Some of the older information here was duplicated on another website, but there are many different items as well on each one.

To be added to our email list, please go HERE

NOTE: for those who took Save Queen Street lawn signs and don't want to keep them up over the winter, we will not be collecting them. However, if you do not wish to dispose of them yourself, they can be returned to 97 Scarboro Beach Blvd. (leave on the front porch) and we will reuse them or arrange for disposal. 

Below is the content of an email that was just sent out
Check back or email SaveQueenStree@gmail.com for more information or to be added to our list.


This notice is to invite all Beachers to an important community meeting next Tuesday – the details are:

Tuesday May 28th
7:30pm

1963 Queen Street East
(2nd floor above St. Louis Bar)

Here is a summary for Agenda for our Tuesday meeting:

1. The need for a new residents group (Beaches Community Association)
2. Rezoning of 1884 Queen Street (Shell Station) going to the OMB
3. Rezoning of 1880 Queen Street (Ho Lee Chow/200 Woodbine) going to the OMB
4. Heritage Conservation District (HCD)
5. 303 Kingston Road

These are important matters, and in particular, members of our community needs to decide what role we can and will play at the OMB hearing for the Shell Station site, where a proposed 6 storey condo could be approved by the OMB despite the opposition of City Council and many local residents.

The OMB “Pre-hearing” is on Thursday May 30th, and we need people to go there and say that they want to testify when the actual hearing takes place in a few months. Failure to notify the OMB now might mean you won’t get to speak against the rezoning at the hearing – please come to the meeting or email me if you want to be involved in the hearing – particularly if you can’t make it to the pre-hearing on the 30th,

Details of each item are as follows:

1. The need for a new residents group (Beaches Community Association)

The Beach Residents Association of Toronto is currently inactive, but for things like going before the OMB, organizing the activities to create an Heritage Conservation District (HCD), or to build a unified, long term community group for The Beach that is open, transparent and democratic, we need to form a new incorporated group. We need people to volunteer to be a part of building this organization – such as sitting on the board or assume specific roles.

2. Rezoning of 1884 Queen Street (Shell Station) going to the OMB

There is little doubt that this site will eventually be redeveloped into a condo – the issue is to make sure it is done right, and doesn’t diminish the Fire Hall or set a bad precedent.

People who want to testify against this proposed rezoning of the Shell Station need to go to the OMB on Thursday May 30th to ask for “Participant status”. If you cannot attend the pre-hearing, you need to email the OMB and have someone appear on your behalf. Come out and we can help you and others to ensure we get lots of well informed participants on our side.

We also need to decide whether or not we want to act as a group to ask for “party status”. Party status would allow us to have witnesses and cross examine those witnesses provided by the city and the developer. Hiring a heritage expert (or others) will require a few thousand dollars and would require some fundraising.

We need to decide if we want to apply for party status on Tuesday.

3. Rezoning of 1880 Queen Street (Ho Lee Chow/200 Woodbine) going to the OMB

Not much happening yet on this – no pre-hearing date, but we will discuss this rezoning briefly to identify residents interested on working on it in future.

4. Heritage Conservation District (HCD)

No word back yet from the Heritage people about the HCD application I submitted last fall – they are supposed to contact us with any questions before writing a report for City Council later this year.

If Council does approve Queen Street in the Beach for an HCD study, we will need to identify and put in place an organization that will take responsibility for moving this forward – activities such as doing research, getting volunteers and raising money for anything the city won’t pay for.

If you want to get involved, please come to the meeting and sign up.

5. 303 Kingston Road

This is the proposed 6-storey condo at the corner of Kingston Road and Haslett – a block east of Woodbine. The final staff report has not yet been released, but this is coming before TEYCC and City Council in June. Likely the planners will recommend it be built, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t review it and arrange for people to speak about any issues with what the planners recommend.

Lastly, if you are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to send a reply to this email with your thoughts and comments.

Related Files you can download:
303 Kingston Notice
1884 Queen Staff Report
1884 Queen Massing and views
1884 Queen - Letter from developer

Both the issue of a Casino for Toronto and expansion of the Island Airport are of concern to Beach area residents.

On the Casino issue, please go HERE for NoCasinoToronto

On the Island Airport Issue, there is a petition HERE and also HERE for CommunityAir

The next tiem on this page is an email sent out - I neglected to add teh emails of the other Counillors - if you email Counillor McMahon, please copy them too.Apart from emailing Councillor McMahon, you can email the other 11 Councillors - you can copy and past the list of all 12 into your email:

councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca

councillor_bailao@toronto.ca
councillor_davis@toronto.ca
councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca
councillor_fragedakis@toronto.ca
councillor_layton@toronto.ca
councillor_matlow@toronto.ca
councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca
councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca
councillor_perks@toronto.ca
councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca
councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca

Downloads:

Rezoning - Staff Report - click HERE
1880 Queen - 200 Woodbine (Ho Lee Chow site) - Staff Report - click HERE
1884 Queen (Shell gas station site) - Staff Report - click HERE

Images of Fire Hall - click HERE

Draft Analysis of Rezoning - click HERE

On April 9th, sometime after 11am, there will be 3 important matters coming before Toronto & East York Council

1. Final Report - Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Nursewood Road - City-Initiated Zoning Amendment
2. Request for Direction Report - 1880 and 1882 Queen Street East and 196 Woodbine Avenue - Zoning Amendment Application
3. Request for Direction Report - 1884 Queen Street East - Zoning Amendment Application

 
The Staff Reports from the planning department are available at http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=6862#Meeting-2013.TE23 - see Items 15, 16 and 17. Website links or other information will be posted here at www.SaveQueenStreet.com in the next day or so.

The first item of the three is actually the most important – it is to put some of the restrictions from the Visioning Study/new Guidelines into the zoning – including protections of views of the Fire Hall that apply directly to the Shell station site (1884 Queen). See the “Fire Hall” file attached – which includes the key pages from the other, much longer pdf.

You can help by emailing or telephoning Councillor McMahon (councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca or 416-392-1376), or by coming to Council on the 9th to speak on these matters (5 minutes per item). See below for more details.


I also wanted to comment about the recent “Boathouse” meeting. The Beach Metro mentioned the “shouts and jeering” from the residents, this occurred when Councillor McMahon was speaking and I think it is generally because of our Councillor’s tendency to not oppose city staff.

She used her usual line that “I am not a dictator” which missed the point – she does have power she can use, but often doesn’t.

Council votes can overrule staff when staff won’t bend willingly to public opinion – this applies to the parks department, or planning for that matter. It is up to her to represent the will of the community (to be our voice), and then to get her colleagues on board, if that is what it takes. City staff are not supposed to be the ultimate decision makers – staff are accountable to politicians, who in turn are supposed to be accountable to us.

Final Report - Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Nursewood Road - City-Initiated Zoning Amendment

Last fall, the overwhelming number of people who contacted the facilitator, and TEYCC, felt that the new guidelines went too far, and many wanted the old guidelines kept. But things will be even worse if the zoning is not changed to properly reflect many of the restrictions in the new guidelines.

Typically, it seems, the proposed changes are inadequate and not well thought out, and in particular, the changes to protect views of the Fire Hall and its clock tower don’t go far enough.

I emailed the planners a few weeks ago – and in response, the planners have made one change to the proposed bylaw – limiting the ground floor of new buildings to the 3.5m height in the guidelines – which is something I championed during the study process, and which is far more in keeping with the existing retail buildings on Queen. The policy for other “midrise” buildings is to have a minimum 4.5m ground floor!

I have prepared a somewhat lengthy and technical PowerPoint/PDF that I have attached – this has bee sent in to Councillor McMahon and to planning staff, but so far no response.

The key things to note are that:

East of Woodbine, the setback at 9.5m is being implemented, but the wording is ambiguous, and more importantly, there is nothing to limit the partly visible 4th floor to 3m above this (12.5m above the street) and then have a 26 degree angular plane affecting everything above the top of the 4th floor – including mechanical penthouses and changes that might be allowed at the Committee of Adjustment.

The rear setback in the Queen East guidelines is different than in the current zoning or the Midrise guidelines – a laneway can’t be included in the 7.5m.

The real problem is that the protections of views of the Fire hall are inadequate – my analysis seems to show major errors in the way the Shell station (1884 Queen) can be redeveloped – so that the clock tower will be hidden from the north-west corner of Queen and Woodbine, and then as people walk east, it will be hidden until you are past any new buildings.

The biggest issue is that the Visioning Study had some wording that called for protecting views of the ”fire hall” while others refer specifically to the ”clock tower” alone – I have done a mock up of existing photos to show the difference. The façade of the fire hall should be visible to pedestrians.

 It is critical that Councillor McMahon push the planners and the other Councillors to make changes to the proposed bylaw.

Request for Direction Report - 1880 and 1882 Queen Street East and 196 Woodbine Avenue - Zoning Amendment Application

This is the “200 The Beach” site at the north-west corner of Queen and Woodbine – a 6 storey condo.

Because the city planners did not follow the Planning Act and write a report within 120 days of the Application, the developer has been able to appeal straight to the OMB to get a decision.


Essentially, planning staff have come out against this project in its current form, stating:

The proposal does not adequately respect and relate to either its existing context or the planned context in the Official Plan and the Queen Street East Design Guidelines. The height, massing and density of the proposed building do not fit harmoniously, and would create a negative precedent and undermine the planning framework for the development of the Queen Street East. It is for these reasons that staff recommend that the City Solicitor be directed to attend the OMB hearing in opposition to the proposed development.

The Council meeting will mainly be to authorize the planners and lawyers to oppose this project at the OMB – though the City might always settle.

At this point, there is not much need for those opposed to this project to do much, but can get on the record by sending in your written comments to teycc@toronto.ca

As the OMB Appeal progresses, it will be vitally important for the community to be united and organized, and in particular, to be represented as one or more “parties” recognized by the OMB.

Request for Direction Report - 1884 Queen Street East - Zoning Amendment Application

This is the former Shell gas station/Coffee Time site on the north-east corner of Queen and Woodbine.

Because the city planners did not follow the Planning Act and write a report within 120 days of the Application, the developer has been able to appeal straight to the OMB to get a decision.

Essentially, planning staff have come out against this project in its current form, using the same wording in their report as for the other rezoning above.

The Council meeting will mainly be to authorize the planners and lawyers to oppose this project at the OMB – though the City might always settle.

As the OMB Appeal progresses, it will be vitally important for the community to be united and organized, and in particular, to be represented as one or more “parties” recognized by the OMB.

Because this site will have a major impact on the views of the Fire Hall, I would urge that you write in to express your views on this item as well as on the related changes to the zoning that

Send in your written comments to teycc@toronto.ca if you want all the 12 Councillors to be able to read your views, but more importantly well as calling and emailing Councillor McMahon, to urge that the views be given more protection than the planners currently are proposing.

Well, because Toronto City Council did not vote on either of the 2 rezonings within the required 120 period, both of the developers for the two proposed condos at Queen and Woodbine are going straight to the OMB.

1880 & 1882 Queen St E/196 Woodbine Ave
Frank Riedel - 1880 Queen St E et al
Case # PL130233

1884 Queen Street East
Queen EMPC Six Limited
Case # PL130195

Any person or organisation is free to apply for Party Status to be able to fully particpate in the hearings.

The City would be in a far stronger position if the planners had just followed the rules and imediately written a "Refusal Report" for each one, instead of having a public meeting and letting the developers know well in advance that a refusal report was in the works.

Even though the planner and the Councillor have professed that they will enforce the guildines, the process quite possibly could lead to a backroom compromise with the developer, done without community input, much as Councillor McMahon did a last minute deal with Reserve Properties in which she ignored community opposition and traded her vote for getting a mere 3 foot stepback on the 4th floor, on just the Queen Street side.

The planners are currently writing a "Request for Direction" report for each development, this will go to Toronto and East York Council. I will keep you posted.

The notice below just came in the mail - this meeting is to deal with making the zoning on Queen be made consistent with the new guildines passed in November. 

Check back later and I will provide more information.

In response to THIS by Christopher Hume, I wrote this (go HERE to see the original):

Re: Condo culture chains neighbourhoods, Feb. 8

Christopher Hume quotes Toronto-Danforth Councillor Paula Fletcher as saying, “You want commercial on main avenues, and above it, residential. That’s the street pattern that exists.” Not exactly.

The city’s policies call for “mixed use” on major streets, but the traditional pattern usually had other uses besides retail and residential — usually office space or even light industrial uses on the second or other floors. The “mixed use” zoning on many streets permits this wide range of uses and doesn’t usually limit it to the ground floor, though these days it doesn’t usually allow the full density to be non-residential, which is unfortunate.

As one of the main opponents of the “Lick’s” condo at 1960 Queen E., one of the points I made repeatedly is that a policy of retail with residential over top just makes the Beach and other areas into “bedroom communities,” and the extra people just add to the traffic congestion during rush hours and do little to help local retail — since the condo residents are away at work during weekdays.

If we want truly “walkable” cities then jobs need to be within walking distance of where people live, instead of the current policy, which seems to limit workplaces to being either in the downtown (office towers or brick and beam buildings) and dependent on transit systems that are at capacity, or else the jobs are in suburban office parks and industrial buildings, which are inadequately served by transit. Now traffic congestion in the suburbs is as bad or worse than in the central parts of the city.

Ossington is one area where residents opposed the model of midrise condos over top sterile chain stores. Apart from not creating any new jobs (the amount of retail space is unchanged), Mr. Hume points out that this process means we lose the “old buildings” that Jane Jacobs defended and that also are part of our heritage.

Loss of old buildings also destroys any sense of each neighbourhood’s authenticity and uniqueness. Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods, not just because of the residential streets but mainly because Little Italy, Ossington, Parliament and Queen West have main streets comprised of old low-rise buildings that make each area special.

Queen in the Beach is similar, and condos designed using the standard “Avenues and Midrise Guidelines” are usually designed by the same one or two architectural firms. These neo-modernist structures bear little relationship to their individual contexts (such as the ubiquitous use of grey brick) and could easily be interchanged with each other.

The city’s avenues policies were not intended to destabilize or change the mainstreets in the pre-World War II parts of the city, but instead to focus change on the low-density, strip-mall lined suburban streets. But even there, many of those old strip-malls are now the real ethnically diverse areas, while the old ethnic enclaves like the retail stores in Little India are in decline.

Unfortunately, the culture of the Planning Department is such that their only goal seems to be intensification — this is an overly simplistic view of planning a great city. The 2002 Official Plan is vague or lacking in specificity, and it also stripped away many of secondary plans that governed areas needing protection.

Each “avenue” was supposed to have a thorough study that involved the community, instead of the “one size fits all” policy that seems to be the rule since even before the 2010 avenues guidelines.

The standard Toronto midrise condo model isn’t really even very good in theory, and is far less so in practice.

Brian Graff, Toronto

Please keep you schedules open for this important meeting on February 13th – this is the Planning Department’s meeting and is part of the Official “consultation“ process where the public can have its say – more on this in a future email.

The City of Toronto holds public consultations as one way to engage residents in the life of their city. Councillor McMahon and the City Planning department want to hear what you think about these proposed developments.

1880 & 1882 Queen St. E. and 196 Woodbine Ave.  (200 Woodbine condos)        
1884 Queen St. E. (Former Shell Gas Station)

Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 7:00 - 9:00pm
Balmy Beach Club (foot of Beech Ave)

Below is a Letter to the Editor of the Beach Metro which was not published - the letter refers to a cover page story in The Beach Metro to be found HERE.

Re:Historical Society gives HCD a boost

The revival of the Historical Society is great news for The Beach. In terms of an HCD, where the society can be of huge help is in identifying specific buildings worthy of heritage protection, as well as in more general background of our neighbourhood. 
But the article in the last issue also stated that "Myrvold noted that it would need to be the focus of a separate group and that Wayne Clutterbuck is organizing the possible HCD nomination. In fact, last September I submitted a nomination was for a Queen Street HCD, as well as one for the Scarboro Beach area.

To date, the City’s heritage staff have done nothing to move the HCD forward, and our Councillor has also done nothing despite her saying for 2 years that an HCD is the “best tool” to protect Queen against “inappropriate density”.

Councillor McMahon was at the Historical Society meeting, and I asked her about the HCD nomination. She says she won’t act until she sees sufficient public support for an HCD, but clearly there is already support to at least study an HCD without further delay.

Over the last year, there have been 3 community meetings at Kew Beach School where around 250 people showed up each time, plus Save Queen Street distributed 350 lawn signs – and would have put up more if we had had the funds. What extra proof does McMahon need?

Please email Councillor McMahon telling her you support an HCD and want Council to authorize an HCD study of Queen this year, and please visit the http://www.savequeenstreet.com website (or email savequeenstreet@gmail.com) for information about joining in our efforts to get an HCD passed.

Brian Graff

Save Queen Street

(Note - this email notice was sent out the day before the Transportation meeting at the Balmy Beach Club - the representative from the parking authority is saying that the City no longer buys up houses for parking lots like the one behind the current LCBO at Lee, and that developments like Bellefair Church and Lick's are too small for them to add parking - meaning either no new parking or else we have to accept some meven bigger condos on Queen before any parking can be added! 

