Update from the City of Toronto as of November 2016 regarding Rockport's proposed 25.8 metre high development of 1327-1339 Queen St. East

From Matthew Longo, Solicitor, Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law, City of Toronto Legal Services

With respect to the site plan application, the developer submitted further refinements in late September. As always, the new material was posted on the City’s Development Application portal. You can review the material at the following link (click “supporting documentation”), Development Applications 1327 Queen St. East 
 and in particular the “cover letter” document explains the latest revisions and responses: 

The City has not yet crafted the site plan approval conditions. We will circulate them for your information when they are to be provided to the developer. The form of the zoning by-law has also not been finalized. 

The LCC also asked Mr. Longo about an application that Rockport, the now owner of 1327 Queen Street East, had submitted for a permit to injure a tree located at 73 Laing St. 

The City stated that it is going to grant the permit, on the basis that as long as the tree is injured in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, then the relevant by-law will not be breached. However, the City has advised the owner of 1327 Queen Street (Rockport) that they are not authorized to injure the tree without the owner’s of 73 Laing Streets consent, and they have put the onus on Rockport, the owner of 1327 Queen Street to resolve any property disputes. 

The concern being that Rockport, the owner of 1327 Queen Street, goes ahead and injures the tree as soon as it gets the permit. In response to voicing that concern Mr. Longo advised that " It would, of course, be wise for the developer not to interfere with the rights of neighbouring landowners but the City does not become involved in such disputes."

To see the state of the proposed by-law to date click here then click on Supporting documentation and Draft Zoning By-law amendment.

Rockport appeals Ashbridge Precinct Guidelines

Not good news regarding the Ashbridge Precinct Guidelines

When we last reported on the OMB decision, we said that one of the few good things to come out of this process was the fact that the new Ashbridge Precinct guidelines were now in place. Well, hold that thought. Rockport and Fieldgate – a newly named developer in the mix - are appealing the Ashbridge Precinct Guidelines.They do not want them to be passed as an Official Plan Amendment.

The attached document sent via their Legal Council is self-explanatory. They do not want the new Guidelines to be used to evaluate proposed development in the area. Both 1327-1339 and the Beer store are the two developments in question at this point but there are several 'soft sites' in the wings.  Any development applications submitted to planning while this issue is before the OMB will be exempt from the new Guidelines.

Rockport and Fieldgate letter to the Toronto & East York Community Council regarding their appeal of the Ashbridge Precinct Guidelines

It is our understanding that the city will be fighting this.

Please write to your local councilor if you believe that the city needs to fight to keep the newly established guidelines for this area.  These will limit the height, recommend set backs both front and side, rear transitions and the wrapping of the mechanical penthouse.

Those are just a few of the issues. We hope that you care about this as much as we do.





LCC Google Drive | OMB Ashbridge Precinct appeal.pdf |  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Vl-kM-oCKRd3lZNl81WURJcHc/view?usp=sharing



vd/mh

The lack of protest on the city’s part was deafening in its absence

Many of you will have already seen the very very large sign that the developer has erected announcing his Condo project at 1327-1339 Queen East.

Ontario Municipal Board ruling on Rockport 1327-1339 Queen E, Front Page crop (click image to read .pdf)

The OMB (decision link) has granted Rockport their appeal. One of the reasons cited was the following:

[58] Since the proposal now before the Board has come on the consent of the City, the Board draws the reasonable and inescapable inference that City Council is now satisfied that this proposal meets the requirements of OP policy 2.2.3.3(b).
[59] The Board has no contrary evidence before it.

The lack of protest on the city’s part was deafening in its absence. The fact that the new Ashbridge Precinct guidelines are now in place is one of the few positive developments to have come out of this process. The only thing slowing down the ground-breaking ceremony for the development was cited in the report as follows:

01] At the request of Rockport, and with consent of the City and with the consent of LCC in the alternative, the Board withholds its order until it has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:
1. the final form of the zoning by-law amendment is to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, the City Solicitor, counsel to Rockport and counsel to LCC,
[102] At the request of the City, and with the consent of Rockport and with the consent of LCC in the alternative, the Board further withholds its order until has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:
1. all site plan pre-approval conditions have been satisfied, and
2. approval has been granted for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site, as set out in the decision of the City Council on December 9, 2015.
“Susan de Avellar Schiller”

Thanks to all of you for your support. The LCC will be running an ad in the Beach Mirror to thank all of you who stepped up to the plate to help us to pay for our Legal representation at the hearing. We are still out of pocket so any additional donations would be greatly appreciated. If there are any other developments we will keep you posted. It’s been an interesting few years (yes few! this process started in 2013) and we’ve learned a great deal. We can only hope that the next development will actually implement the recommendations made in the new Ashbridge Precinct guidelines so that we can have a project to be proud to stand behind.




vd/mh