March 2016
Making Local Development Work Part 2 of 2
The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) exists to protect against short-sighted and partisan interests that may try to influence how our cities and communities develop. This body gets involved when someone disagrees that a proposed local development is in accordance with planning documents.
In Toronto, OMB decisions are made in accordance with stated guidelines for communities as identified in documents such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Official Plan for Toronto and Secondary Plans for identified areas. It is the OMB that ensures disputes about what is considered acceptable development are based on these plans. One of the goals is to avoid having short-term personal interests override agreed upon plans.
Confusion about the OMB and its role is partially due to those who choose to blame the OMB for its decisions rather than identifying individuals or bodies who misinterpret or choose not to abide by published guidelines.
Toronto Condo News has followed one specific development, 4917 Yonge St., since 2012 to better understand the process and identify areas for improvement. This experience provides lessons for those actively involved in community development.
In 2004, Rosedale Developments received initial approval for a development to include 420 units. They requested approval for approximately 470 units and 618 parking spaces. They want to convert up to 77 parking spaces to commercial uses if not sold to residents.
In 2012 a Community Consultation meeting was held in Council Chambers at the North York Civic Centre. Despite receiving notice of this meeting only eight days earlier, the community mobilized. Hundreds of local residents attended. Signed petitions in opposition to the development were submitted. The primary concern cited was a lack of infrastructure to accommodate the area’s growing population. Traffic was a primary concern. While resident concerns may have been considered, neither the Planning Department, Rosedale Developments or Councillor John Filion provided further communications to local residents.
In late 2014, local residents met with the Planning Department and RioCan Management regarding redevelopment of the Sheppard Centre. The same infrastructure concerns were discussed and documented in follow-up correspondence. Again, there was no follow up communication or conversation with local residents.
A review of documents submitted by the Planning Department to North York Community Council makes no mention of traffic concerns by the local community.
North York Community Council failed to make a decision about the 4917 Yonge St. development within the prescribed period as stated in the Planning Act. Rosedale Developments filed an appeal with the Ontario Municipal Board to be heard on February 5, 2015 at which time the hearing was postponed to May 19, 2015.
A 23 page resident submission was provided in opposition to Rosedale Developments’ request for an amendment to the City of Toronto Official Plan that would allow for an increase in the height of the proposed development to accommodate 48 additional dwelling units. This submission included photographs documenting traffic concerns not reflected in area traffic studies and documentation submitted to the Planning Department following December 2014 meetings about Sheppard Centre.
At the hearing, Rosedale Developments provided witnesses attesting to the area’s capacity to accommodate additional traffic. These witnesses stated there would be a “negligible” impact on area traffic. Another witness attested to the need for “destination” businesses that would result in more area traffic.
In response to the submission in opposition to the requested amendment, Rosedale Developments’ legal counsel was silent except for questions to clarify that there was a Traffic Study undertaken, information required by the Planning Department was provided and that all parameters fell within acceptable norms. Absent from this was an explanation as to why traffic studies did not identify problems consistent with concerns documented in the submission.
An OMB ruling on the appeal was issued on July 6, 2015. The developer was successful. The Planning Department and elected politicians lost because they chose not to abide by the published guidelines. Local residents are the casualties.
In an unrelated OMB ruling pertaining to the development of two large apartment buildings near a High Park subway station there was a similar result. In this instance the city was opposed to the development. Also, local opposition was extensive and well organized. As with the 4917 Yonge St. appeal, greater weight was given to official plans, expert testimony and compliance with planning department requirements.
Lessons Learned
Lesson 1
The Ontario Municipal Board operates much like a court of law. It bases decisions on published official plans and expert witness opinions. While residents can participate or initiate an appeal to the OMB, success is unlikely without adequate funds and representation.
Lesson 2
The party with the most to gain is the developer. As such, they expend more time and money in preparation for an appeal. Obligations of the developer are limited to following rules laid out by the Planning Department and being in compliance with planning documents. There is no obligation to communicate with or respond to community concerns.
Lesson 3
The Planning Department and municipal politicians appear to be a weak link in the process. They fail to communicate with residents or acknowledge local concerns. They seem more concerned with impressions than being effective.
Lesson 4
Improving local development requires support of the Planning Department. They establish the rules and measurement criteria for developers, and communicate with local residents. The Planning Department needs to be convinced there are problems with their own measurement criteria if identified problems are not being accurately portrayed.
Areas for Improvement
As the 4917 Yonge St. development appeal moved forward, misinformation and lack of communication came from two sources.
- Planning Department. There is a clear failure to communicate with the community. They failed to send notices to residents while claiming otherwise. They failed to respond to resident concerns verbally or in writing. Their documentation about how to participate in an OMB hearing is poor and misleading.
- City Councillor. Presumably, this role is more than serving as a sympathetic ear while powerless in the face of developer initiatives. The experience of 4917 Yonge St. is that the city councillor was a source of misinformation, disinterested in advising the community on how best to voice their concerns. The combination of misinformation, claimed ignorance and a willingness to blame the OMB is not an effective approach to facilitating smart development.
Information in this article is based on the experience of a single individual and pertaining to a specific development.
