►
From YouTube: Planning and Growth Management Committee - May 3, 2017
Description
Planning and Growth Management Committee, meeting 20, May 3, 2017
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=11887
Meeting Navigation:
0:36:42 - Call to order
Agenda Items:
0:38:16 - PG20.1 - Technical Amendments to By-law 569-2013 (Ward All)
1:01:20 - PG20.2 - Amendment of Purchase Order 6035908 for Legal Services in Support of Appealed Employment Lands Policies (Ward All)
1:06:03 - PG20.3 - Prioritizing the Scheduling of Ontario Municipal Board Cases Related to Toronto (Ward All)
A
A
B
B
A
C
C
So
I
I
expect
that
the
items
here
will
end
up
being
carried
over
to
the
next
meeting
of
this
committee
and
it's
disappointing
because
we
had
the
same
problem
at
the
last
meeting
getting
quorum
and
we've
had
problems
and
other
times
with
members
of
council
being
able
to
get
here
on
time
and
councillor
campbell,
you've
made
it
I
think
to
every
meeting
and
councillor
perks.
You
did
a
wonderful
job
of
running
through
the
streets
leaping
over
tall
buildings,
I'm,
not
letting
the
Kryptonite
stop
you
from
getting
into
the
building
here.
B
C
Unfortunately,
my
office
was
told
councillor
Barlow
won't
be
attending,
and
we
just
heard
that
today,
I
don't
think
the
clerk's
was
notified
in
advance.
Councillor
de
jian
Oh
was
trying
to
drive
his
cars
over
the
traffic
that
was
there
and
councillor
Fillion
about
20
minutes
ago
was
up
at
Bayview
and
Sheppard,
which
is
the
imposter
2025
million
possible
to
get
done
here
in
time.
So
now
publicly
I
would
say.
C
If
members
of
the
committee
want
to
be
on
the
committee,
they
should
be
here
and
the
two
members
that
are
here
made
every
effort
to
get
here.
In
particular,
councillor
perks,
who's
still
at
a
breath
didn't
even
stop
for
a
smoke
absolutely
so
to
those
that
are
here.
Thank
you,
but
those
that
aren't
I
think
on
behalf
of
rest
of
us.
We
express
our
disappointment
in
that.
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
C
Are
there
any
declarations
of
interest
under
the
municipal
conflict
of
interest
Act,
seeing
none
confirmation
of
the
minutes,
councillor
Campbell
moving
the
minutes,
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed
as
Carrie
speakers.
We
have
speakers
on
the
first
item
and
a
speaker
on
the
second
item,
so
they
are
both
held
members
of
council
I
have
in
the
committee.
I
have
an
additional
item
in
regards
to
the
prioritizing
of
scheduling
of
OB
cases
related
to
City
of
Toronto,
which
I'd
like
to
introduce
and
have
you
read,
and
hopefully
you
will
adopt
the
recommendations.
C
It's
intended
to
try
to
get
the
board
to
address
us
more
now
that
we
have
a
local
appeals
body
and
I'll
speak
to
it.
After
a
motion
to
introduced
which
I'll
move
all
those
in
favor
opposed,
that's
carried.
Thank
you.
Let's
go
to
our
first
item
technical
amendments
to
bylaw,
5,
6,
9,
2,
0,
1,
3,
Thomas,
Woodhull
and
Danielle
chin
from
build.
C
D
Afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
planning
growth
management
committee,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
this
afternoon.
For
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me,
my
name
is
Danielle
Chen
and
I'm
here
my
capacity
as
senior
manager,
policy
and
government
relations
with
build.
So
for
those
of
you
who
may
not
know
build
is
the
voice
of
land
development,
home
building
and
renovation
industry
in
the
GTA,
we're
a
not-for-profit
trade
organization,
and
we
represent
fourteen
hundred
and
fifty
member
companies.
D
So
today,
I'm
joined
by
one
of
our
key
technical
transportation,
consulting
firms,
Thomas
wood,
all
of
be
a
group,
and
you
may
recall
that
Thomas
attended
and
presented
at
the
February
23rd
committee
on
this
specific
item.
So
before
we
dive
into
our
thoughts
on
the
proposal.
I
did
want
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
you
for
your
leadership
and
referring
this
item
back
to
the
committee
to
allow
for
additional
discourse
and
possible
refinement.
D
Our
association
and
its
members
have
submitted
numerous
letters
to
the
committee
and
council
with
concerns
and
recommendations
and
we're
here
to
reiterate
those
comments
to
you
today.
