September 24, 2018 Ministry…

September 24, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Services Division Municipal Services Office – Central Ontario 777 Bay Street Floor 13 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 To Whom It May Concern: RE: COMMENTS ON MIDTOWN IN FOCUS YONGE-EGLINTON SECONDARY PLAN (OPA 405) ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY #: 013-3483 File No.:17164 MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) acts for 401701 Ontario Limited the owner of the property municipally known as 95-131 and 155 Balliol Street (the “Subject Lands”), located within the limits of Official Plan Amendment 405 – the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”). Our client’s initial concerns with the recently adopted Secondary Plan, dates back to discussions with City staff in November 2017. We submitted a letter to City Planning dated February 22nd, 2018 (attached as Appendix A) which identified the concerns with the draft Secondary Plan proposed at that time. These concerns were further expressed and reinforced by a subsequent letter sent to the City, dated June 6th, 2018 prepared by our client’s solicitors, Aird Berlis LLP (attached as Appendix B). Since our submissions our client has formally submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application for the redevelopment of the western portion of their property for a 24-storey rental apartment building which, in our opinion, implements the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), the City of Toronto Official Plan and the current Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan. We have reviewed the Secondary Plan which was adopted by Council from July 23-27, 2018 and is currently before the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for final approval. We note, however, that our client continues to have significant concerns regarding the impacts the adopted Secondary Plan will have on the future development of the Subject Lands and thus are providing our commentary to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their consideration prior to deciding on the Secondary Plan. 1)The process and approval First we would like to express concerns with regard to the process that has been taken by the City for the adoption of the Secondary Plan. In 2014 and 2015, the City began developing new policies for the Secondary Plan under Section 17 of the Planning Act. In the fall of 2017, however, the introduction of Bill 139 initiated the City to alter their process by recognizing the approval process under Section 26 of the Planning Act instead. In my professional opinion this decision was unjust, as the approval of the Secondary Plan under Section 26 subsequently limits the ability of our client to appeal if needed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”). Given the nuanced issues of concern with the policies and how they relate to specific development proposals, it is appropriate that issues of concern be dealt with appropriately through a potential appeal to the LPAT. Further, and on a broader scale it highlighted a problematic misuse of Section 26 which may be used in future scenarios within the province if a precedent is set in the approval of the Secondary Plan by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2)Height Limits and Height Bonusing One of our client’s main concern with the Secondary Plan relates to the placement of the Subject Lands within a limited height area (Map 21-14) as well as the specific language contained within the proposed Secondary Plan which prohibits additional height increase (Policy 9.4.7 b). We believe that 23 to 25 storeys would be a more appropriate maximum height for the Subject Lands which would optimize the major transit infrastructure (the Yonge-University Subway Line) which is located in proximity to our client’s lands. The Subject Lands are located entirely within the B4 Davisville Apartment Neighbourhood. Existing and new residential buildings immediately to the north of the Subject Lands are of 28 to 30 storeys in height. The requested maximum height range of 23 to 25 storeys would provide a better balance between intensification and a transition of heights towards the E4 Davisville Community Street and E5 Merton Street character areas to the north and south respectively. Our height recommendation was expressed to the City in the submissions made to the City. Despite these submissions, City Council ultimately approved the Secondary Plan with a reduced height limit of 15 storeys; 2 storeys less (17-19 storey) then what was originally contemplated for the area and 10 storeys less than our submission. This decision not only further limited the development potential for the Subject Lands but will result in an underutilization of the lands, resulting in less usage of major transit infrastructure. In our opinion, this is inappropriate and is not consistent with the policies of the PPS and does not conform to the policies of the Growth Plan. It should also be further noted that we are in the opinion that the limited height restriction imposed on the Subject Lands has broader implications by limiting the ability to adequately respond to the City’s growing housing affordability issue. Imposing such restrictive height measures on areas identified as Growth Centre in the Growth Plan and within proximity to higher-order transit undermines Provincial policy mandates. 3)Restrictive Building Design Policy Policies in section 5.3 of the proposed Secondary Plan continue to contain a set of strong urban design policies for “Midtown Tall Buildings” and “Midtown Infill Apartment Neighbourhood Buildings”. We believe that policies should allow for flexibility in design while encouraging sky view and sufficient access to sunlight and open spaces for residents in existing and future developments in the Apartment Neighbourhood. We ask the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to take these concerns, as identified in our submissions to the City into consideration in their review and decision of OPA 405. 4)Lack of Provisions to Cap Parkland Dedication or Equivalent Cash-In-Lieu The proposed Secondary Plan’s Policy 3.3.18 provides in part that the City will adopt by by-law for the Secondary Plan area an alternative requirement for parkland dedication at rates commensurate with the intensity of development. Such language within this portion of the Secondary Plan is ambiguous in nature. For certainty and clarity we had previously asked that the Secondary Plan contain more definitive language as it relates to parkland dedication - specifically that the Secondary Plan provisions mirror the provisions contained in Chapter 415 of the Toronto Municipal Code for parkland dedication. We ask the province strongly consider this recommendation in their review and decision. 5)Inconsistent Mapping Lastly, our client takes issue with the designation on Map 21-14 of the western portion of the Subject Lands (95-131 Balliol Street) as “Midtown Tall Building” with its height capped at 15 floors. Given the unity of ownership of the Subject Lands and the existing building’s footprint, our client has previously expressed to the City on two occasions that the entirety of the Subject Lands should be included within the area designated as “Midtown Tall Buildings” on Map 21-14. This suggestion, however, was not considered in Council’s approval of the Secondary Plan. On behalf of our client we ask that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing strongly consider our concerns prior to deciding on the Secondary Plan (OPA 405). In my professional opinion the issues that have been raised will not only have significant implications on the Subject Lands but on the entirety of the Yonge-Eglinton area in general. Thank you for your consideration of the above concerns. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, MHBC David A. McKay, MSc, MCIP, RPP Vice President and Partner