Municipal
and Government Affairs Committee (MAGA)
|
|
The Municipal and
Government Affairs Committee:
Represents
the Association in a liaison capacity with all local government bodies
Monitors
pertinent municipal proceedings e.g. changes to zoning by-laws, planning
policies, traffic by laws
Presents
the Association’s viewpoint to relevant government bodies
Advises
the Executive and members of the Association of new municipal and government developments.
Bayview Village Association (BVA), through MAGA, has represented residents concerns over development for many years. Their work has brought about numerous changes to developers plans – resulting in better designs, safer streets, and advantages to our community. While developers have large resources behind them MAGA consists of hard working dedicated volunteers.
BVA is actively vigilant about new developments. Having
understood the City’s determination to recover the investment in the Sheppard
Subway, and the Province’s Policy on Intensification, it is a very hard and
lengthy process to reduce or modify proposed developments to not only adhere to
the Shepppard Corridor Secondary Plan, but also to minimize negative impacts on
CANADIAN
TIRE LANDS (South of
It has come to our attention that Canadian Tire Corporation
Ltd. has sold about 40 acres of their land to a Vancouver-based developer-
Concord Adex Investments Ltd. for $149.7 million. Canadian Tire will retain about three acres
of land for future use and will also retain the existing Canadian Tire store
site, which also includes a Mark's Work Warehouse store.
The CTL site had been approved
for redevelopment in the mid '90s. There
was a two-year period of public consultation that involved the city’s Planning
Dept., our Councilor, and all local associations and ratepayer groups. The Bayview Village Association was forefront
in these consultation processes and worked diligently at reducing every negative
impact that a development of this size could bring. Most of our concerns and
our suggestions have been incorporated into the Context Plan for these lands,
which the developer is expected to follow.
BVA had addressed issues of
density, the layout and heights of towers, traffic congestion, and traffic
infiltration through the village, and also the need for more community
recreation spaces, and for parks and schools on these lands. Space has thus been provided for a
community center, a park and an elementary school. Also as per our input, taller towers will be
located near Hwy. 401and shorter buildings will be closer to
BVA will be monitoring this
development as it proceeds.
Dangreen Development – (N.E. corner Sheppard &
Bayview).
Dangreens development was first brought to the attention of BVA in 1998. We participated in numerous community consultations until the proposal came down to maximum 15 storeys, which would be located directly above the subway station, with the storeys stepping down 12, 8 and 4, to the north, and the FSI would be 3.5. Total number of units would be 280. Since we would have preferred to have no development there in the first place, this was the best and acceptable compromise that we could reach. Due to delays by the City, Dangreens had the proposal along with zoning changes granted at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in May 2001. Dangreens did not build at that time and the matter lay dormant for 4 years.
In the summer of 2005, Dangreens had re-visited their plans
for the site, and came up with a new proposal.
The BVA and other community representatives of the area attended a
consultation session for this. Dangreens
were now proposing smaller units and increasing the number to 450 units. They
also had changed their design to have one even building of 15 stories. The
footprint would stay the same and so would the FSI of 3.5. The built form of the building would be
different now. It would be treated with a lot more glass and be curved to mimic
a ship. This in their opinion would minimize its visual impact. Apparently as requested by City Transportation
Dept., it would now have a bus loop located under the building to enable buses
to go back south on
We expressed the following objections to the new proposal:
Working with our Councillor, Dangreens reduced the parking requirements in the building thereby effectively reducing the number of cars by 180. They also agreed to have flexibility in the size of units so that possibly there would be fewer units in the end. No matter how hard we worked, no other changes could be made. This proposal came before the Committee of Adjustment in October 2006. BVA attended and objected on the above-mentioned grounds and further objected to the Committee that this change was too major to be heard as ‘Minor Variances’. The Committee deferred the matter to Council. However Dangreens applied to the OMB. The OMB granted this proposal, along with the reduced cars, in April 2006. We feel this was a small victory at least.
Since then, Dangreens made some changes to the site
plan. The main one being that they wish
to have the bus loop at a different part of the site. This would change the configuration and have
the buses exit and turn south at the Bayview Mews traffic lights. The change require community consultation again; as well that
this should be heard at Council. However
we have learnt that Daniels have applied for these
changes to the OMB again. The hearing is
set for early December.
In February 2006, BVA attended a few community consultations
regarding this development. Many
concerns were expressed and suggestions for changes were made. The final proposal, which Daniels submitted
to City Council, has a total of 418 dwelling units in 4 buildings. On the Sheppard front is a 7 storey
residential rent-to-own condo with some commercial space at street level. Behind which and along
In July this proposal was heard at Community Council. BVA made submissions regarding some desirable changes that should be made. North Community Council (NCC) gave Daniels until a September NCC meeting to make these changes. They did not. They appealed to the OMB instead. The hearing at the OMB started on October 17, 2006 and after a break will be continued in early December. We have been attending the OMB hearings as well, and made strong submissions regarding our concerns against this proposal.
Our concerns are: