So the OMB here has basically taken a stance that a stable neighbourhood is a stable neighbourhood, and the stable neighbourhood supercedes other objectives and sections of PPS and Growth Plan?
 
They agreed with the developer that the stable neighbourhood policy this close to a major transit station does not conform with the new growth plan, but that the developer could not pre-empt the City's process to update their OP to conform to it. The city has 5 years to update their OP to be in conformity with the new growth plan, until the city has performed this work, developers have to tow the line of existing OP policies. And that includes stable neighbourhoods. They thought of this application as the developer sort of "jumping ahead" of a proper planning process for this stretch.

That, and the local neighbourhood is wealthy enough that they could afford to send an actual professional and make their argument. Bousfields employed the standard arguments of intensification, adjacency to transit, etc., and it failed.

This is the second major OMB decision backing up neighbourhoods designations close to transit stations.. It's not a good trend.
 
Last edited:
The one on Keewatin near Yonge Eglinton that had the whole "Density creep" thing. It was proposed as a double row of stacked towns and the OMB downgraded it to a single row of townhouses, killing the project.
 
innsertnamehere said:
They agreed with the developer that the stable neighbourhood policy this close to a major transit station does not conform with the new growth plan, but that the developer could not pre-empt the City's process to update their OP to conform to it. The city has 5 years to update their OP to be in conformity with the new growth plan, until the city has performed this work, developers have to tow the line of existing OP policies. And that includes stable neighbourhoods. They thought of this application as the developer sort of "jumping ahead" of a proper planning process for this stretch.
Click to expand...
It just occurred to me this evening that with the coming of Bill 139, this project is in big trouble.

Before the bill, this applicant would just need to wait 5 years and make the same arguments again and the OMB would have to decide that the city had 5 years to update their OP to conform with the provincial plans and approve this application.

The new Bill 139 however states that only the City can initiate an OPA in a major transit station area, and furthermore, that third parties have no appeal rights at major transit station areas. That means, the city can just not update their OP to conform, which with an anti-development councilor like Jaye Robinson giving direction to City Planning, will probably not happen. The applicant won't be allowed higher as-of-right zoning, won't be able to initiate an OPA, and won't have appeal rights when City Planning rejects their application.

I suppose then it is for the courts to decide. (Hey, wasn't that the point of OMB? :rolleyes:)
 
WislaHD said:
It just occurred to me this evening that with the coming of Bill 139, this project is in big trouble.

Before the bill, this applicant would just need to wait 5 years and make the same arguments again and the OMB would have to decide that the city had 5 years to update their OP to conform with the provincial plans and approve this application.

The new Bill 139 however states that only the City can initiate an OPA in a major transit station area, and furthermore, that third parties have no appeal rights at major transit station areas. That means, the city can just not update their OP to conform, which with an anti-development councilor like Jaye Robinson giving direction to City Planning, will probably not happen. The applicant won't be allowed higher as-of-right zoning, won't be able to initiate an OPA, and won't have appeal rights when City Planning rejects their application.

I suppose then it is for the courts to decide. (Hey, wasn't that the point of OMB? :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...
There are appeal rights regarding non compliance with provincial policies. So if the city didn't update the OP, a developer could take them to court and force their hands.

The no appeals around transit stations is a mixed blessing, as the city is forced to obtain minimum residential densities. The idea is that the city is forced to allow significant development, and because of that, developers can't appeal how the city plans to accommodate that density.
 
I'd also note that Bill 139 says that municipalities may include policies that identify the area surrounding and including an existing or planned higher order transit station or stop as a protected major transit station area. They aren't required to. So they could try to leave Yonge-Lawrence as a ridiculously under-zoned Neighbourhood, at which point the policies could be appealed to the LPAT for non-compliance with Provincial policy as insertnamehere says, or the Ministry could step in when the OP is sent to them for approval (as required during conformity exercises). If Bill 139 is to work at all, the Ministry and LPAT will have to be very strong in requiring that OP policies and zoning by-laws actually comply with the PPS/GP - no more of this "well we designated a bunch of mixed use areas for growth, so an area 400' from a subway station should have detached houses" nonsense.
 
New OPA and ZBA near Yonge and Lawrence East
9 storeys
39 units

View 2-small.jpg
 
Since this was merged with an old thread, the headline should be updated to reflect the new proposal:

49-59 Lawrence Avenue East | 34.4m | 9s | Lawrence Parktown Residences | Borlotto
 
torplanner said:
Since this was merged with an old thread, the headline should be updated to reflect the new proposal:

49-59 Lawrence Avenue East | 34.4m | 9s | Lawrence Parktown Residences | Borlotto
Click to expand...
It will be, along with the database file as the new images and info gets added, be patient!

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top