“Making our Voices Heard in Planning our Neighbourhoods”

Tuesday April 29, 7 to 9 pm

North Toronto Memorial Community Centre (200 Eglinton Avenue West)

Introduction

The North Toronto Forum was an opportunity for residents and residents groups to share experiences, learn from each other and better develop our networks. It consisted of three parts; case studies, round table discussions, and plenary reportback. The discussion focused on 2 questions:

“What are the obstacles to having our voices heard?”
“How can we address these obstacles?”

Peter Baker (FoNTRA Co-chair) welcomed everyone to the North Toronto Forum

Cathie Macdonald (FoNTRA and Deer Park Residents’ Group) introduced Dina Graser of People Plan Toronto, and Jane Farrow (CBC producer, Chair of Active 18, Executive Director for Janes Walks and the Centre for Urban Ecology), the moderator for the Forum

Jane Farrow introduced the five speakers for the case study presentations

Case studies

North Toronto Collegiate Rebuild Project (Peter Baker, FoNTRA Co-Chair and Sherwood Park Residents’ Association)

Involves the reconstruction of the North Toronto Collegiate Institute (NTCI) and the development of two condos (24 and 27 storeys)
Originally involved four possible groups (French separate school board, parking authority as well as TDSB and developer) then narrowed to the latter two partners
Concerns about development in North Toronto, the loss of a school, heritage preservation and keeping the existing school particularly from the NTCI alumni, and sale of a portion of the school property
Sale of .7 of an acre of land on a total of 5.3 acre site resulted in the development of capital for the board to rebuild NTCI.
An MOU was negotiated between the resident’s groups and TDSB resulting in active residents participating in RFP process and the design team over the past five years.

Lessons learned

Tough decisions have to be made to preserve what is important for education and the community
Involve residents’ groups early;
Become Involved with the local trustee, councillor and school board officials
Ensure credible architects and developer who listen and respond
Develop trust, open communication and leadership

Avenue Road Avenues Study (Robert Amaron, Bedford Park Residents Association)

New official Plan designated 180 km along major arterial streets as Avenues. These are areas where intensification is to be encouraged. Generally mixed use – residential with commercial use below
Study area was Avenue Road between Lawrence and Wilson
Existing zoning is not consistent with the OP – density 1.0 times coverage.
Funding made available for studies to address the zoning issues and create a new zoning bylaw to address the situation in each area.
Result will be a ZB that limits height to five storeys except 7storeys in certain areas. Max density 3 time coverage
Local advisory committee established to represent residents and business groups – total 28 members. Did not include developers.
Test was the RioCan development proposal for Avenue Road between Fairlawn and St Germain. Proposal was for 8 storeys. OMB approved 6 storeys before Avenue Study was completed

Lessons Learned:

Not at table not heard
Speak the language, understand the rules
Have to listen if want to be heard

Talbot Apartments (Brian Athey, Leaside Property Owners Association)

Three apartment buildings in two blocks on east side of Bayview opposite the Mount Pleasant cemetery, built in 1938 in Colonial Revival style
Open courtyards, low density, desirable and affordable accommodation
LPOA heard about the development proposal in December 2006
Developer arranged meetings with immediate homes in Jan-Feb 2007. Options were laid out that each involved demolition of the whole site.
May 2007 LPOA arranged a meeting at St Cuthbert’s Church with over 300 people present where there was overwhelming support for preservation
August 2007 Staff report recommended one block to be designated and two to be listed only
September 2007 Toronto Preservation Board voted to designate all three buildings (with staff support)
October 2007 North York Community Council agreed to recommend designation of all three buildings
November 2007 City Council approved designation of all three building subject to statutory 30 day period for appeals to the Conservation Review Board (CRB)
December 2007 Developer appealed to the CRB
April 2008 Developer submitted full application for OPA/ZBA to the city for 3-4 storey townhouses and 8 storey apartment building
April 2008 2 signs put up on the property by the city (city required to by process)
Next steps – heritage appeal by CRB and planning application reviewed by city. 180 day period for appeal to the OMB as of notification to the applicant of the receipt by the city of full application. Application involved 6-10 reports and 12 plans

Lessons learned

Essential for residents to be proactive and intervene, strong community voices get heard
Councillor support is essential - put pressure on councillor to support community
Diligence – keep the pressure on
Understand the Planning process – it is fixed and you have to live with it even though you feel it does not support what you want

Don Mills Centre (Terry West, Don Mills Residents Inc.)
- Don Mills Centre was originally an open air mall, and was covered over in the 1970s.
- Following the demise of Eatons the level of merchants in the mall went down
- In 2001 Cadillac Fairview proposed to redevelop the space vacated by the curling rink, refurbish the mall and bring in a hotel.
- The residents association (DMRI) established a task force
- Cadillac Fairview dropped the proposal
- In 2005 C-F came back with a revised proposal and asked the residents association to participate
- Community meetings were held in which the community requested a community centre.
- November 2006 C-F revised the proposal again and proposed an outdoor mall
- February 2007 the community was up in arms over loss of indoor mall as a place for seniors to walk
- Agreement negotiated between developer and DMRI to build community centre
- DMRI carried out householder survey – 9000 forms distributed with 1240+ returned
- One of the questions posed was: do you support the DMRI agreement - only 36 disagreed. Others dealt with details that should be included in the community centre and other needs in the community.

