Novae Res Urbis
I'm very suprised that this application got approved by the OMB when it is CLEARLY employment lands conversion for residential uses ... sometimes I really don't know what OMB Board Members are thinking ~
This is clearly an employment area with the Atria complex already 3/4 built ... this last parcel would logically represent the final 1/4 of the site that should have been filled in with another office tower (when the demand arises)
Anyhow ... 3 condo by Dorsay coming soon here ! (not sure if they usually partner with Tridel??)
*********
EMPLOYMENT LANDS DEBATE - Sheppard East towers approved
September 4, 2009
Late last week the
Ontario Municipal Board approved re-designation of a North York site in a case that the city considered to be about conversion of employment lands and the developer considered it to be about a different use on a site next to an employment district.
In the August 28 decision, board members Karlene Hussey and Joe Wong agreed with
Dorsay Investments Limited and 1666500 Ontario Inc. that a site at
2205 Sheppard Avenue East could be developed with residential rather than employment uses. The decision relates to the first phase of the hearing, dealing with broader policy issues surrounding the development plans. Phase two will address more specific issues such as zoning and site plan details.
The central issue in the first phase of the hearing was whether or not the site, which is located on an avenue in the official plan’s urban structure map, is subject to the avenue policies contained in the official plan.
The site is part of the Atria complex, a nearly 8-hectare area that includes three-existing office buildings. T
he developer has proposed to build several residential towers, with a total of 914 units, on top of a podium that will include 3,285-sq.m. of retail and commercial space on the remaining portion of the Atria lands. This portion of the area has been vacant for decades.
“It’s an exceptionally good location for intense redevelopment and there are no nearby sensitive uses or low-density residents who will complain or be negatively impacted,†said lawyer Jeff Davies, who along with Mark Flowers (Davies Howe), represented Dorsay and 1666500 Ontario in the case.
However, the city sought to reserve the site for employment uses, arguing that all lands currently designated for employment uses are required to meet job growth projections for the next twenty years. City staff said the site, while located on a designated avenue, is part of the Consumers Road Employment District and warrants the protections afforded to employment areas in the provincial growth plan.
It was the city’s assertion that the depiction of the avenue on the urban structure map does not include defined boundaries. It is for schematic purposes and does not constitute a land use designation. The site in question is designated as an employment area and is located adjacent to an employment district. City staff ’s position was that its designation prevents conversion of the site for residential uses.
The developer noted that the official plan contains no policies saying that sites on an avenue adjacent to an employment district are to be subject to the policies of the employment district designation.
Both sides in the case noted there are better locations in the city for the uses preferred by the other.
“We didn’t think it was a very good location for employment uses. There are several office nodes in the city which presently have fantastic rapid transit service, which have the potential for substantial additional office development,†Davies said. “It looks nice, there are four buildings there. [But] the site’s been vacant for over 20 years so if it was a good office site, one would think that somebody would have come to it already.â€
“It was the city’s position that these lands should be protected as part of the overall supply of employment land within the city,†said Bruce Ketcheson (Ritchie Ketcheson), who represented the city along with Andrew Biggart (Ritchie Ketcheson) and Rob Balfour. “As a general matter, undoubtedly within a supply of land you’re going to have certain lands that will be more or less attractive for employment purposes and the city’s position in this case was that these lands were valuable and should be retained for employment use.â€
In its decision, the OMB concluded that 2205 Sheppard Avenue East is designated an employment area, but since it is adjacent to and not within the neighbouring employment district, it is not afforded the protections that the official plan sets out for such lands.
“The board finds that the proposal will achieve an efficient use of the…land, in keeping with the city’s and the province’s objectives,†the board states in its conclusion.
The city is still considering whether or not it will request a rehearing, appeal the board’s decision, or simply await the second phase of the hearing.