In this email:

1. OMB Appeal of Lick’s condos (1960 Queen) – How you can play a part in it!
2. Planning Dept Meeting Feb 13th on the 2 proposed condos at Queen & Woodbine
3. McMahon’s Public meeting on Traffic and Parking – Monday Feb 4th – Please attend! 

1. OMB Appeal of Lick’s condos (1960 Queen) – How you can play a part in it!

The OMB Appeal of the Lick’s condos is scheduled to start on Tuesday (Feb 5th to 7th) – however, it looks like The Beach Residents Association (BRAT) might be asking for the hearing to be delayed.

Regardless of when the hearing takes place, it is important to show that the community is strongly opposed to this development.

You can come and speak before the OMB to voice your objection, but it is better if the people wishing to speak all work together ahead of time and we prepare a list of potential speakers (they are called “participants”).

If you want to be a “participant”, PLEASE contact me with you name address and phone number, and I will add you to the list and pass it on to the OMB. The date when you get to speak before the OMB has not yet been determined – but please send in your name even if you are just considering coming and speaking.

(Note, you can also send in letters and emails directly to the OMB voicing your objection to the development – however, this does not carry the same weight as testimony made under oath at the Hearing – email the OMB’s caseworker Sandra Chan at Sandra.Chan@Ontario.ca quoting case number PL120820, and please CC or BCC me)

2. Planning Dept. Meeting Feb 13th on both proposed condos at Queen & Woodbine

Please keep you schedules open for this important meeting on February 13th – this is the Planning Department’s meeting and is part of the Official “consultation“ process where the public can have its say – more on this in a future email.

The City of Toronto holds public consultations as one way to engage residents in the life of their city. Councillor McMahon and the City Planning department want to hear what you think about these proposed developments.

1880 & 1882 Queen St. E. and 196 Woodbine Ave.  (200 Woodbine condos)        
1884 Queen St. E. (Former Shell Gas Station)

Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 7:00 - 9:00pm
Balmy Beach Club (foot of Beech Ave)

3. McMahon’s Public meeting on Traffic and Parking (Monday Feb 4th) – please attend and speak out!

From the Councillor’s latest email:

Councillor McMahon is hosting a Toronto Transportation Information Session as a result of the Queen Street Visioning Study.

Monday, February 4th, 7:00pm

Balmy Beach Club (foot of Beech Avenue)

My Commentary on the subject of this meeting:

Do you recall the words of Joni Mitchell – “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot!”

When the Visioning Study was before Council in November, Councillor McMahon included several extra provisions that dealt studying with traffic, parking  and infrastructure (see http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.TE20.22). This was because of the overwhelming concern expressed by residents that new condo development were going to make traffic parking and other problems much worse.

Her motion included # 8 for “City staff and the Toronto Transit Commission, to report on the current traffic conditions, capacity constraints and other operational issues along Queen Street East” and to report back to Council this fall – so it seems likely that none of this information is yet available.

Also worrying is #9 which calls for the “Toronto Parking Authority, to investigate opportunities for additional parking facilities in the area immediately surrounding Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Nursewood Road; and to conduct  preliminary feasibility studies for any identified sites”

In plain language, this means that Councillor McMahon is asking for more Green P parking lots to be built on properties near to Queen Street – likely by demolishing houses. This is absurd that at the same time the city is trying to intensify Queen, it wants to start wrecking residential areas for more parking lots.

(And in future, will these parking lots on sidestreets also be developed into big condos?)

Why? More condos mean more traffic on Queen – not everyone will take a streetcar. Plus, new longer streetcars likely mean moving parking spots at the stops for people to get on and off.

Next, to reduce congestion, Queen cannot be widened (nor would we want it widened), so instead the only way to improve traffic flow will be to increase the number of hours when rush hour parking on Queen is banned – this obviously means that businesses will be hurt by a loss of parking – and our Councillor is very pro-BIA.

Why should the city spend a fortune buying land for more ugly parking lots – ultimately just so a few developers can build condos? Its like a subsidy!

Other than parking lots, there is another alternative to free up more parking to please local businesses. The solution would be to extend the areas on the residential streets for “pay and display” parking – meaning that people visiting friends and family in The Beach will pay to visit us (and the money going into the City’s hands – like an extra tax on us!)

MEANWHILE – people who buy new condos will be able to park on the streets and even get overnight parking permits. For the proposed condos at 303 Kingston Road (it is not yet approved), Councillor McMahon already passed a bylaw that prevent those condo owners from get parking permits (see http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.TE17.95)

BUT none of the proposed or approved condos (on or near Queen Street) have had similar rules passed to prevent parking problems from getting worse, including:

• 2000 Queen (Bellefair Church)
• 1864 Queen (One Rainsford)
• 1960 Queen (Lick’s)
• 66 Kippendavie
• 1880 & 1882 Queen St. E. and 196 Woodbine Ave.  (200 Woodbine condos)        
• 1884 Queen St. E. (Former Shell Gas Station)

So the issue is: Why is our Councillor not acting to protect the residents but instead keen on helping businesses (by building more parking lots) and helping developers and their condo purchasers (who do not live here yet).

The best solution is to not increase the demand for roads and parking in the first place. Does she not see that new condos means more people and more cars on Queen, and this in turn creates a domino effect of other changes that will negatively affect us?

The only way to not increase the stresses on Queen Street (and other infrastructure) is by not approving new condos. Or at least, no approvals without a plan that is backed by proper studies of the future impacts of new development, and is a plan that residents support because it won’t create unwarranted negative impacts on us.

By the time McMahon gets back the studies she asked for last November, the 2 condos being discussed at the meeting (on February 13th) might already be approved!

This situation could have been avoided if McMahon had put in a proper Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL), and if she had voted against the Lick’s rezoning.

