2.3 of the Scarborough plan says, in part, that:

"The establishment of dwelling unity types may be based, among other things, on:

-type and condition of existing housing;

-the compatibility of new development to existing residential areas in terms of form, density and scale of development; ...

-the proximity of City-wide services and facilities such as rapid transit...."

The University's proposals constitute a fundamental restructuring of the Highland Creek Secondary Plan. The University has not provided a planning rationale for the proposed land uses or densities, particularly in regard to the planning policies noted above. No studies of traffic, community facility, or servicing impact have been submitted. The only adjustments to community concerns proposal are height limits of 3 storeys in the immediate proximity of existing residential areas, increasing to the west. A limit on retail shopping, to a maximum of 4 hectares (10 acres) has also been added.

The University has proposed a process whereby it would undertake detailed plans prior to rezoning for "new development". These plans would be based on a review of transportation, infrastructure, urban design, environment and other factors normally considered by a municipality prior to approving development. The City could review these plans and studies. There would not, however, be a requirement that the plans and studies be done to the satisfaction of City staff or Council.

Council could refuse to approve the zoning applications but would then be put in the disadvantageous position before the Ontario Municipal Board of defending its refusal of rezonings implementing policies already established in the Official Plan.

Expansion of the University, or partnership with a community college facility on the campus lands, can be done now within existing zoning. The addition of private scientific, technical research and development uses in the Institutional designation, as long as these have no noxious characteristics, would constitute a relatively minor amendment to the plan which staff could support.

Staff could support restoration of any development rights which OPA 988 may have removed from the University's lands, in particular the addition of semi-detached housing as a permitted Low Density Residential use. (It should be noted, however, that the University is not requesting this.)

However, based on the material submitted to date and the lack of planning justification, planning staff cannot recommend that Council support the balance of the University of Toronto proposals in their present form.

Staff recommend that an alternative, potentially far more productive, approach be adopted. The former City of North York, faced with proposals for extensive development on the main campus of York University, entered into a process of consultation involving the Ward Councillors, the affected ratepayer groups, school trustees and York University. The process, which took approximately two years, led to a consensus and approval of a Secondary Plan and rezoning, which was approved by North York Council in 1991 without appeal.

This would require that the University agree that the OMB hearing on May 31 deal only with the limited matters set out above and join with the City and the community in working towards a concensus on a future amendment to the Plan to deal with the University's other objectives.

Conclusion:

Staff are prepared to recommend continuation of the dialogue with the University on both the content and process proposed in their amendment modifications and to provide for private sector partnerships in research and development. Staff cannot, however, recommend the balance of the University of Toronto proposals in their current form.

Contact Name:

David Beasley, MCIP, RPP

Principal Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7026

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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