Among
the
changes,
the
report
proposes
amendments
to
the
zoning
bylaw
to
be
consistent
with
the
provincial
accessibility
for
Ontario's
with
Disabilities
Act,
and
while
we
commend
staff
for
undertaking
this
initiative-
and
we
do
know
that
some
of
our
members
felt
that
the
proposed
changes
do
not
necessarily
bring
the
bylaw
into
better
conformity.
D
Following
the
February
committee
meeting,
build
working
group
met
with
city
staff
for
the
first
time
on
March
the
22nd.
We
appreciate
the
time
that
staff
took
to
listen
intently
to
the
issues
that
we
had
raised
and
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Thomas.
Now
we
will
speak
more
about
the
technical
aspects
of
these
changes.
Thank.
E
You
Danielle
among
the
changes
in
this
amendment
staff
proposed
to
increase
the
dimensions
for
accessible
parking
spaces.
However,
the
proposed
changes
to
lengthen
width
are
not
consistent
with
the
AODA,
most
notably
the
length
of
an
accessible
parking
space
is
proposed
to
increase
from
five
point
six
to
five
point:
nine
meters,
while
regular
parking
spaces,
would
remain
the
same
at
five
point:
six
meters
in
length.
This
is
very
problematic
from
a
functional
design
and
space
utilization
perspective,
because
it
can
shift
the
alignment
of
drive
aisles
in
planned
parking
garages
with
constraints.
E
For
the
length
city
staff
not
provided
any
technical
research
or
rationale
which
demonstrates
a
need
for
increasing
the
length
of
an
accessible
parking
space,
our
determination
is
that
there
is
no
physical
or
operational
benefit
to
increasing
the
length
of
the
bargain
space
by
0.3
meters
in
their
deputation
to
City
of
Toronto
council
ibi
group.
Another
transportation
consulting
firm,
which
works
with
build
provided,
similar
advice.
The
width
of
an
accessible
parking
space
is
also
proposed
to
be
modified
so
that
it
is
3.4
meters
wide
with
an
adjacent
aisle
of
1.5.
E
The
AODA
standards
make
use
of
two
accessible
parking
spot.
All
sizes
which
are
applied
5050
and
conservatively
recognize
that
most
vehicles
making
use
of
accessible
parking
spaces
are
not
vans
with
side
loading
ramps,
but
rather
typical
passenger
car
vehicles
that
do
not
require
additional
width.
This
is
also
problematic
from
a
functional
design
and
space
utilization
perspective,
because
multiple
accessible
parking
spaces
can
no
longer
be
accommodated
by
typical
column
grids.
This
will
result
in
less
efficient
and
more
expensive
parking
garages,
which
will
see
costs
pass
along
to
the
consumer
through
higher
rents
and
prices.
E
E
Our
determination
is
that
the
modified
formula
results
in
a
significant
difference
in
the
required
number
of
accessible
spaces
for
large
parking
supplies
as
compared
to
the
AODA
again.
City
staff
have
not
provided
any
technical
researcher
rationale,
which
demonstrates
a
need
for
adopting
a
different
supply
standard
than
that
recommended
by
the
AODA
I'll.
Now
turn
it
back
to
Danielle
to
discuss
the
impacts
of
the
transition
period.
Thanks.
D
So
these
changes
are
in
conformity
with
the
oaa
standards
per
the
stood
cities
originally
stated
objective
at
our
March
22nd
meeting
staff
did
support
the
recommendations
for
length
and
transition,
and
we
appreciate
that,
and
we
hope
that
this
committee
is
also
supportive
of
these
refinements.
Thank
you
for
your
time
this
afternoon
and
we're
happy
to
take
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Thank.
B
E
I
could
be
more
specific.
The
AODA
actually
doesn't
speak
to
the
length
of
a
parking
space
accessible
parking
stall.
There
was
the
length
yet
yeah.
This
is
the
AODA
is
agnostic
to
the
length
it
allows
municipalities
to
use
whatever
length
they
have
for
their
standard
parking
split
dolls.
Are
they
often
go
in
conjunction
with
the
size
of
the
drive
aisle?
So
in
Mississauga,
for
example,
they
have
shorter
spaces,
but
wider
drive
aisles.
E
So
the
amount
of
space
sort
of
end
to
end
is
the
same,
and
the
AODA
sort
of
accommodates
that
by
not
speaking
to
length,
the
introduction
of
the
five
point,
nine
rule
would
actually
make
Toronto
the
only
jurisdiction.
That's
updated
their
bylaw
to
reflect
the
AODA
to
include
a
length
standard.
Oh
oh.
B
E
Less
yeah
the
the
AODA
speaks
to
two
sizes
of
spaces.
