THE LAWYER: NIMBYism and politics: a bad combination

By Leor MarguliesRobins ApplebyThis past June/July, NIMBYism combined with political pandering and destroyed three years of in-depth work on the midtown Focus Study of the Yonge-Eglinton area.Three years after Toronto City Council directed planning to review the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, and after exhaustive consultation with ratepayers, industry representatives and other interested parties, the city planning department presented a draft plan to the planning and growth management committee for its approval in June. The plan dealt with height restrictions for various sections of Yonge-Eglinton and proposed uses to improve park areas, amongst many other items.Notwithstanding three years of extensive consultations and studies, Councillor Jaye Robinson, at the last minute, circumvented the entire consultative process at the committee meeting in June by requesting that further consultation be held in a single community meeting to solicit feedback from the public on lowering heights. This, in the face of the provincial growth plan that encourages — and in fact demands — a much higher density to meet the growth in population and, in particular, the over 100,000 new people that enter the GTA every year.At a subsequent meeting later in June, 140 members of the community were presented with three options for height. Not surprisingly, 84 of the 140 people that attended voted for the lowest height in the choices (15 storeys), a reduction in some cases of 36 storeys adjacent to Yonge/Eglinton major transit station. No material reference was made to the three years of in-depth proposals and studies and the results of this meeting were sent back to the planning and growth management committee on June 21 for approval. It decided to toss the city planning report of three years out the window and replace it with the decision of 84 people in the area.Is there any worse example of NIMBYism and political interference than this? Further, the city utilized a new section under the Planning Act (Section 26) to bring forward these proposals to amend the Secondary Plan, so that there would be no right of appeal to the Local Planning Authority Tribunal (LPAT), which would normally have been available for appeal of this type of planning decision prior to recent Liberal changes to the Planning Act, pursuant to Bill 139.To come up with such a decision in such a manner during an election without appeal is shameful and distorts the democratic and planning process. The planning & growth management committee and council are simply subverting a proper consultative process.Representatives of BILD strongly objected to the process being circumvented and requested that the committee support the original recommendations of the planning department, or at least defer its decision to further study the latest proposals.Again, political pandering prevailed with the councillors on the committee and this request was denied.Council then approved implementation of the report on July 30, 2018. Read the full report here: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory. do?item=2018.PG31.7It is expected that affected land owners and BILD may legally challenge the use of Section 26 for this type of development decision. In addition — as the approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to this Official Plan Amendment under Section 26 of the Planning Act is required — deputations have been made to the federal government not to approve the plan. It is, therefore, quite possible that the report may still not be approved and be sent back for further study by the Ford government. It is now on the provincial EBR for public input until mid-October 2018 before the province decides.So this is your chance to be heard. Voice your opinion on the EBR to your provincial MP!Leor Margulies is a partner at Robins Appleby LLP and an executive on the BILD Board of Directors. https://www.robinsappleby.com/home