(And I still maintain that an ICBL was possible if she had asked the right questions and not just followed bad advice from the Planning Department – any study of zoning changes would have been enough for an ICBL for up to 2 years. She could even ask for an ICBL now, based on #4 and #6 of the Visioning Study vote in November called for “the Chief Planner to report back… on proposed amendments to Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended, to implement specific restrictive portions of the urban design guidelines.”)

Brian Graff
Save Queen Street

Again, this is short notice, but there is an urgent last minute announcement to make – and some breaking news about Ossington further down - this should make you angry.

SATURDAY AFTERNOON:  Volunteers needed to knock on doors and drop flyers!

Please meet at the Beachside Grill (1922 Queen E) - Saturday at Noon.

We need to get more people in the immediate area of Licks’ (and elsewhere along Queen) to know about the OMB hearing and that we need them to come and testify.  We need their names, or for them to contact us.

(A few donations would also be great!)

Many people might think that the rezoning is a done deal or and don’t know that the 1960 Queen East (Lick’s) OMB Appeal (launched by BRAT and Midoco) is proceeding in the near future.

Please reply to this email if you hope to come out Saturday – and tell us if you want to knock on doors or only drop flyers - and please say how many flyers you might need - so I can print up enough of them.

(NOTE: We might need to go out again on the following weekend if we don’t have enough responses).

NEXT SAVE QUEEN STREET MEETING:

St. Louis Bar (2nd Floor) at 1963 Queen, for next Tuesday (Jan 29th) at 7:30pm

I have booked this so we can meet again and start to organize co-ordinate the possible testimony/participants at the hearing, and to talk more about the HCD and the redevelopments at Queen and Woodbine.

There should also be an update on the February 5th OMB Hearing on 1960 Queen (Lick’s) and on what date people will be able to speak at the Board. This will be our last meeting before the OMB Hearing, assuming it isn’t delayed at the last minute.

PLEASE EMAIL COUNCILLOR McMAHON

We need more community meetings and input into both of the Queen and Woodbine developments, instead of another repeat of the process that gave us Lick’s (1960 Queen)

On the Queen and Woodbine developments, there have been NO public pre-application meetings between the developer and the community (save for a very early on regarding 200 Woodbine at the so-called Jane Jacobs group, where the developer backed away from 8 stories because of strong opposition – but that was over a year ago)

We will likely only get the only one “official” Community Consultation Meeting (like on Lick’s and 303 Kingston Road) on each development unless we get the Councillor and planner to require more consultation – we need this to be while the buildings are still at a very early stage, instead of after the architects and planner make decisions about it without our input.

Send an email to councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca demanding an open house, design charrette or other opportunity for input  from the community BEFORE the Planning Department schedules the standard consultation meeting. (And in fact, both developments will soon be past the 120 day mark, so either or both developers could go straight to the OMB with no community meetings!)

If Mike Layton can get developers to have “pre-application” meetings on developments with the community to talk about the design, why can’t Councillor McMahon fulfill her promise to make developers work with the community early in the process!  

This will make you MAD! - OSSINGTON vs. QUEEN STREET

Reserve Properties aren’t just doing development here – but they have a similar one on Ossington – and I have been following what has been happening there.

We got a “Visioning Study” giving us guidelines, which many of us feel are too permissive and were passed in November despite strong opposition. Mike Layton has also had to take action to quell the residents in his Ward - they are as outraged as we are about 6 storey condos in an area that also deserves to keep its low-rise scale and character.

But once upon a time, we had a Secondary Plan (which is part of the Official Plan) – we lost that and instead of getting us new protections that are part of the Official Plan, Mary-Margaret’s Visioning Study is only giving “guidelines” – these do not have much power.

Meanwhile Ossington is going to get protection in the form of “Area Specific Policies” (similar to a Secondary Plan) that will give them the STRONGEST protection (short of an HCD) right in the Official Plan and limit nearly all development to just 4 storeys! See the attached file with the draft policy or visit http://ossingtoncommunity.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/spam-the-city/ or http://www.toronto.ca/planning/ossington_ave.htm

(About the only area where Ossington will get 6 storeys is where the Reserve Properties condo was proposed – but that is to be expected in that the changes to zoning and the Official Plan usually can’t be applied retroactively to applications.)

Our Councillor needs to get limits to height, built form and density put into the Official Plan - this is faster, easier and cheaper than waiting for an HCD – and if Ossington deserves this level of protection, why doesn’t Queen in the Beach?


LASTLY - THE CASINO ISSUE

Today (Friday the 25th) is the last day you can go to the City’s website survey on the Casino.

Many people are concerned about the possible negative impacts, particularly if it is built in the Downtown or Waterfront.

Go to https://surveys.dpra.com/casino/CasinoSurvey.aspx to have your say on this important issue.

Regards

Brian Graff

The following was emailed out - please let us know if you want to be added to our list.

OMB Appeal of Licks (1960-1962 Queen Street E)

The Beach Residents Association of Toronto (BRAT) and the owners of Midoco have both appealed this rezoning for a 6 storey condo to the OMB – the hearing date is rapidly approaching.

Witnesses can be called at OMB hearing by both sides, BUT anyone is also free to testify at the appeal and to have their say to the adjudicator. It does not require anyone’s permission if you wish to speak as a “participant”, which is the OMB term for people wanting to speak (under oath) at the hearing.

“Participants” might be asked questions by the other parties (including the City’s lawyer and the developer’s lawyer) and participants can also submit documents to go with their testimony.

To show that The Beach community is solidly opposed to the rezoning of Lick’s (because it will be a negative precedent that might be used to guide future development instead of the old or new Visioning Study guidelines) the community needs to get many people to show up – both residents and business owners are needed ! I am trying to organise this separate from the activities of BRAT.

The hearing is slated for 3 days starting February 5th – but the hearing could be shorter, longer, or possibly might be adjourned – the exact day for people to come and speak is uncertain at this point.