So
what
they
say
is
you
can
have
a
it's
on
figure.
The
second
figure
here
type
a
spaces
are
three
point.
Four
meters
in
width
and
type.
These
spaces
are
two
point.
Four
meters
Taipei's
are
generally
for
someone
who
needs
to
sideload.
A
wheelchair
out
of
a
vehicle
and
type
B
is
for
someone
with
a
mobility
issue
who
needs
to
be
close
to
the
door,
but
doesn't
have
necessarily
a
wheelchair
or
an
assistive
device,
and
the
AODA
allows
you
to
split
a
supply.
E
B
B
D
C
D
E
C
This
applies
to
what
your
deputation
was
in
regards
to
existing
applications
that
are
here
that
might
have
to
be
changed,
but
that
then
permits
on
new
applications
of
standards
that
the
city
staff
have
proposed
to
go
forward
in
regard
as
to
with
a
number
of
spaces,
but
it
does
correct
the
length
on
all
of
the
new
ones
as
the
existing
ones
correct.
So
is
it
something
that
you
can
live
with?
It's.
C
F
C
G
My
name
is
Eileen
Denny
and
I'm.
The
president
of
Teddington
Park
residents,
Association
I'm,
here
to
speak
to
the
technical
amendments
to
the
sewing
bylaw
and
we've
been
involved
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
Since
our
first
public
record
letter
was
placed
in
2009
when
norm.
Kelly
was
the
chair
and
I
want
to
emphasize
the
fact
that
these
technical
amendments,
although
they
call
technical
they
may
not
be
and
have
to
analyze
that,
and
what
makes
these
technical
amendments
difficult,
is
that
many
of
them
are
coming
through
with
the
exceptions
or
the
missions.
G
And
when
you
start
from
the
back
end
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
you
can't
reference
the
address
or
the
area
and
move
through
the
bylaw
to
figure
out
where
it
is
and
I
draw
your
attention
to
one
of
the
paragraphs
in
the
report,
which
it
says
that
the
preparation
of
the
five
six
nine
twenty
thirteen
required,
the
interpretation
of
zoning
boundaries
and
the
regulations
that
are
associated
with
them
and
on
an
ongoing
basis
as
mapping
errors
and
zoning
boundaries
or
application
of
zoning
regulations,
are
identified.
The
city's
committed
to
rectifying
these
matters.
G
There
are
identifying
problems
with
the
system
in
identifying
boundaries,
and
I
really
have
a
problem
with
that,
because
of
the
fact
that
you
need
the
maps
in
order
for
the
zoning
bylaw
to
work.
I
also
want
to
highlight
the
fact
that
from
2003
to
2013,
the
city
has
spent
a
total
of
more
than
12
million
dollars
on
this
project.
G
G
Why
is
the
city
considering
changing
the
residential
zoning
definitions
at
this
time?
During
the
harmonization
process
there
was
has
been
no
mention
that
these
residential
zones
would
be
changed,
but
rather
the
details
in
determining
some
of
the
more
specific
common
elements
when
these
bylaws
would
be
harmonized.
G
We
also
asked
why
invest
in
a
sophisticated
computer
program
when
the
city
is
creating
one
bylaw.
We
recognize
the
need
for
access
to
zoning
by
the
sophisticated
computer
system,
in
fact,
will
ease
the
comparability
and
use
for
everyone
who
needs
access
to
this
information,
even
in
its
existing
form.
So
if
you
had
43
separate
zoning
bylaws
and
he
used
the
computer
system
to
allow
that
access,
we
would
have
been
able
to
compare
those
bylaws
today.
G
Why
is
a
proposed,
harmonized
zoning
bylaw,
trying
to
capture
all
the
legal
non-conforming
uses
and
site-specific
amendments
in
an
attempt
to
normalize
their
specialized
zoning
situation?
Many
old
established
neighborhoods
throughout
the
city
have
non-conforming
uses
based
on
the
organic
nature
of
land-use
planning
and
that
that
has
evolved
over
time.
These
non-conforming
uses
have
not
been
Pecha
weighted,
as
the
expectation
is
that
permitted
uses
within
the
zone
would
prevail.
Is
the
proposed
Harmer,
harmonized
zoning
bylaw,
insist
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
provisions
in
the
city's
new
official
plan
policy?
G
I
have
that
same
question
today
and
where
2017
is
the
proposed,
harmonized
zoning
bylaw
and
they
call
it
harmonized,
and
it
is
not
harmonized.
