Questions and Answers

The Official Plan, and the Zoning by-law and other regulatory practices as they apply to the proposals are explained on this page: Planning Regulations and Development Issues

An Official Plan is a long-term policy document (generally 20 years). It is strategic and high level in its approach and establishes a vision for the future social and physical condition of the city. Every municipality in Ontario must have an OP, which requires to be reviewed every 15 years and must receive approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

While an Official Plan sets out the municipality’s general policies for future land use, zoning by-laws put the plan into effect and provide for its day-to-day administration. They contain specific requirements that are legally enforceable. Zoning by-laws must conform to the Official Plan. Generally, a zoning by-law controls the use of land in your community. It states exactly, among other things:

• how land may be used
• where buildings and other structures can be located
• the types of buildings that are permitted and how they may be used
• the lot sizes and dimensions, parking requirements, density, building heights and setbacks from the street

Along Queen Street West:

It is now permitted to built to a height of up to 16 meters (5 storeys) of residential and/or commercial uses along Queen Street West to a lot depth of 45.7meters from Queen Street. A setback (angular plane) is required along the front property line (along Queen) so as to allow for sunlight in the street.

Industrial area:

Height limit: 18 meters.
Land use: According to the Official Plan residential use is permitted along with industrial and a wide range of other mutually compatible uses.
Zoning regulations only permit light industrial use and NOT residential.

Among other things:

• An increase of permissible height to up to 79m from 18m in the rear (industrial) part of the lot (more than four times the allowable height for the site)
• An increase of permissible height to approximately 30m (10 storeys) from 16m along Queen West (almost twice as high as permitted on Queen Street)
• An increase of density over the lot to 4.0 and 4.9fsi from a permitted 1) 3fsi at the rear industrial part of the lot; and 2) from 3fsi along Queen Street West with a maximum of 2.5fsi for the residential use.

Developers have the right to challenge planning rules and other technicalities under Section 17 of the provincial Planning Act. Subsection 40 which reads as follows:

Appeal to O.M.B.
(40)
If the approval authority fails to give notice of a decision
in respect of all or part of a plan within 180 days after the
day the plan is received by the approval authority, any person
or public body may appeal to the Municipal Board with respect
to all or any part of the plan in respect of which no notice
of a decision was given by filing a notice of appeal with the
approval authority. 1996, c. 4, s. 9; 2004, c. 18, s. 3 (1).

The Ontario Municipal Board is an independent adjudicative tribunal that hears appeals and applications and resolves land use disputes under a variety of legislation including the Planning Act, Municipal Act, 2001 and the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

The Board deals with a variety of issues including: official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivision plans, consents to sever land, minor variances from local by-laws, development charges, applications for aggregate licenses and compensation for expropriated land.

For more information please refer to Your Guide to Ontario Municipal Board Hearings(http://www.omb.gov.on.ca) and the Information Sheets on the following topics:

• Pre-Hearings
• Mediation Meetings
• Hearings
• Postponing a Hearing
• Motions
• Calling Witnesses for a Hearing
• Disagreeing with an OMB Decision
• Getting Repaid for Your Expenses

Any rezoning or official plan amendment request that has not been fully processed by the municipality within 180 days is entitled to appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board. Here is a chronology of the successive applications for the three current proposals to put this in context:

1171 & 1171R Queen Street West

• applied on May 17, 2005.

48 Abell Street

1999, Proposal to:

• Add a fourth storey to the Lamp Building
• To legalize the live-work studios in the building, add some more studios and keep the lamp showroom

Fall 2004: Preliminary investigations to redevelop site for Affordable Housing

• Site serviced from Abell and lane
• No new streets through the site
• Single north-south slab along west edge of site with future development considerations on East Side
• Timing is important because it depends on funding with deadlines attached

August 2005:

• Revision to application with a two tower option
• 1 tower for social housing – 19 storeys
• 1 tower for market condominiums – 25 storeys
• Beginning to consider providing live-work studio spaces as part of the social housing building
• The owner of 48 Abell is also the owner of much of the land needed for the Sudbury Street extension (1199 Queen St W – where the garden centre is now)
  

150 Sudbury

2000: 4-storey stacked townhouses approved

• Bike path instead of Abell Street extension
• No Sudbury Street Extension
• Parking at grade instead of landscaped open space

Spring 2005: Committee of Adjustment Application for Minor Variance Approved

• Changes to previous zoning in 2000
• Parking goes underground
• More landscaped open space
• Reintroduction of Sudbury Street extension
• Increase in density (going from 4 storeys to 5 ½ storeys)

November 2005: Zoning and OP amendment application

• A 16 storey tower is proposed as an addition to the approved townhouse project.

Here are some of the elements of a livable city we would like to see included in a Development Master Plan. They were expressed during various Active18 association meetings held during October and November 2005:

• Walking paths
• Green space/public space that is coordinated, programmed and networked
• Lighting design should enhance the architectural and landscape qualities of the urban environment, not be overtly defensive and solely driven by security concerns
• Make Abell Street connect with Sudbury like in the Secondary Plan
• Retaining heritage buildings
• Create rent-to-own strategies for affordable housing
• Trees and planting should be provided with enough soil depth to ensure growth to full maturity of native species
• Access to the lake (visual, physical)

There are a number of way in which we can take CONTROL the development process.

