February 23, 2016
Dear Members of the De La Salle Community:
I would like to bring you up to date on the status of the proposed redevelopment on the lower campus and also to correct some of the comments contained in Councillor Matlow’s newsletter of February 5th. This letter will only touch the high points of the process and so we have posted a detailed Chronology along with the key documents on the College’s website, www.delasalle.ca to provide more details for those interested.
In the first line of his newsletter, Councillor Matlow states, “As you may recall from earlier community updates, De La Salle College has applied to build townhouses on the Avenue Road and Oaklands Avenue frontages of their property and appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board before City Staff could deliver a Final Report to Council.
This is inaccurate on a number of points as the following summary of the history of the proposal will show.
In 2002 the City enacted a new Official Plan which designated the frontage of all of the College’s lands on Avenue Road “Apartment Neighbourhood” for a depth of approximately 45 metres (148 feet) and the Oaklands Avenue frontage as Residential.
In 2013-2014 a number of condominium development companies expressed interest in acquiring a portion of the lands on the lower campus for development of a mid-rise tower (9-10 storeys) and some townhouse units.
However, the College decided that a townhouse development would be a more acceptable form of development, so in July 2014 the College entered into a conditional Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Conica Glen Homes Inc., (c.o.b. as “Treasure Hill”), for the sale of an approximately 1 acre L-shaped parcel which would permit the development and construction of a 28 unit townhouse development.
In December, 2014 Treasure Hill filed the application for amendment to the City’s zoning by-law which would allow implementation of 28 townhouses permitted under the Official Plan policies.” Treasure Hill is the applicant and appellant for each of these matters, not the College as Councillor Matlow has reported.
Treasure Hill maintains carriage of the process needed to obtain the necessary planning approvals for the development.
The College does intend to cooperate with Treasure Hill in its endeavours since the proceeds from a sale to Treasure Hill will allow future improvements to the school facilities to be undertaken which will benefit the school community.
Following the filing of the application, Councillor Matlow initiated a process under the Ontario Heritage Act. He indicated that process was initiated to thwart development on the property.
Treasure Hill responded on August 6th, 2015 by filing an appeal of the application under the Planning Act to the Ontario Municipal Board because of its concern “that the application will not receive fair consideration by City Council” and its conclusion it had “no choice but to appeal the application to the OMB in order to facilitate a final decision.” (found on the website).
Since Treasure Hill filed this appeal its representatives met with the City planning and heritage planning staff in the late fall in an attempt to see if some form of settlement could be reached.
Following these meetings with staff, Treasure Hill then filed a revised application.
The original application proposed 28, 4-storey townhouses on 1.147 acres with 13 units fronting on Avenue Road and 15 fronting on Oaklands Avenue. While the stone gates on Oaklands would have been retained, the existing field house which was historically the gatekeeper’s house for the property, would have been demolished.
The revised application proposes 22, 4 storey townhouses on 1.12 acres with 12 units fronting on Avenue Road and 10 units fronting on Oaklands. The most northerly unit on Avenue Road was removed to allow a better view of the hill described as the Lake Iroquois shoreline. Four units were removed at the corner of Oaklands and Avenue Road to retain the lower house and one additional unit was removed to allow a better view from the corner.
Not surprisingly, these revisions will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of the proceeds the College will receive if the project is approved.
After the application was revised, the City Planning Division released a Request for Direction Report dated December 15th, 2015 in which staff reported on the planning merits of the proposal and asked for direction from City Council regarding what position staff should take at the pending OMB hearing.
The opening Summary of the report (on the website) states:
“Staff recommend that the City support the revised proposal as described in this report at the OMB, if the outstanding issues are resolved.
Outstanding issues include a request that the applicant provide further information and continue discussion with relevant City staff to address outstanding issues. Should the outstanding issues not be resolved, Staff recommend City Council direct the appropriate staff to attend any OMB hearing in opposition to the proposal.”
The report then went on to discuss the revised application in detail and concluded:
“The proposed land use is permitted in both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The built form is acceptable and conforms with the policies of the Official Plan, Secondary Plan and the Infill Townhouse Guidelines……….further information and discussion is required. More specific and focused discussion and review is required regarding the following issues:
- Protection of the heritage attributes as defined in the amendment to the Designation By-law ….as approved by City Council….September 30, 2015; (Both Treasure Hill and the College have retained heritage consultants and we are collectively ready to discuss and negotiate reasonable means of protecting the heritage attributes considered significant by heritage staff).
- Ravine and Natural Feature Protection review, including an updated Scoped Natural Heritage Study and a Ravine Stewardship Plan: (The College has retained consultants to prepare these studies which are underway and our consultants are confident plans can be prepared to protect the ravine and forestry features required).
- Driveway access and configuration (Treasure Hill has retained consultants to resolve this issue).
This report was presented to the Council on February 3rd, 2016.
Through a letter (on the website) from our lawyer, the College indicated, “The Brothers support approval of the applications and believe approval by the Committee and Council will establish a setting which will allow ongoing discussions to seek resolution concerning matters of interest of all parties especially those of a heritage nature.”
I wish to thank those who took the time to provide other letters of support.
However, in spite of the positive report from staff, the letters of support from parents and alumni, and the indication we are willing to continue discussions to resolve the details of the heritage issues, Councillor Matlow moved a Motion which “direct[s] the City Solicitor to attend at the [OMB] to refuse the proposal….” although he did go on to add a second direction “that the City Solicitor...request mediation by the [OMB].” In keeping with what we understand is the usual practice when motions are moved by the local Councillor, there was no debate by other members at Council and Councillor’s motion (on the website) was passed unanimously.
So as matters currently stand, both Treasure Hill and the College must now present their positions to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting planning aspects and to the Conservation Review Board respecting heritage preservation aspects.
Conclusion: The City Official Plan did designate the College’s lands for higher density residential use and the College did decide to develop at a lower town house density thinking this would be preferable and more compatible for both the College and the local and school communities. We did so recognizing the monetary result would not be as great seeking the maximum density designated in the City’s own plan.
Planning staff have confirmed the proposal “is permitted in both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The built form is acceptable and conforms with the policies of the Official Plan, Secondary Plan, and the Infill Townhouse Guidelines ………”
Fortunately, we and Treasure Hill will have an opportunity to present planning, heritage and other evidence at the OMB and the Conservation Review Board to demonstrate the College is entitled to use its lands in a reasonable and responsible way to allow the College to continue its mission. The College would appreciate expressions of support from parents and alumni directed to the Mayor and their local councillor. Below you will find the URL for the City of Toronto Web page (also on the website) which will assist in finding the addresses for those who wish to write:
- Click on Members – alphabetical by name
- Click on “Councillor Office” for the contact information of the Councillors you wish to reach
The school has completed one stage of its capital campaign. The new FIFA approved playing field is a wonderful addition to the athletic program. As you are aware, the College is planning to improve on other facilities in order to enhance the educational experience of an institution that has been present in the City of Toronto since 1851 and at the “Oaklands” location since 1931. The development project is an essential component and necessary step to ensure the future of the school and to continue to provide a human and Christian education of excellence worthy of our Lasallian traditions to future generations of young people. Your prayers and support are needed and appreciated.
Yours respectfully,
Brother Domenic Viggiani, FSC
President
Supplemental Documents
Chronology and Key Dates
Attachment 1 -July 24, 2015
Attachment 2 -August 6, 2015
Attachment 3 -September 4, 2015
Attachment 4 -October 25, 2015
Attachment 5 -November 17, 2015
