catcher_of_cats
Active Member
OMB decision will be made available in late March.
Here is a small breakdown of the info from the hearing... (sorry about the length)
At the very beginning of the hearing, we learned that the Traffic Planner for the city had resolved the traffic and parking issues with the developer by accepting a plan where all residential traffic would enter through the Dorval laneway at the rear west of the site and exit onto Dundas West with a right-turn only. The applicant also agreed to increase the underground parking. This meant that the city and the applicant would not present the traffic plan or express any issues about it at the hearing; however, during community impact statements, local residents and businesses were able to present concerns about the impacts of the traffic plan and the foreseeable difficulties with implementing it. The hearing lasted five days, with area residents and business, as participants and not parties, concerns presented for two hours.
The applicant's case
The applicant presented evidence from two witnesses: Robert Glover, an urban designer and urban planner who reviewed and defended the plans prepared for the project; and Peter Walker, a land-use planner who prepared the developer's 2007 Avenue Segment Study.
Robert Glover/Urban design
Glover argued that the proposal was a good fit for the site, because there was a pattern of more intense development around "transit nodes" across the city. He also argued that the presence of the Crossways, although it had some undesirable features, meant that a tall building on the opposite corner at 1540 would be within a suitable context.
Peter Walker/Land use planning
Walker argued that there were not significant differences between the findings in his Avenue Segment Study and the Avenue Study prepared for the city by Anne McIlroy, except that his study recommended a more intense and higher built form on the 1540 site. He felt that the height, built form and density of the proposal was appropriate, given the unique, "distinguishing features" of the site (close to transit, on a corner, at the intersection of two Avenues, opposite the Crossways, on a prominent site, separated from the Neighbourhood to the north by the subway line, at a future "Mobility Hub" of the Regional Transportation Plan).
Furthermore, the applicant's witnesses argued that the Avenue Study should not apply to the site because the original application was made in 2007, before the formal Avenue Study began (in March 2008).
The city's case
The city presented four witnesses: Andrea Old, the urban designer for this area; Anne McIlroy, the consultant hired to prepare the Avenue Study; Corwin Cambray, the senior planner who drafted the new Avenue Bylaw, based on the Avenue Study; and Christopher Dunn, the Community Planner who dealt with the site application (successor to Kevin Edwards).
Andrea Old/Urban design
Andrea Old presented graphic evidence supporting her position that Dundas West marks a definitive shift in the built form environment at Bloor and Dundas. East of Dundas, the lot sizes are large, because they are part of the historic industrial rail corridor. A building like the Crossways (although it would not be built today) is able to provide significant stepbacks for its tall towers (about 65 metres) and achieve a density of just under 5 times coverage, as it is built on a very large lot. West of Dundas, the lot sizes are small and the lot pattern is fine-grained, a typical "main street" frontage, especially on block from Dundas to Indian Road. The lot pattern breaks down somewhat toward Keele and that is where the majority of Opportunity sites are located, not near 1540. Even where buildings are taller (e.g., 2333 at the southwest corner) the tower elements are stepped back significantly.
Her review of TTC stations on the Bloor line west of Bathurst also showed that there is no foundation for the claim that transit nodes have taller buildings and higher density than elsewhere on Bloor Street.
She presented evidence that the density proposed was found only in downtwn, uptown and city centre areas of the city.
Other evidence demonstrated effects of failing to step the building back from the street, and inadequate planning for stepping down to neighbouring properties to the west along Bloor.
Anne McIlroy/Avenue Study
Anne McIlroy described the process followed to prepare the Avenue Study, including the broad public participation. She also described in general the findings of the study.
Corwin Cambray/City planning policy
Corwin Cambray explained the process of turning the Avenue Study report into a bylaw. Some of the points he covered were: how the bylaw dealt with opportunity sites; the setting of minimum heights as well as maximums, so that intensification is built in to the bylaw; the way corner sites are given additional heights and densities, creating "bookends" at Bloor/Keele and Bloor/Dundas; the requirement for appropriate transitions (the stepping down to lower built forms) especially to the west; and the identification of community services and facilities that should be provided or upgraded to support intensification.
The applicant's lawyer, Adam Brown, challenged Corwin on whether the new bylaw was realistic (would any of these opportunity sites ever be developed in accordance with the bylaw). He especially highlighted the fact that the approved 5 and 11 storey buildings on the used car lot north of the Crossways had never been built, as well as the unlikely event that the PetroCanada gas station would ever be closed so that there could be a 15 to 10 storey building on the combined 7-11/PetroCan site. Likewise the site at 1540 (with the additional properties).