However, we do need to organize this properly – the OMB doesn’t want to hear everyone saying the exact same thing over and over again, and also, it helps if we have a lot of people who are immediately impacted (Kenilworth, Waverley and anyone within 120m of Lick’s)

How can you help?

1. Email me to say if you are interested in speaking at the OMB and I will keep you informed and coordinate the content of the participants’ testimony.
2. Volunteer – we need a team of people to go knocking on doors, and other people to identify and contact businesses who oppose the Lick’s redevelopment
3. Come out to the meeting on the 24th at St. Louis.
4. Donate money – with more money it might be possible to hire extra consultants to testify or it can be used to otherwise support the efforts of Save Queen Street and/or The Beach Residents Association.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any thoughts or questions.

Heritage Conservation District

In September, I (Brian Graff) submitted an application to make Queen Street from Kingston Road to Victoria Park into a Heritage Conservation District (HCD). This would NOT include any residential streets and properties – ONLY properties fronting on Queen Street itself.

We had been told of a possible timeline – we were too late to be get a study authorised last year, but that it was possible for Council to authorize a study this Fall and if we were lucky an HCD could be in place by early 2016 – but it is a long and expensive process.

So far, the Heritage Preservation Services (HPS) people in City Planning have done little to move our application forward or provide feedback, in large part because our Councillor has not been pushing them to move forward.

At a meeting I attended last week about reviving the Beach & East Toronto Historical Society, Councillor McMahon made it clear that we need to show that there is community support for this initiative. Her website also states:

However, if maintaining the existing character of Queen Street East is what the community wants, she believes the best tool available to do that would be the establishment of a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) on Queen Street East.  She knows we need to get out ahead of development with a viable plan, so we can push for our wish list of great design, community benefits and sustainable buildings. 

Very clearly, the 250 or so people who came out to 2 the 3 public meetings held at Kew Beach School in 2011 and 2012 indicated that the community clearly wants to maintain the existing character. Her website also includes this:

Five ways to Save Queen Street from Over-development 2. Create a Heritage Conservation District
A Heritage Conservation District is a designation that will greatly reduce the ability for developers to construct tall buildings along Queen Street. To make the area an H.C.D. will take buy-in from the entire neighbourhood and may take a long time but it is a strong defence from inappropriate density.

In the Beach Metro she was quoted as saying “I will definitely support it, if people want it”, though obviously some of us might be skeptical given how she supported both the Lick’s rezoning, and rushing through the Visioning Study without changes, despite a large number of people opposing both of them on the grounds of “inappropriate density”.

Please send an email to Councillor McMahon and Scott Barrett of HPS, a to let them know that you support an HCD and want a study to look into one to go before Council this fall:

councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca
sbarret3@toronto.ca

please cc or bcc:

savequeenstreet@gmail.com

Other Rezonings

The Planning Department has not yet held the usual public consultation meetings on either the 200 Woodbine rezoning, or the 1884/Shell Station Rezoning. Both buildings include major violations of the revised Beach Urban Design Guidelines, which came into effect after the applications were submitted – and as well, both violate the previous 2002 beach Guidelines and the Avenues & Midrise Guidelines.

The city only has 120 days to process each application before the developer is free to bypass City planning and Council and go straight to the OMB for approval – similar to what happened on Kingston Road and the Glen Davis Ravine development that went to the OMB and was approved.

This would not be an issue if we had had an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) in place. The Councillor will say that one was not possible and staff said so, but that was over guidelines being “non-statutory" instead of being zoning changes – yet in November, Council authorized the planners to study changes to the zoning itself!  A study of zoning changes is clearly is adequate grounds for an ICBL.

Brian Graff
The Save Queen Street Campaign

(Note: SQS is not directly affiliated with The Beach Residents Association of Toronto)

Here are a few questions we commonly hear, and our answers to them:

Does the Official Plan require Queen Street East to be intensified?

No. You can read the full Official Plan HERE - it is not a highly technical document that only professional planners can  understand - if anything, it probably helps to read it without preconceived ideas. Read through the sections on Avenues, Built Form, Public Realm and even Heritage.

The Official Plan is meant to be read as whole. Although it is about more than just intensification, without growth and redevelopment, cities would not need Official Plans to guide change.

There are also other policies and documents that apply to Queen. Clearly there is no "requirement" to add lots of density to Queen, nor is it exactly clear that intensification is prohibited either. But there are many sections that indicate that as Queen already functions well as a main street, it should not be changed much, or more importantly, the way in which the amount of change is to be determined and managed is through an Avenue Study, not a Visioning Study.

What are all these different studies I hear about?

Other than specific studies for traffic, stormwater, shadows etc., there are four types of studies:

Avenues & Midrise Buildings Study: A study done in 2010 looking at rules for intensifying all of the "Avenues" that had not been studied since 2002. Queen Street East was removed from this study, therefore it does not apply here. Unfortunately this important point often seems to be ignored, such as in the application for 200 Woodbine Avenue, at the north-east corner of Queen Street East. 

Avenue Study: The 2002 Official Plan requires that a comprehensive study of every Avenue be done within "several years" to determine what changes should be made - not just to add density but to make it better in a variety of ways. The City's prioritization of different Avenues for such studies has been based on the anticipated growth. The study is done by the City or consultants it hires, not by a developer or their consultants, and is described as follows:

A framework for change will be tailored to the situation of each Avenue through a local Avenue Study that will involve local residents, businesses and other stakeholders for each Avenue, or sections of longer Avenues. Each Avenue Study will contain a vision and an implementation plan to show:
• how the streetscape and pedestrian environment can be improved;
• where public open space can be created and existing parks improved;
• where trees should be planted; and
• how use of the road allowance can be optimized and transit service enhanced.

Avenue Studies will involve extensive public and stakeholder consultation in order to determine the appropriate scale and intensity of development to be reflected in the zoning for the Mixed Use Areas along the Avenues. In the course of an Avenue Study there will be a comprehensive assessment of local conditions, including: the detailed pattern of land use and urban design; built densities; transit; roads; parking; public utilities; quality of streetscape; character and viability of commercial activities; adequacy of parks, open space and recreational facilities; natural features and conservation opportunities; local heritage resources; unique local natural or built features; and the physical character of adjacent Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods.

