Links to relevant resources

Dear Neighbours, 

Our efforts to defer the City Council consideration of the changes to the Toronto Official plan and zoning By-laws failed - the City Council passed the proposal on July 24th without debate through a quick release procedure moved by Councilor Moise.  

See, please, the moment when Councilor Moise releases Item TE15.9 (our item) in the council, i.e. moves to adopt through a simplified procedure. Another member of the council jokes that he thought the item would take two weeks, and Councilor Moise replies tongue-in-cheek: "Yea, Yea, till Friday", This is how serious the councilor takes his duty to represent our interests. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNamMaX1gyM&t=29637s (time 8:12:00). 

See, please, further information and discussion on the home page:  https://191-201-sherbourne.ca .

To: 

Mayor Olivia Chow

Toronto City Council

To whom it may concern

Reference: Application # 20 224753 STE 13 OZ

Dear Mayor Chow and Members of the City Council,

We are a community of homeowners and residents who are gravely concerned that the development of 191-201 Sherbourne St., proposed by Fitzrovia on behalf of Ontari Holdings Ltd., an investment vehicle wholly owned by AIMCo (Alberta Investment Management Corporation), if approved, will detrimentally and irreversibly impact our community and livelihood.

We believe that the amended Zoning By-law and Official Plan (Item TE15.9), moved for approval by the Toronto and East York Community Council on July 10th, should not be approved by the City Council for the following reasons:

• It does not adhere to good principles of urban      planning and urban design.
• It is not in an appropriate relationship with      adjacent properties, including the Cabbagetown South Heritage Conservation District.
• It violates Tall Building design guidelines.
• It does not provide a proper transition to the neighboring use.
• It goes against the intent of the City of Toronto Official Plan.
• It creates severe transportation problems in the neighborhood.

Despite the material and complex nature of the proposed development and the By-law amendments, our community has had very limited opportunities to understand the situation, discuss it among ourselves and our elected representatives, and explore our rights and legal options. 

• There was only one community meeting on      September 5, 2021 (right after the Labour Day long weekend when many      residents were unavailable).
• Information about essential developments on the proposal, including the 2023 September 5th meeting, has never been      adequately updated on the Application 20224753STE13OZ City of Toronto web resource.
• The notice regarding the July 10th committee meeting was distributed on June 19, 2024, only 20 days before the meeting, and had limited reach—most residents were unaware of this important committee and its consequences.
• The actual draft of the Decision Report and      Zoning By-law amendments, comprising more than 50 pages of technical      documentation, was posted on the website only after June 21, just a few      days before the meeting barely meeting the legal requirements. This was      also the time when the public learned about hundreds of pages of updated      technical documentation from the developer.
• The recommendation of the City Planning office      to adopt the proposal surprised even the community members who closely      follow the developments, leaving us no time to react.
• The committee discussion of the proposal was      superficial—while community members presented convincing arguments against      the proposal, none of the committee members demonstrated an understanding      of the concerns or participated in the discussion. No evidence of      community support for the development was presented. 

Mr. Tyler Johnson, the Chief of Staff of Councilor Moise, who attended part of our community consultation meeting, expressed the opinion that the City Council should not reject requested amendments to By-laws and Official Plan because such a decision would be overturned by the Ontario Land Tribunal considering recent changes in provincial land laws. 

We do not share this view. We believe that our elected representatives in the City Council should approve or reject applications based on their merits and alignment with the interests of Torontonians. If a decision of the City Council is appealed to the OLT by the developer or landowner, the tribunal process provides an opportunity for public discovery and allows affected residents to voice their concerns. This is especially true since our right to appeal land regulations has been limited by Bill 185—the City Council, in this situation, becomes the last bastion protecting Torontonians from the abuse of well-financed developers.

In view of the above, we request:

• That the consideration of the proposed amendments be adjourned until the Toronto City Council meeting scheduled for October 9th, 2024, to allow for information      dissemination within the community, communal discussion, interactions with      elected officials, media engagement, and the development of a communal      strategy.
• Facilitation of meetings with the developer      and the landowner. We particularly insist that representatives of the      landowner (AIMCo) are available to inform us and to address our concerns.
• That the City Council consider the application      in question, as well as other applications, based on their merits and      benefits to Torontonians, using all available avenues to protect the      rights of your constituents. Strategic behavior in interactions with the      provincial government may appear prudent but often serves self-interests      and does not benefit the City Council's constituency. We are aware of the      Provincial Government's actions and will express our views in the      provincial elections.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Mihaela Capra and Serguei Zernov, 95 Seaton St.
Irina Rapaport, 130 Seaton St.
Catharina and Thomas Dannenberg, 109 Seaton St.
Sandra Lewis and Drew Anderson, 124 Seaton St.
John Di Fruscia, 134 Seaton St.
Gwen Feagan and family, 75 Seaton St.
Susan Mitchell, 77 Seaton St.
Robert Van Rhijn, 69 Seaton St.
Fred Dilkes, 104 Seaton St.
Patrick and Albina Keyes, 83 Seaton St.

Mark Fellion, 133 Seaton St. 

