Aird & Berlis LLP is counsel…

Aird & Berlis LLP is counsel to 1358023 Ontario Limited and 2442604 Ontario Limited. Our clients own 10 contiguous parcels from 110 to 128 Cumberland Street located on the north side of Cumberland Street within the Village of Yorkville. Our clients have monitored with interest the City of Toronto’s planning initiatives respecting the Village of Yorkville. Currently, our clients are appellants of Zoning By-law Nos. 119-2018 and 120-2018, which are zoning amendments initiated by the City to uniformly increase the minimum front setback requirement within a specified area of the Village of Yorkville from 0.0 metres to the greater of 3.0 metres; or, where an existing building setback is greater than 3.0 metres, the average of 3.0 metres and the building's existing main front wall setback. As is indicated in our clients’ appeal, the minimum setback initiative of the City is detrimental to the future development potential of lands within the Village of Yorkville, including our clients’ sites. Sites such as our clients are only 25 metres away from the TTC Subway station at Bay Street and only 250 metres away from the “Gateway Hub” (as referenced in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan) at the Bloor/Yonge TTC station. Given the foregoing, the starting point for the potential redevelopment of lands like our clients’ should be one of maximum flexibility to ensure that provincial and municipal investments in high-order transportation infrastructure can be realized through appropriate urban design. Restricting redevelopment flexibility through pre-emptive built-form limitations should not be supported by the Province given the transit and density-supportive polices of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and the 2017 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Province is the approval authority of the City’s OPA 406, which is the new Downtown Secondary Plan. The Village of Yorkville, including our clients’ sites, are within the Downtown Secondary Plan Area. Accordingly, we write to provide our clients’ comments as part of the Province’s deliberations on whether to approve, modify or reject OPA 406. Our client submits that OPA 406, as approved by City Council, is not consistent with the 2014 PPS, does not conform with the 2017 Growth Plan, and generally stifles Provincial aspirations for intensified growth proximate to higher-order transit infrastructure. Our request is accordingly that the Province take one of three courses of action: (1) revise OPA 406 to emphasize that sites within close proximity to higher-order transit (i.e. Major Transit Station Areas) are to be designated to permit increased density and increased built form flexibility; (2) send OPA 406 back to the City with instructions to revise and/or create policies that implement increased density and increased built form flexibility within Major Transit Station Areas; or (3) make no decision on OPA 406, thereby allowing stakeholders like our client an opportunity to appeal OPA 406 to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal for adjudication on its merits. In terms of specific comments on OPA 406 itself, our clients’ planning consultant (Bousfields Inc.) has reviewed the proposed amendment and has assisted our office in offering the following: •Our clients’ sites are identified as part of the Mixed Use Areas 4 – Local designation. •In Mixed Use Areas 4, the “existing context” is intended to dictate its “planning context”. This is not appropriate where the “existing context” is within walking distance to two higher-order transit stations, including a Gateway Hub. The “planning context” must be one of flexibility in order to accommodate densities and built forms appropriate for these Major Transit Station Areas and not be bound to a low-rise, low-density past. A more appropriate designation for lands within the Village of Yorkville might be Mixed Use Areas 3 – Main Street, which permits higher densities and greater built form flexibility. •Policy 6.21 states that “Building heights, massing, and scale of development will transition between each of the four Mixed Use Areas (…) to low-scale buildings in Mixed Use Areas 4”. It is not appropriate to set up built form transition so that the lowest heights/densities are located within walking distance of higher-order transit stations. In other words, it is not good planning to transition down as one gets closer to the City’s subway stations. To be consistent with/conform with Provincial plans and policies, the approach to transition should be the opposite of what the City is proposing for the Village of Yorkville. •Policy 6.33.1 states that “Development in Mixed Use Areas 4 will (…) contain small scale office (…) and retail uses).” There is little guidance in OPA 406 as to why the Village of Yorkville must be limited to “small scale” office and retail uses. Provided that appropriate built forms are achieved, the office and retail policies applicable to Yorkville should be open to multiple forms of office and retail, including larger chains and population-serving employment. •Policy 6.33.2 states that “Development in Mixed Use Areas 4 will (…) be of a low-rise scale, generally four storeys or less in height (…)” This effectively affords our clients’ sites (again, located within two Major Transit Station Areas) the same policy framework / considerations as the City’s Neighbourhoods designation. This certainly does not optimize the public investment in transit infrastructure within this area of the City. •Section 9 sets out various built form policies that, both separately and in concert, create barriers for realizing intensified development. These types of policies depress built form creativity and lead to extended periods of municipal processing where urban design disagreements become built form stalemates. Requiring developers to seek official plan amendments whenever their proposed built form differs from City staff’s predetermined ideas of appropriate built form is precisely the type of “red tape” that the Province should be seeking to eliminate if the goal is to bring additional housing to market quickly. While built form policies aimed at limiting impact on adjacent parcels and the public realm will always be important, creating a series of official plan policies dedicated to prescribing future private built forms is a recipe for disputes and delays. Greater flexibility is needed than what is proposed in section 9 of OPA 406. •Policy 10.9 proposes to oblige developers to include non-profit child care facilities wherever such facilities can be accommodated. Such a policy is prescriptive, unfair and unrealistic with little-to-no direction on how such facilities will be designed and operated in situations where the end-user (i.e. the non-profit daycare operator) is not identified. •As a final general comment, OPA 406 often goes well beyond providing land use and built form policy and strides into specific use and form regulations, which are supposed to be the purview of the City’s zoning by-law. It is uneconomical and contrary to good planning to have a Secondary Plan act as a higher-order zoning by-law. Please note that our client reserves its right to expand upon or add to the above list of comments/issues in the event a further process respecting OPA 406 (including a potential appeal to the LPAT) ultimately occurs. We thank you for this opportunity to comment on behalf of 1358023 Ontario Limited and 2442604 Ontario Limited. Aird & Berlis LLP is available should the Province have any questions arising from its review of this submission.