Many Avenue studies have been done - one done for College Street in Little Italy called for maintaining the existing height and zoning intact. Another done for Avenue Road north of Lawrence Avenue had criteria for large redevelopment sites, but for most of the lots, the recommendation was for buildings to be no taller than 16.5m. Avenue Road is 27m wide so this shows that the idea that building heights must equal the street width is likely to be abandoned in favour of lower building heights when actual studies are done that look at the specifics of each Avenue.

Avenue Segment Review:  If an Avenue Study has not been done, then with every rezoning until and avenue study is done, each developer is supposed to do a study that "mirrors" an Avenue Study, that proves that there will be "no adverse impacts". The content is described in full HERE - but for th eprojects done in our area, these planning department has never required that these requirements be met - so we have not had the proper studies of traffic, public, schools, daycare, sewers, shadows, wind, etc. that are supposed to be done.

The Official Plan says:

Development in Mixed Use Areas on Avenues, prior to an Avenue Study has the potential to set a precedent for the form and scale of reurbanization along the Avenue. In addition to the policies of the Plan for Mixed Use Areas, proponents of such proposals will also address the larger context and examine the implications for the segment of the Avenue in which the proposed development is located.

Development requiring a rezoning will not be allowed to proceed prior to completion of an Avenue Study unless the review demonstrates to Council’s satisfaction that subsequent development of the entire Avenue
segment will have no adverse impacts within the context and parameters of the review.

Visioning Study: This type of study is not described anywhere in the Official Plan or other documents - in effect, the City has decided to do something that does not meet all of the requirements for an Avenue Study - such as not doing studies of traffic, schools, transit, etc. before creating new guidelines that will effectively make it hard to argue at the OMB that the existing zoning is to be enforced.

The only other major "Visioning Study" done was for Bloor Street West from Spadina Avenue to Bathurst Street - see HERE. This is in the "Downtown" according to the Official Plan Map 2 - but in the OP, there is no such thing as an "Avenue Study" for anything other than on Avenues. The Bloor visioning study did determine that from Walmer Road to Bathurst Street (near the Bloor Cinema), the existing height limits were to remain in force. 

NOTE: It seems counter-intuitive that Queen Street in The Beach is to have 20m tall buildings, while Bloor St. east of Bathurst -- in the middle of the city and right on a Subway line -- is recommended to remain at 16m in height!

What exactly defines something as a "Midrise" Building?

The City's policy is that a midrise building on Queen is one that is 20m or less. Generally, Midrise buildings are 5 to 11 storeys, but the 2010 Avenues & Midrise Building Study says:

The maximum allowable height of buildings on the Avenues will be no taller than the width of the Avenue right-of-way, up to a maximum mid-rise height of 11 storeys (36 metres).
(Note: The"right of way" or ROW is the street width from front lot line to front lot line, not curb to curb).

So on Queen, any building that is even a tiny bit over 20m (66 ft.) tall is a "highrise" by the City's own definitions.

Queen Street is an "Avenue" - what exactly does that mean?

The Official Plan (OP) divides the city's "structure" up into a number of types of areas - this is different than the zoning. If you look HERE at Map 2 then you see how it defines areas like Open Spaces, Employment Areas and the Downtown.

Outside of the Downtown, most of the main commercial "main streets" have been grouped together as Avenues. As the OP says "These Avenues have been identified at a broad scale to help assess urban design, transit and service delivery issues."

The Official Plan directs growth to "Avenues" - does that mean that much bigger buildings are inevitable on all Avenues?

The Official Plan says: The Avenues are important corridors along major streets where reurbanization is anticipated and encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities while improving the pedestrian environment, the look of the street, shopping opportunities and transit service for community residents. Such reurbanization is subject to the policies contained in this Plan, including in particular the neighbourhood protection policies.

Toronto’s Official Plan has identified how much growth there will be in each of the following areas: Downtown and Central Waterfront (34% of the growth); Avenues (19%); Centres (11%); Mixed Use Areas (14%); and other areas (22%). Generally, stable residential neighbourhoods (meaning residential side-streets, which excludes the local main street) are to have very little growth - though the recent approval for re-development of 66 Kippendavie Avenue (one block East of Queen and Woodbine) seems to contradict this.

The City is supposed to grow from 2.76 million people in 2011, to 3.08 million in 2031 - an increase of 320,000 over 20 years. About 19% of this is supposed to be on the Avenues, or about 65,000 people. However, it's estimated that if the 162km of Avenues were intensified with only 6-storey buildings, then 260,000 people could be added. Building height is supposed to be taller on wider Avenues, so most Avenues would have buildings taller than 6 storeys if the 1:1 ratio (street width to building height) were followed everywhere. So you can see, only about 25% of the Avenues, at most, need to intensify to meet the City's targets.

In additions, the Official Plan is clear that "Each Avenue is different in terms of lot sizes and configuration,
street width, existing uses, neighbouring uses, transit service and streetscape potential. There is no “one size fits all" program for reurbanizing the Avenues."

So, a certain amount of the City's growth must be accommodated somewhere on the Avenues, but there is no requirement to spread it out evenly or to every part of every Avenue. 

What is "reurbanisation"?

It means intensification, even through a long incremental process. The OP says: A co-ordinated approach to the redevelopment of land within the existing urban fabric to accommodate regional growth is known as reurbanization...By improving and making better use of existing urban infrastructure and services before introducing new ones on the urban fringe...By shaping the urban fabric of the GTA into a system of mixed use centres and corridors linked by good transit service we will build better communities, strengthen economic conditions and improve air and water quality.