Bruce Simpson, 135 Seaton St. 

Robert Soden, 79 Seaton St. 

Christine Rhodes, 63 Seaton St.

Sophia Rowe, 117 Seaton St.

Josh McGuire, 101 Seaton St.

Michael Shiner, 127 Seaton St.

Heather Boeckner, 123 Seaton St.

Anuti Kira, 110 Seaton St.

John Pabb, 106 Seaton St.

Luo Li Yan, 143 Seaton St.

Arthur Seko, 147 Seaton St.

Paul LeBlanc, 94 Seaton St.

Brian J. Marchand, 94 Seaton St.

Asif and Nafeesa, 141 Seaton St.

Ted O'Reilly, 145 Seaton St.

Stuart Canton, 120 Seaton St.

Brent Diefenbacher, Marie Desrochers, 71 Seaton St.

Gracie Carroll, 101 Seaton St. 

Charlotte Mickie, 7-41 Spadina Road

Sarah Madden, Sydenham St. 

Louise Garfield, 18 Salisbury Ave.

David and Dolores Steinman, 145 St. George St.

Winston Ji, 145 St. George St., 

Susan de Rosa, 145 St George St
John Chernet, 145 St.George St. 

Tenants of 191-201 Sherbourne St. : 

Alan Solman

Amir Ghorbani Pour

Audi Etoffe

Brian Dust

Carolyn Rock

Chris Syu

Colin Perkel

David Jubinville

Emilia Mahdiyan

Geeta Tarani

Jason Fulmer

Jennifer Kerwood

Jerome Major

Jessica Clausen

Jim Ellis

June Yates

Justin Bain

Kali Duffy

Kim Rabjohn

Liam Marecak

Madison Rose

Manny Pillai

Mashayla Ritchie

Matt Fielding

Nic Melder

Pat Perkel

Ricardo Mantilla

Saarang Ahuja

Samia Saad

Summer Jones-Fielding

Tony Fu

Mayor Olivia Chow

Toronto City Council

To whom it may concern

City Planning Division, Toronto & East York District 

Reference: Application # 20 224753 STE 13 OZ

Letter of opposition to proposed development.
at 191-201 Sherbourne Street

Dear Mayor and Councilors,

I strongly oppose the proposed development as filed in Application #20 224753 STE 13 OZ.

The amended application does not solve any issues present in the 2023 application - the changes are cosmetic in nature.  The application remains to be an outrageous example of architectural and city planning malpractice. It goes against modern good practices in city planning and violates multiple provisions of the City of Toronto Official Plan as well as Ontario provincial development policies.

I cannot escape the impression that the Planning Report aims at antagonizing branches of Ontario Government against each other, City against the Province. It is unacceptable that an institutional external investor (AIMCO owns this parcel of land) attempts to interfere with Ontario politics for its benefit. I hope that both the City of Toronto and the Province are wise enough to see through this and act in the best interest of their constituents.

The proposed submission violates the following City of Toronto and provincial development guidelines, among others:

• The design is out of architectural and historic context, including the neighboring Heritage Conservation areas, and it is out of scale.
• The proposed skyscrapers violate natural sunlight patterns for a large neighborhood area extending as far as Parliament St.
• The proposed skyscrapers, if constructed, will create strong induced winds, dust pollution, and other unhealthy conditions in the neighboring area.
• The proposed development creates a skyline that is aesthetically unpleasing from multiple viewpoints—two skyscrapers, each over 140m tall, sticking out with no buildings of comparable height nearby.

Other negative impacts on the neighborhood include:

• The project, if implemented, creates heavy commercial and service vehicle traffic on neighborhood streets (Seaton St. and Windeyer Ln.). Instead of fostering a low-traffic, pedestrian-friendly zone, the project does the opposite, endangering our children and creating noise and dust pollution.
• The project, if implemented, will make it impossible for residents of the neighborhood and their guests to find parking. The development builds over 800 new units while reducing parking space from 500 to fewer than 300 spots. The developers argue they are "planning for the future, encouraging use of public transportation," claiming current parking is underutilized. However, their planned luxury apartments target a different demographic than existing economy apartment buildings—one that owns more personal vehicles per person.

The City of Toronto has invested significant efforts in its development plans, including policies for the Garden District Area that govern the 191-201 Sherbourne site. Building a comfortable and beautiful city requires strategic thinking and consistency in executing plans. This developer essentially requests the City of Toronto to discard its developed plans to help them make a quick profit. We expect the City to adhere to its long-term plans and guide development in a way that benefits Torontonians. The suggested project offers no such benefit.

In light of these considerations, I ask you to recommend the following to the City Council:

1. Reject the application to amend the by-laws respecting the lands known as 191-201 Sherbourne Street.
2. Develop the area as a green recreational zone or with low-rise buildings and townhouses with architecture consistent with other buildings on the street and in the area.
3. Reject plans to create a vehicular entry to the parking garage and apartment complex from Seaton St. and Windeyer Lane. There are alternatives to transforming existing low-traffic, calm zones into busy through-streets.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Name: _________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________ Signature _______________________________