If
you
can
review
all
the
committee
of
adjustment
decisions,
they're
not
harmonized,
is
the
proposed
harmonized
bar
bylaw,
consistent
with
other
city
initiatives,
and
here
we
said
the
suggestion
of
ever
large
in
residential
building,
both
in
footprint
and
height
compromises,
the
initiatives
to
increase
the
city's
tree,
canopy,
the
absorption
of
water
runoff,
the
collective
reduction
in
open
landscape
space,
etc.
Is
this
sustainable
or
desirable?
G
We
are
concerned
with
the
accuracy
of
the
information
arms
and
that's
the
same
here.
We
are
concerned
with
the
details.
A
document
has
disclosed,
as
well
as
the
silences
and
omissions
on
others.
Why
are
we
considering
the
bylaw
amendments
in
all
these?
All
these
various
places
when
the
residential
areas
have
not
been
considered
separately
and
uniquely.
G
G
Overall,
the
sustain
is
individually
and
collectively
result
resulting
from
the
new
zoning
bylaw
are
contrary
to
neighborhood
protection
policies
of
the
Official
Plan,
and
it
places
our
city
neighborhoods
at
risk
to
an
uneven
distribution
of
property
rights,
an
imbalance
of
individual
rights
and
public
benefit.
Thank
you.
I
have
an
unprecedent
level
of
intensification
not
expected
on
I
really.
C
You
Eileen:
do
you
know
you're
well
past
your
time?
Are
there
any
questions
of
the
deputed,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
the
chief
planner
than
a
question
my
understanding.
This
was
technical
amendments
to
the
length
of
the
spaces
and
requirement
for
spaces
for
accessible
parking.
Is
that
what's
in
front
of
us
no.
C
This
is
the
same
baila
that
we
adopted
and
the
only
change
that
we're
making
today
was
a
change
that
went
to
Council
with
a
longer
space
kinda
more
of
the
spaces,
a
wider
space.
There
were
concerns
by
the
industry
about
applications
that
were
in
process
that
we've
come
back
to
lengthen
the
space
so
shorten
the
space
alone
affect
the
aisleway,
and
then
we've
allowed
the
applications
that
are
in
process
to
continue
for
a
period
up
to
five
years
with
their
current
standards.
Am
I
correct?
That's.
F
The
councilor
shiners
motion
was
that
the
half
recommendation
or
counselor
shiners
recommendation
I,
was
not
totally
clear
through
the
chair.
We
worked
with
counselor
shiner
on
the
motion
and
it
is
our
recommendation
as
well.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
sorry,
just
further
question
to
just
I'm
struggling
with
the
the
five
years.
If
somebody's
gotten
Apple,
you
know,
if
somebody's
got
an
application,
that's
approved
I
can
see
not
going
backwards,
but
if
there's
an
application,
that's
you
know
just
coming
in.
Why
couldn't
they
meet
the
new
standard.
F
Through
the
chair,
the
reason
for
the
five
years
we
originally
in
fact
had
three
years
in
the
bylaw
and
in
our
negotiations
at
the
board,
it
was
extended
to
five
years,
so
that
would
be
in
keeping
when
previously
negotiated
transition.
That
was
sorry
and
went
the
PERS
when
does
provincial
legislation
when
is
that
required
to
be
employees.
F
Through
the
chair
it's
currently
already
in
place
and
with
the
five-year
extension,
are
we
complying
with
the
provincial
legislation,
the
chair?
Yes,
we
are,
and
as
a
practical
matter
and
I'm,
not
sure
who
the
complaints
would
go
to-
maybe
not
the
Planning
Department,
but
do
we
get
many
complaints
currently
from
people
who
require
a
wider
spot
that
they
have
difficulty
parking
through
the
chair?
F
C
Councillor
Campbell,
as
you
have
questions,
okay,
so
I'll
speak
to
it
I'm
moving.
My
amendment
allows
for
the
shorter
spaces.
It
puts
the
standards
that
were
in
place
for
the
width
in
the
number
of
spaces
to
come
in
to
new
applications,
not
existing
applications
as
a
phase
and
beard,
and
the
second
part
of
the
motion
was
intended
to
have
the
chief
plan
of
report
back
to
us.
C
C
C
G
G
Giving
you
the
background
as
to
why
that
item
is
important.
The
growth
numbers
came
out.
I
only
had
one
question
was:
how
do
how
was
the
city
to
address
the
growth
numbers,
because
the
employment
lands
are
expanding
residential
uses
because
they
have
realized
the
employment,
land,
designations
and
I?
The
answer
I
received
was
that
what
the
city
has
three
years
to
do
that,
so
what
I'm
asking
is?
Why
would
we
plow
through
and
allow
for
increasing
residential
uses
when
today,
we
are
already
outpaced
residential
units
to
2040
one?
