BMN News

Quarry lands battle shaping up

by Carole Stimmell

“Some day it will be a textbook case for planners,” claims Ward 36 Councillor Brian Ashton. Ashton believes that the development proposed for the ‘quarry lands’ at Clonmore and Gerrard involves such “complex issues,” it may take years before many are resolved – and may even take changes in the provincial statutes to put right.

In late July, Ashton learned that Gerrard/Clonmore Development Ltd. (a division of The Conservatory Group) had applied to the July 30 Committee of Adjustment (COA) hearing for a minor variance in the size of units they intended to build (a reduction of up to 33% per apartment). The information included with the hearing application indicated that seven high-rise towers were planned ranging from 23 to 27 storeys for a total of almost 1,500 units.

Although the current zoning on the property allows such density, both the community and Councillors Ashton and Sandra Bussin were shocked and appalled at the proposal. “This is bad planning,” said Ashton at a hastily organized meeting attended by more than 300 people at Fallingbrook United Church on July 27.

Ashton, Bussin and the city’s planning department managed to get the COA hearing adjourned until Oct. 15, but the request for the minor variance is the smallest of the issues surrounding the site plan.

This is not the first time that the property has been the focus of controversy. The City of Scarborough (pre-amalgamation) fought proposed development plans for the site at least twice in the last 20 years.

Richard Findlay is chair of the Concerned Citizens of Quarry Land Development, a group created after the Fallingbrook meeting to take the community lead on the fight against the development plans. Findlay said that “two people [members of the Concerned Citizens] have been on committees to fight it twice before.”

Ashton said that he sees two major areas of concern about the development plan. The site was zoned high-density residential back in 1967, because the Scarborough Transporation corridor (remember the Scarborough Expressway?) was to run next to the property along the railroad right-of-way. Large high-rise complexes were considered acceptable according to the planning tenets of the day. However, while any idea to build the corridor has long disappeared, the zoning of the property remains.

So why can’t the city change the zoning when it no longer makes sense?

In Ontario, property rights are supreme. Any change in zoning that affects the value of that property adversely is considered a form of expropriation, and property owners need to be compensated.

Ashton believes that provincial legislation governing property rights and zoning has not kept up to the needs of municipality – particularly with regard to development to brown fields (contaminated land).

And that is Ashton’s second concern about the development. Tests done in the 1990s indicated that portions of the site (probably those used as an unregulated dump site in the 1950s) were contaminated. However, a full environmental assessment was never conducted. Since then, not only have environmental standards changed, but the responsibility – both for approval and cost – has been downloaded to the city.

So what can either the community or Toronto City Council do to either stop the development entirely or try to minimize the impact on the neighbourhood?

Findlay said “our goal for now is clear and simple...we need to get 1,000 neighbours to come out to deal with the minor variance in October.”

Ashton said that he must keep his focus on “pubic health and the environment,” while the city’s bureaucracy and the corporations duke it out.

But for those citizens who live close to the site and are living with a “stomach-tied-in-knots” kind of concern, “it has to be finally put to rest,” said Findlay.

Anyone wishing more information on the Concerned Citizens of Quarry Land Development or the COA meeting scheduled for Oct. 15 can visit www.gerrardclonmore.com.



			• Classifieds • Community Calendar • • Home • Contact Us •


		Quarry lands battle shaping up by Carole Stimmell “Some day it will be a textbook case for planners,” claims Ward 36 Councillor Brian Ashton. Ashton believes that the development proposed for the ‘quarry lands’ at Clonmore and Gerrard involves such “complex issues,” it may take years before many are resolved – and may even take changes in the provincial statutes to put right. In late July, Ashton learned that Gerrard/Clonmore Development Ltd. (a division of The Conservatory Group) had applied to the July 30 Committee of Adjustment (COA) hearing for a minor variance in the size of units they intended to build (a reduction of up to 33% per apartment). The information included with the hearing application indicated that seven high-rise towers were planned ranging from 23 to 27 storeys for a total of almost 1,500 units. Although the current zoning on the property allows such density, both the community and Councillors Ashton and Sandra Bussin were shocked and appalled at the proposal. “This is bad planning,” said Ashton at a hastily organized meeting attended by more than 300 people at Fallingbrook United Church on July 27. Ashton, Bussin and the city’s planning department managed to get the COA hearing adjourned until Oct. 15, but the request for the minor variance is the smallest of the issues surrounding the site plan. This is not the first time that the property has been the focus of controversy. The City of Scarborough (pre-amalgamation) fought proposed development plans for the site at least twice in the last 20 years. Richard Findlay is chair of the Concerned Citizens of Quarry Land Development, a group created after the Fallingbrook meeting to take the community lead on the fight against the development plans. Findlay said that “two people [members of the Concerned Citizens] have been on committees to fight it twice before.” Ashton said that he sees two major areas of concern about the development plan. The site was zoned high-density residential back in 1967, because the Scarborough Transporation corridor (remember the Scarborough Expressway?) was to run next to the property along the railroad right-of-way. Large high-rise complexes were considered acceptable according to the planning tenets of the day. However, while any idea to build the corridor has long disappeared, the zoning of the property remains. So why can’t the city change the zoning when it no longer makes sense? In Ontario, property rights are supreme. Any change in zoning that affects the value of that property adversely is considered a form of expropriation, and property owners need to be compensated. Ashton believes that provincial legislation governing property rights and zoning has not kept up to the needs of municipality – particularly with regard to development to brown fields (contaminated land). And that is Ashton’s second concern about the development. Tests done in the 1990s indicated that portions of the site (probably those used as an unregulated dump site in the 1950s) were contaminated. However, a full environmental assessment was never conducted. Since then, not only have environmental standards changed, but the responsibility – both for approval and cost – has been downloaded to the city. So what can either the community or Toronto City Council do to either stop the development entirely or try to minimize the impact on the neighbourhood? Findlay said “our goal for now is clear and simple...we need to get 1,000 neighbours to come out to deal with the minor variance in October.” Ashton said that he must keep his focus on “pubic health and the environment,” while the city’s bureaucracy and the corporations duke it out. But for those citizens who live close to the site and are living with a “stomach-tied-in-knots” kind of concern, “it has to be finally put to rest,” said Findlay. Anyone wishing more information on the Concerned Citizens of Quarry Land Development or the COA meeting scheduled for Oct. 15 can visit www.gerrardclonmore.com.

		Other stories: • Mark your ballot Oct. 2• • Cast your vote for Citizen of the Year •