Item - 2020.EY20.1

The Etobicoke York Community Council recommends that:

1. City Council direct the City Solicitor, together with appropriate City staff, to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) hearing to oppose the applicant's appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment application for 80 Thirtieth Street.

2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff to continue discussions with the applicant to address the issues outlined in this report and to report back to City Council on the outcome of discussions, if necessary.

3. In the event the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) allows the appeal in whole or in part, City Council direct the City Solicitor to request the LPAT to withhold the issuance of any Order(s) on the appeal for the subject lands until such time as:

a. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

b. The owner has agreed to the peer review of the Derailment Protection Report by the City's Peer Reviewer, at the owner's expense, to determine the appropriate building setback from the rail corridor and mitigation measures to the satisfaction of Metrolinx, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

c. The owner has submitted a revised Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment to be further peer reviewed at the owner's expense and resolved to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

d. The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to determine the stormwater runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

e. The owner has entered into the appropriate agreement with the City for the design, construction and provision of financial securities for any improvements to the municipal infrastructure to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to the infrastructure to accommodate this development;

f. The owner has provided space within the development for the installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 681;

g. The owner has submitted a revised Transportation Operations Review to the satisfaction to the General Manager, Transportation Services; and

h. The owner has submitted a revised Landscape Plan, all requirements and related approval processes of the City’s Tree By-laws have been completed and all Tree Preservation matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation.

The owner of the site at 80 Thirtieth Street has appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment application for these lands to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) citing City Council's failure to make a decision on the application within the time period prescribed under the Planning Act. A Case Management Conference has been requested.

The application proposes to amend City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit 14 back-to-back townhouse units in one block. The proposed townhouse units would be 4-storeys (14.5 metres) in height and have a total residential gross floor area of 1,993 m², representing a Floor Space Index of 0.92 times the area of the lot. The application proposes 18 surface parking spaces adjacent to the rail corridor and 14 parking spaces integral to the townhouses.

The purpose of this report is to seek City Council's direction for the City Solicitor and other appropriate City staff to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing to oppose the applications, as currently proposed. The proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and does not conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law, rail safety criteria for new development adjacent to rail corridors, the City's Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines nor the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.

The Provincial Policy Statement (the PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Key objectives include: building strong communities; wise use and management of resources; and protecting public health and safety. City Council's planning decisions are required to be consistent with the PPS.

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe provides a framework for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe including: directions for where and how to grow; the provision of infrastructure to support growth; and protecting natural systems and cultivating a culture of conservation. City Council's planning decisions are required to conform, or not conflict, with the Growth Plan. The policies contained in the Growth Plan are to be read in conjunction with all applicable provisions of the PPS.

Both these documents are high-level and broad reaching. The City is a development area and infill is encouraged under these policies. Policy 4.6 of the PPS states that the most important method of implementing the policies is a municipality's Official Plan which guides the method of intensification and where it should be focused. While the proposed development would achieve the goals of residential intensification, the development in its current form fails to conform to the Built Form and Neighbourhoods policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan and therefore is not consistent with the PPS. The proposed development does not represent good planning and is not in the public interest.

Staff are of the opinion that the consideration of the location and massing of the proposed development is premature until the Derailment Protection Report has been appropriately peer reviewed and accepted by both the City and Metrolinx. The subject site abuts a very active rail corridor and any redevelopment of this site must address concerns related to the risk to health and safety in the event of a rail accident as well as noise and vibration from regular operation of the rail line. The Derailment Protection Report must be satisfactorily reviewed to determine if the proposed building setback and mitigation measures are sufficient for the proposed development.