G
C
C
C
Ma'am,
that's
not
the
issue
in
front
of
us.
Thank
you
very
much.
The
issue
in
front
of
us
is
this
legal
firm
and
whether
we
are
going
to
extend
the
contract
with
this
legal
firm
to
continue
on
the
decisions
that
we've
made.
We
are
not
revisiting
those
decisions
and
you
should
not
take
up
this
committee's
time,
because
you
may
have
something
that
you
think
we
should
revisit.
We
aren't
it's
not
in
front
of
us.
It's
not
on
our
agenda.
I,
just.
C
Wait
is
Eileen
here,
you're,
an
intelligent
woman.
You
read
this
stuff
and
it's
very
clear
what
it
is
we
aren't
revisiting
it
I
always
appreciate
comments
from
the
public,
but
on
the
items
that
are
in
front
of
us.
I
can't
deal
with
the
decision.
That's
here,
because
that
decision
in
front
of
us
we've
simply
had
this
extent
longer
and
for
more
cost
that
we
thought
it
would
be
and
the
staff
have
recommended
that
we
continue
with
the
same
solicitors
and
that's
the
item,
that's
in
front
of
me.
C
G
C
You
I
don't
have
any
other
deputies.
We
have
the
item
here.
To
extend
this.
Is
there
a
mover
of
their
recommendations
from
staff
move
by
councillor
Tucci?
No,
are
there
any
speakers
to
it,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
opposed?
That's
Carrie
I
did
circulate
an
additional
item,
which
I
would
ask
you
to
consider.
I
did
this,
after
speaking,
to
staff
as
we
are
starting
with
the
T
lab,
our
local
appeals
body,
and
it
will
be
starting
up
as
of
May.
C
The
third,
with
that
and
I
put
some
justification
and
notes
on
the
back
with
staff
were
very
the
Planning
Division
were
very
helpful
with,
but
the
simple
fact
is
that
half
the
time
at
the
internal,
my
initial
board
was
spent
on
Appeals
of
committee
adjustment
decision
from
the
City
of
Toronto.
That
time
is
now
available
to
the
board.
C
There
are
some
very
important
planning
matters
that
have
been
sitting
at
the
board
now
for
quite
a
number
of
years,
as
we've
opened
up
some
space
at
the
board,
we
feel
it's
important
that
that
space
possibly
be
given
or
should
be
given
to
the
appeals
that
have
been
sitting
for
years.
For
example,
the
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
of
which
every
committee
of
adjustment
application
that's
made
is
put
to
two
tests:
the
old
bylaw
and
the
new
bylaw.
C
I,
don't
think
on
behalf
of
Council
was
to
make
it
so
developers
can
get
through
the
board
process
faster.
However,
if
that
time
opened
up
after
all,
the
existing
eels
are
done
with
that,
maybe
a
consideration
that
happens
right
now.
We
really
need
the
attention
put
back
on
to
the
numerous
appeals
that
have
had
of
our
official
plan
policies
that
are
making
it
extremely
difficult
to
manage
development
because
we
adopt
new
policies
and
they
repealed
and
they
aren't
decided
upon.
C
So
the
intent
of
the
motion
is
to
request
the
internal
mentor
to
prioritize
the
scheduling
of
OMB
cases
related
to
the
adoption
of
the
city
of
Toronto's,
legal
and
planning
policy
foundations.
Documents
such
as
be
initially
initiated,
Official
Plan
amendments
and
comprehensive
zoning
bylaws
to
advance
the
resolution
of
these
outstanding
matters,
and
we
also
asked
an
City
Council
for
this
item
to
the
minister
missile
Affairs
and
the
Attorney
General.
C
That's
our
request
and
then
I
expect
that
our
staff
will
try
to
follow
up
with
this
once
it
goes
through
Council
to
express
the
same
fact
and
see
if
we
can
get
earlier
dates
on
hearings.
I
would
be
looking
for
a
legal
division
to
do
that
and
to
come
back
to
us
and
see
if
we've
been
able
to
get
the
time
within
the
schedule
that
got
opened
up
to
deal
with
the
City
of
Toronto
matters
instead
of
having
that
that
are
currently
there.
C
Instead
of
going
to
new
appeals
and
new
applications
where
they
gets
new
appeals
where
they're
spread
and
where
they're
sped
up
any
other
questions,
myself
or
staff,
not
seeing
any
of
the
motion
is
placed
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed,
not
seeing
any
that's
carried
unanimously.
A
motion
to
adjourn
moved
by
Councillor
Tucci,
a
no
all
those
in
favor,
that's
carried.
Thank
you.