Lessons learned:

Be in early - vigilant and active (assumes developer is willing to talk)

As much as possible keep the community informed as you proceed

Mt Pleasant Cemetery Visitation Centre (Tim Costigan, Moore Park Residents’ Association)

Large facility – approximately the size of football field.
Cemetery Bylaw indicates green space but with exceptions- cemetery, crematorium or “associated uses”.
Question of interpretation of “associated use” – does the associated use modify the three uses listed or is it in general
Building department rejected the proposal three times
Mt Pleasant Cemetery (MPC) launched legal appeal
City legal staff advised that likelihood of losing the fight
City staff did not go back to council – they settled
Moore Park residents tried to get an interim control bylaw but could not get council to support.
Councillor Rae outraged with city legal staff
Residents entered into discussions with MPGC and got minor changes to the plan
Residents lobbied city council and in Sept 2006 city council rejected proposal 41-2
City gave residents assn $70,000 to ask the court to interpret the provisions of the bylaw
At the court hearing the onus was on the residents to show that the visitation centre was NOT an associated use.
The court concluded that the visitation centre was an associated use.
OMB approved the site plan application
During research the Moore Park Residents’ Association (MPRA) discovered the historic statutes that created the cemetery. The cemetery was created as a public trust with public funds. The citizens of Toronto had the power to elect the trustees who managed the trust. The cemetery now says that the historic statutes no longer apply to them, even though that legislation has not been repealed. The cemetery says they are a private entity.
The question that now exists is: how did this public institution move from being responsible to the public to being privately owned.
The Ontario government has said that they are concerned about this issue and promised to deal with it quickly. The government is not responding effectively to this issue as it has now been a year since this issue was raised and they have not publicly stated their position.

Lessons learned:

Legislation can be ambiguous – demand clarity.
Can’t win if decisions are made behind closed doors. Need to have input prior to decisions made - the application process must be transparent .
Beware city staff and City Hall processes (why were the legal staff not held to account?) Push council to hold its staff responsible for decisions that bind the City
If you don’t have enough community resources to fight, think creatively about how you can raise funds. Funding for community actions can come from different sources – be open to these options. In this case the City itself provided funding.
Don’t stop the political pressure, don’t give up – pressure needs to be consistently applied. MPRA are still pushing the provincial government to return this historically public institution back to public control.

Results of Discussions

The following are the Obstacles and Solutions identified consolidated from the reportbacks of all the table groups

Obstacles

Lack of a understandable planning process and understanding it
Lack of accountability of councillors and council - too much distance as a result of amalgamation
Lack of transparency in political processes/decision-making
Don’t know how to get staff and council on side
Community is always in the position of reacting to development proposals - Onus is always on the community to show that a given development is flawed but community has few resources – developer has deep pockets
Planning legislation does not require the council to take residents views into account
Notification area for residents is too small, people then are not aware of proposals
Apathy and disinclination to fight – lack of belief in collective power of community - intimidation by developers/don’t make waves
Process favours developer
- 180 day review after which right to appeal to OMB
- Studies are done by developer – likelihood of bias – instead funds should be given to the city to administer studies
Process is not integrated just legalistic and procedural
Planning department understaffed, tired and poor morale, funding cutbacks continue
Ward councillors play too great a role in planning process
Fear of lawsuits

How to address Obstacles

Better systems of communications to share learnings between residents and associations – e.g. community bulletin boards, web sites
Library portal on planning circulation of reports and issues and successes in processes that work
Focus on priority goals, what is most important
More power to community councils to more local decision-making
Reform OMB – remove adversarial approach, provide alternatives or eliminate it
Require councillors to have town hall meetings to tell what they have been doing
Guide to planning process (PPT has one)
Implement local appeal board as legislated by new City of Toronto act as first step
Get more diverse representation
Community involvement in planning – e.g. Adam Vaughan community report card
Wider notification of residents WRT planning applications
Make effective use of resources like media and politicians
Build trust, be willing to accommodate and find best results solution OR THE OPPOSING VIEW - don’t always go for compromise – everyone has the right to defend their interest which may be lost in compromise
Engage at the table
Pressure council to be more cooperative
Share information and learnings across the province with a data base –municipalities share common legislation and therefore issues
More City resources for planning
Engage the new Chief Planner (Gary Wright) to work together to fix the planning process (see Christopher Hume’s column)

Role for FoNTRA?

Help establish umbrella groups like FONTRA in other areas
Lobby Ontario government on Planning Act reform
Be a central depository to provide for more sharing of planning stories and successes, share information on web site
Act as advisory service including legal
Develop a more diverse membership
Take on political issues
Give councillors updates
Lobby for a local appeal body as a step forward
Charge higher membership fees to get more funding to be able to do more
Help fix the planning process

Councillor Michael Walker reviewed some recent decisions of council including: the issues that come from taking out secondary plans in the latest OP and not completing the new zoning bylaw, getting rid of the OMB, supporting SLAAP legislation (noting Council just supported his motion to do this), concerns with the centralization of planning that is happening at Council, and the fact that those with deep pockets win. He also stressed that if you engage you can find a consensus.

Carolyn Langdon from the St Lawrence Forum encouraged people to come to the city-wide forum on May 29.

The meeting closed with thanks from Geoff Kettel (FoNTRA and Leaside Property Owners Association to the planning committee for the session (Cathie Macdonald, Robert Amaron, Jay Robinson, Lauralyn Johnston, Agnes Vermes and Maggie Olah) and to all others involved with the session.

Notes by

Geoff Kettel and Cathie Macdonald

May 2008