During Corwin Cambray's testimony, there was some informative back-and-forth between the OMB adjudicator, the applicant's lawyer and the city's lawyer about how the Provincial Policy Statements (PPS), the provincial Growth Plan and the Official Plan relate to one another. Adam Brown's perspective was that as long as an application complied with the PPS and the Growth Plan (both at the provincial level), then the Official Plan should not refuse an application. The city, of course, emphasized that the Official Plan is the implementing tool for the PPS and the Growth Plan, so an application has to comply with the Official Plan; it's not enough just to comply with the provincial policies. As Corwin remarked, if that were the case, municipalities would not need a planning department; they could just issue building permits! Corwin provided evidence from the Growth Secretariat (Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure) that the province had reviewed the Official Plan and that it did comply with the provincial policies for intensification.
Christopher Dunn/City community planner
Chris Dunn presented evidence about the site from a Community Planner's perspective. In his opinion, the site did not have unique "distinguishing features" as set out by Peter Walker. (This view had been substantiated by Corwin Cambray's review of the Avenue Segment Study, which had noted its concerns to the applicant about their study in May 2008). He confirmed the view of Corwin Cambray that the features identified in the Avenue Segment Study could be associated with almost any site in the Bloor-Dundas area, especially since almost any site could fall within a 500-metre radius of a TTC station. With respect to proximity to a Mobility Hub, Bloor-Dundas could be compared with Bloor-Jane (also a Mobility Hub) where a segment study prepared by Robert Glover had recommended mid-rise built forms. During Chris Dunn's testimony, the city's estimate of $850,000 in section 37 funds was argued forcefully. The funds would be spent on parkland improvements, intersection improvements, provision of community health and daycare facilities, etc.
Closing arguments
Applicant's case
Adam Brown summed up the case for the applicant:
• The city accepted the application as "complete" in November 2007 and did not provide specific feedback on the Avenue Segment Study until May 2008. The design for the podium never came under formal critique.. There were no objections to the building height for the usual reasons of shadowing, of privacy/overlooks, or wind, and no objection from the adjoining property owner. The traffic and site access issues were settled. Thus height is the only issue.
• The city's Avenue Study is flawed in that the Opportunity Sites identified are not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future and the sites at Dundas/Bloor and Keele/Bloor are unlikely to be consolidated. The primary purpose of the Avenue Study was simply to impose a lower height on the 1540 site. (This assertion was challenged by the city as unsupported by any evidence provided by the applicant.)
• Under the law, there are existing precedents for considering an application under the planning requirements that were in force at the time of the application, rather than under planning requirements passed at a later date. Also, the process must be fair and the applicant must be clearly informed of the decision of the municipality regarding the application and the reasons for the decision.
• The application meets all the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statements and the Growth Plan. Senior governments (the province) should take precedence over junior governments (the city). The Bloor-Dundas Mobility Hub is forecast in the Regional Transportation Plan to be the eighth busiest hub in the GTA with five transit lines interconnecting. Intensification should be allowed on this site.
• The amount of the section 37 request ($850,000) cannot be justified or supported as the city has not included specific guidelines in the Official Plan.
City's case
Stephen Bradley summed up the case for the city:
• The analysis by the city's urban designer showed very different lot patterns east and west of Dundas. This difference was reflected throughout the Avenue Study and incorporated in the new bylaw. The proposed height and massing would be detrimental to the public realm at Bloor and Dundas. Under the Official Plan, the Avenues are meant to be developed as "main street" environments, as opposed to the Downtown and the Centres, which have different functions and therefore different built form.
• The Crossways is put forward as a precedent for the proposed height. Since it was built in the mid-1970s, the city has had many opportunities to amend its zoning bylaws to treat it as a precedent but has never done so and should not do so now.. If the application for 1540 is approved, it would set a precedent which would be much easier to replicate than the Crossways. This is because the Crossways is on a very large site (density less than 5 times coverage) whereas the Giraffe is on a much smaller site (density more than 16 times coverage). As smaller lots prevail at Bloor-Dundas, the 1540 site would be a precedent for these much smaller sites.
• The Avenue Study should have significant weight. For budget reasons, the city can only complete two studies per year and these require significant investment of money, staff time and local input from residents, property owners and businesses. The Avenue should not be lightly put aside unless there are compelling reasons. In the city's view, the reasons (distinguishing circumstances) put forward by the applicant are not compelling. The passage of time does not make a bad proposal good.
• The Official Plan was in place in 2007 when the application was filed and the OP sets out the relationship between an Avenue Study and an Avenue Segment Study. The applicant had the opportunity to take part in the process and knew the direction of the report. The applicant chose to appeal a short time before the new bylaw came into force. Now that the Avenue Study is complete, it should be used to test the earlier segment study.
• Section 37 benefits can be set out in the context of an Avenue Study, which is done in accordance with the Official Plan. The amount has been based on a similar negotiated settlement.