• Continue a dialogue with our councillor Adam Giambrone
• Participate to the public consultation process
• Keep informed by registering with Active18’s listserv
• Voice your concerns in public and to City staff and elected officials
• Find and disseminate examples of development you would like to see in the neighbourhood; convey them to the Active18 web site, your councillor and city staff, as well as neighbours.

There are also a number of TOOLS that can help determining what constitutes good planning and city making. We may not have to resort to each of them but some may become useful:

Charrette, Design Competition

• The purpose of a charrette is to establish a framework for the major moves of the new neighbourhood in relation to the broader urban context. We will operate at the scale of streets, blocks and lanes, the organization and networking of park space, the character of streets and other public places, the general shape, volume and maximum heights of buildings, some general ideas about land use and the generation of a powerful vision for a coherent node and Queen Street. The intention is to establish a framework that will last in time, yet remain flexible to adapt to an evolving society.
  
  
• A group of concerned citizens may get together to make their own AREA PLAN as a position statement before City staff, Council and the development community. This should be done in consultation with all stakeholders, Councillors and City Staff. For a good example of a resident-sponsored study that will be endorsed by the city, follow this link:
  www.wellingtonplace.org
  
  
• We could lobby for a Queen Street West Heritage Conservation District to be established in our neighbourhood. This could potentially have a lot of power to preserve the scale, character and even materials of new development on Queen W. An example of a Heritage Conservation District that is currently in the making can be reviewed at: http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/hcd_queen_west.htm.
  
  However a Heritage Conservation study can take a long time to do and it can also be expensive.

• Establish Urban Design Guidelines
  Urban design guidelines set out a direction and a reference for development. They coordinate the composite effect of new development upon the nature and character of the public space.

• Design Review
  Toronto is on its way to adopting this process more regularly. Please see the city’s link to find out more:
  http://www.toronto.ca/planning/designsymposium_2.htm#Part1.
  
  For a recent example of this process, please visit the Bloor West Village Residents Association www.bwvra.ca
  

  Excerpt from Councillor Giambrone's newsletter, 22 December 2005:
  

  Council approved a proposal to conduct a pilot project introducing a Design Review Panel to help ensure that new buildings and public spaces in Toronto are well designed. Review panels work successfully in many cities. Locations to test the concept in Toronto will be identified through public consultation and will include public projects as well as private development. Establishing a role for a Design Review Panel is seen as consistent with, and supportive of, the goals of the Official Plan and Council’s Beautiful City initiative.

• There are precedents in other wards for what is called a Build Form and Density Study. Such a study was used to include neighbourhood voices in the planning of the Niagara St. area (in Ward 19, Joe Pantalone). The study will be used to direct zoning in the area. This is a good example of the kind of concerns that
  

• Check it out at: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/niagara.htm
  

The ‘Queen Street West Triangle’ consists of what was formerly railway-related industrial lands. The shape and size of their lots are often typical of industrial development of the time. Their shape was often determined by the original function of the building or railway spurs. Indeed, the lots had more to do with the railway than they did with the rest of the city. They did not have to relate to, or integrate, into the surrounding pattern of streets to the extent other land uses did. They were set apart from the more conventional city.

Today this type of 19th Century industrial development often has difficulty to integrating into the regular pattern of streets and buildings. Conventional buildings are not easily developed in odd-shaped lots because they are not evenly accessible from the public realm; in this case, Queen Street. A lot of residual space can end up being unused and wasted at a time when there is scarcity of land to develop in the first place. As is the case in the Queen West Triangle Lands, a planning exercise needs to be done, which encompasses the whole area and coordinates future development in a way that satisfies the community’s concerns, broader municipal policies and the interests of the land owners alike. The municipality has already begun work on such an exercise as it is a requirement of the Official Plan.

Developers of this type of land may face higher development expenses than usual because they normally have to plan and build new roads and services like sewers and fresh water supply. Some of this land may be polluted after a century of industrial use, which again adds to development costs. Obviously the price paid for a piece of land should reflect these conditions. The contribution to local schools, parks, community centers and a share of affordable housing is expected to be similar to that of other development elsewhere in the city.

Because expenses add up developers often seek permission to build larger buildings than those in the immediate surroundings to offset these costs and the risks involved, especially if they paid too much for the land. Their only solution then is to make their profit (or prevent losses) at the expense of the values expressed in the Official Plan and other regulatory documents.

On one hand, the public cannot be responsible for land purchase decisions that prove wrong and sacrifice the urban environment to offset potential losses. On the other hand, there has to be a meeting point where the inherent risks of developing industrial lands, with unforeseeable costs, is made reasonably possible so the neighbourhood, and the city at large, can benefit from new development and move forward toward optimal city building. Thus in every situation a reasonable compromise should be determined. The onus should be on the developer to demonstrate this.

1. A development proposal for 150 Sudbury Street was approved in 2005 in favour of UrbanCorp (the Developer) for 5 ½ storey townhouses. This lot was logically the easiest to develop because the site was already cleared out, its lack of heritage building stock and its proximity to existing municipal services on Sudbury.
2. People moving into the UrbanCorp project may offer some resistance in the future when adjacent landlords ask permission to build at higher densities and heights that would have otherwise been expected. It is in the financial interest of the other land owners to atempt to secure their own approvals for higher density as soon as possible, hence the current flurry of planning activity and need to respond quickly.