As for Avenues, it is described in this generalization about them as a whole:

The Avenues will be transformed incrementally. They will change building-by-building over a number of years.

Provincial policy talks about the more efficient use of land - this is the general idea. Along with the Green Belt and building transit, this is one of many different approaches the provincial government is using to reduce sprawl.

(Note: Despite the infrastructure problems we have,including poor service on the 501 Queen Streetcar service (short-turning, etc.), traffic congestion and the fact that we are far from a subway, the mere existence of the streetcar is likely the reason why The Beach is being targeted for intensification).

Does "reubanisation" require rezonings?

Nothing in the OP says that reurbanization will require rezonings - clearly on land with a one-storey building that is zoned for 4 storeys, adding to the existing buildings or building new ones (within the existing zoning) also accomplishes this goal - just like the two 4-storey condos at Queen Street East and Brookmount Road (ground floor occupied by Starbucks).

The idea of intensification is largely targeted to suburban areas with strip-malls, vacant lots, large lawns etc. Queen street already intensified over the last few decades - all the gas stations and used car lots (except one) are long gone - this is not an area of inefficient land use!

So is there a requirement that Queen Street needs to be intensified? 

No.

Other than what is allowed under the current zoning (as-of-right), the OP section on Avenues has many clear indicators that Queen Street is not supposed to change much, if at all. See a highlighted version of the Official Plan HERE

Plus there are other sections in the Built Form and Public Realm sections that call for buildings to work together and streets to look like they have been designed. The idea is not to have a couple of seemingly randomly placed new, higher density, taller buildings on a street full of low rise buildings. 

Why is the city so intent on having 6-storey buildings here - Is the City desperately short of land?

Just drive around the suburbs and you will see that there is no shortage of land inside the City of Toronto (the 416 area code) for condos. In fact, projects like the Eglinton LRT or a Sheppard LRT need the development to justify their construction.

There is a huge demand for condos - but many fear that this is a bubble that will burst soon. But other than the fact that developers are eager to build do we really need all these condo projects to meet the city's 2031 population target?

Well, when you look at the projected growth to 2031 for all GTA municipalities, Toronto is only supposed to get under 20% of the total growth, yet in the last few years, Toronto has had about 40% to 47% of all housing starts.

The 320,000 extra people we are supposed to get is roughly 160,000 housing units (studies generally have about 2 people per household - an average, though units in the Downtown have fewer people, in the other parts of the city is is higher). The city's "pipeline" had 106,000 units in June 2011 - and this number doesn't include a variety of major developments in the early stages (like 10,000 units planned for Downsview, plus more units planned for the Portlands) or rezonings more than five years old that were passed but the projects are still not built.

Click HERE to see an update from the City in 2011 that includes this:

There has been no shortage of residential development approvals in the past five years and most development is going exactly where the Official Plan directs it to. The population growth since 2006 has continued to place Toronto ahead of the curve in meeting the population targets in the Provincial Growth Plan and our Official Plan, and there are more than enough residential development approvals to continue to house that population increase.

Is this a case of "NIMBY-ism"?

Usually NIMBYism means asking for special treatment, but it generally arises from something that is stigmatized, like group homes or wind turbines or power plants.

We already have many condos on Queen in The Beach - the five built on the former Greenwood Racetrack site, three  across the street from the latter and at least half a dozen east of Woodbine. People did not complain about the condos going into the Bellefair Church conversion (2000 Queen).

Why doesn't Queen Street East have any protection from inappropriate development now?

Queen Street East does have protection, but it seems the City Planning Department has ignored these: a 2000 City Council motion calling for the Director of Planning to respect the 12m height limit on Queen; the 2004 Beaches Urban Design Guidelines; and the 2010 motion to remove Queen from the Avenues & Midrise Buildings Study.

We had a Secondary Plan until 2002 (or possibly as late as 2006). Some people are working to make Queen a Heritage Conservation District - but that will take until 2016 to get in place at the earliest, and it might never happen.

Are we asking for special treatment? Do we think we deserve special treatment?

Our community is not the only one that is upset with inappropriate intensification. It has to stop somewhere.

What's so special about The Annex? They stopped the Spadina Expressway - which in turn helped to save us from the Scarborough Expressway. The city needs to rethink how its is applying its policies where there are stable successful main streets built before World War II.

So, we are NOT saying that we are special or asking for special treatment. If anything, our issue is that we are being treated worse than other communities, which either have had Avenue Studies or have something else in place to prevent major unwanted changes.

If other areas had the benefit of “Avenue Studies” that led to guidelines that supported increases in density and height leas than the 1:1 ratio, then why isn't The Beach accorded the same benefit: a study by an outside, independent reputable planning firm – a study that includes the necessary studies and more appropriate and fair public consultation.

The process in the case of Queen Street East seems backwards – guidelines first, then possibly studies later and changes to the zoning to cover what is already being allowed…and it is City Planning doing the study, instead of outside consultants.

The city’s argument is that Avenue Studies are only done where massive growth is to occur – yet they did a proper study for College Street from Spadina to Ossington, and for Avenue Road.  The OP calls for Avenue Studies to be done everywhere – Avenue Segment Review studies are not supposed to be a permanent tool on any Avenue but a necessary stop-gap to stay within the Planning Act.

Queen Street East is also the only area not covered by the Avenues & Midrise study. If there is no need for an Avenue Study, then does this not confirm the parts of the OP that say that the existing zoning is appropriate (and should therefore be enforced)?

Our community has never asked to be exempt from the rules or the OP (except when a Secondary Plan might do so) -- on the contrary – we expect the OP policies AS WRITTEN to be applied in The Beach; we are confident that, like on College Street and on Avenue Road, the conclusion would not be 1:1 ratio (20m tall buildings and 4.0 or 5.0 times density), leading to massive change and a loss of heritage and character.

Beach Residents Association and Save Queen Street, and several variations and/or similar names, are Trademarks owned by Brian Graff