Here is a small breakdown of the info from the hearing... (sorry about the length)
At the very beginning of the hearing, we learned that the Traffic Planner for the city had resolved the traffic and parking issues with the developer by accepting a plan where all residential traffic would enter through the Dorval laneway at the rear west of the site and exit onto Dundas West with a right-turn only. The applicant also agreed to increase the underground parking. This meant that the city and the applicant would not present the traffic plan or express any issues about it at the hearing; however, during community impact statements, local residents and businesses were able to present concerns about the impacts of the traffic plan and the foreseeable difficulties with implementing it. The hearing lasted five days, with area residents and business, as participants and not parties, concerns presented for two hours.
The applicant's case
The applicant presented evidence from two witnesses: Robert Glover, an urban designer and urban planner who reviewed and defended the plans prepared for the project; and Peter Walker, a land-use planner who prepared the developer's 2007 Avenue Segment Study.
Robert Glover/Urban design
Glover argued that the proposal was a good fit for the site, because there was a pattern of more intense development around "transit nodes" across the city. He also argued that the presence of the Crossways, although it had some undesirable features, meant that a tall building on the opposite corner at 1540 would be within a suitable context.
Peter Walker/Land use planning
Walker argued that there were not significant differences between the findings in his Avenue Segment Study and the Avenue Study prepared for the city by Anne McIlroy, except that his study recommended a more intense and higher built form on the 1540 site. He felt that the height, built form and density of the proposal was appropriate, given the unique, "distinguishing features" of the site (close to transit, on a corner, at the intersection of two Avenues, opposite the Crossways, on a prominent site, separated from the Neighbourhood to the north by the subway line, at a future "Mobility Hub" of the Regional Transportation Plan).
Furthermore, the applicant's witnesses argued that the Avenue Study should not apply to the site because the original application was made in 2007, before the formal Avenue Study began (in March 2008).
The city's case
The city presented four witnesses: Andrea Old, the urban designer for this area; Anne McIlroy, the consultant hired to prepare the Avenue Study; Corwin Cambray, the senior planner who drafted the new Avenue Bylaw, based on the Avenue Study; and Christopher Dunn, the Community Planner who dealt with the site application (successor to Kevin Edwards).
Andrea Old/Urban design
Andrea Old presented graphic evidence supporting her position that Dundas West marks a definitive shift in the built form environment at Bloor and Dundas. East of Dundas, the lot sizes are large, because they are part of the historic industrial rail corridor. A building like the Crossways (although it would not be built today) is able to provide significant stepbacks for its tall towers (about 65 metres) and achieve a density of just under 5 times coverage, as it is built on a very large lot. West of Dundas, the lot sizes are small and the lot pattern is fine-grained, a typical "main street" frontage, especially on block from Dundas to Indian Road. The lot pattern breaks down somewhat toward Keele and that is where the majority of Opportunity sites are located, not near 1540. Even where buildings are taller (e.g., 2333 at the southwest corner) the tower elements are stepped back significantly.
Her review of TTC stations on the Bloor line west of Bathurst also showed that there is no foundation for the claim that transit nodes have taller buildings and higher density than elsewhere on Bloor Street.
She presented evidence that the density proposed was found only in downtwn, uptown and city centre areas of the city.
Other evidence demonstrated effects of failing to step the building back from the street, and inadequate planning for stepping down to neighbouring properties to the west along Bloor.
Anne McIlroy/Avenue Study
Anne McIlroy described the process followed to prepare the Avenue Study, including the broad public participation. She also described in general the findings of the study.
Corwin Cambray/City planning policy
Corwin Cambray explained the process of turning the Avenue Study report into a bylaw. Some of the points he covered were: how the bylaw dealt with opportunity sites; the setting of minimum heights as well as maximums, so that intensification is built in to the bylaw; the way corner sites are given additional heights and densities, creating "bookends" at Bloor/Keele and Bloor/Dundas; the requirement for appropriate transitions (the stepping down to lower built forms) especially to the west; and the identification of community services and facilities that should be provided or upgraded to support intensification.
The applicant's lawyer, Adam Brown, challenged Corwin on whether the new bylaw was realistic (would any of these opportunity sites ever be developed in accordance with the bylaw). He especially highlighted the fact that the approved 5 and 11 storey buildings on the used car lot north of the Crossways had never been built, as well as the unlikely event that the PetroCanada gas station would ever be closed so that there could be a 15 to 10 storey building on the combined 7-11/PetroCan site. Likewise the site at 1540 (with the additional properties).
During Corwin Cambray's testimony, there was some informative back-and-forth between the OMB adjudicator, the applicant's lawyer and the city's lawyer about how the Provincial Policy Statements (PPS), the provincial Growth Plan and the Official Plan relate to one another. Adam Brown's perspective was that as long as an application complied with the PPS and the Growth Plan (both at the provincial level), then the Official Plan should not refuse an application. The city, of course, emphasized that the Official Plan is the implementing tool for the PPS and the Growth Plan, so an application has to comply with the Official Plan; it's not enough just to comply with the provincial policies. As Corwin remarked, if that were the case, municipalities would not need a planning department; they could just issue building permits! Corwin provided evidence from the Growth Secretariat (Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure) that the province had reviewed the Official Plan and that it did comply with the provincial policies for intensification.
Christopher Dunn/City community planner
Chris Dunn presented evidence about the site from a Community Planner's perspective. In his opinion, the site did not have unique "distinguishing features" as set out by Peter Walker. (This view had been substantiated by Corwin Cambray's review of the Avenue Segment Study, which had noted its concerns to the applicant about their study in May 2008). He confirmed the view of Corwin Cambray that the features identified in the Avenue Segment Study could be associated with almost any site in the Bloor-Dundas area, especially since almost any site could fall within a 500-metre radius of a TTC station. With respect to proximity to a Mobility Hub, Bloor-Dundas could be compared with Bloor-Jane (also a Mobility Hub) where a segment study prepared by Robert Glover had recommended mid-rise built forms. During Chris Dunn's testimony, the city's estimate of $850,000 in section 37 funds was argued forcefully. The funds would be spent on parkland improvements, intersection improvements, provision of community health and daycare facilities, etc.
Closing arguments
Applicant's case
Adam Brown summed up the case for the applicant:
• The city accepted the application as "complete" in November 2007 and did not provide specific feedback on the Avenue Segment Study until May 2008. The design for the podium never came under formal critique.. There were no objections to the building height for the usual reasons of shadowing, of privacy/overlooks, or wind, and no objection from the adjoining property owner. The traffic and site access issues were settled. Thus height is the only issue.
• The city's Avenue Study is flawed in that the Opportunity Sites identified are not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future and the sites at Dundas/Bloor and Keele/Bloor are unlikely to be consolidated. The primary purpose of the Avenue Study was simply to impose a lower height on the 1540 site. (This assertion was challenged by the city as unsupported by any evidence provided by the applicant.)
• Under the law, there are existing precedents for considering an application under the planning requirements that were in force at the time of the application, rather than under planning requirements passed at a later date. Also, the process must be fair and the applicant must be clearly informed of the decision of the municipality regarding the application and the reasons for the decision.
• The application meets all the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statements and the Growth Plan. Senior governments (the province) should take precedence over junior governments (the city). The Bloor-Dundas Mobility Hub is forecast in the Regional Transportation Plan to be the eighth busiest hub in the GTA with five transit lines interconnecting. Intensification should be allowed on this site.
• The amount of the section 37 request ($850,000) cannot be justified or supported as the city has not included specific guidelines in the Official Plan.
City's case
Stephen Bradley summed up the case for the city:
• The analysis by the city's urban designer showed very different lot patterns east and west of Dundas. This difference was reflected throughout the Avenue Study and incorporated in the new bylaw. The proposed height and massing would be detrimental to the public realm at Bloor and Dundas. Under the Official Plan, the Avenues are meant to be developed as "main street" environments, as opposed to the Downtown and the Centres, which have different functions and therefore different built form.
• The Crossways is put forward as a precedent for the proposed height. Since it was built in the mid-1970s, the city has had many opportunities to amend its zoning bylaws to treat it as a precedent but has never done so and should not do so now.. If the application for 1540 is approved, it would set a precedent which would be much easier to replicate than the Crossways. This is because the Crossways is on a very large site (density less than 5 times coverage) whereas the Giraffe is on a much smaller site (density more than 16 times coverage). As smaller lots prevail at Bloor-Dundas, the 1540 site would be a precedent for these much smaller sites.
• The Avenue Study should have significant weight. For budget reasons, the city can only complete two studies per year and these require significant investment of money, staff time and local input from residents, property owners and businesses. The Avenue should not be lightly put aside unless there are compelling reasons. In the city's view, the reasons (distinguishing circumstances) put forward by the applicant are not compelling. The passage of time does not make a bad proposal good.
• The Official Plan was in place in 2007 when the application was filed and the OP sets out the relationship between an Avenue Study and an Avenue Segment Study. The applicant had the opportunity to take part in the process and knew the direction of the report. The applicant chose to appeal a short time before the new bylaw came into force. Now that the Avenue Study is complete, it should be used to test the earlier segment study.
• Section 37 benefits can be set out in the context of an Avenue Study, which is done in accordance with the Official Plan. The amount has been based on a similar negotiated settlement.
