PROPOSED RETIREMENT HOME IN HIGHLAND CREEK VILLAGE
F.Y.I.
Subject Retirement Homes)
A) On June 6 a group of concerned residents met at Mary Ann Robillard’s home to
organize a Working Group to assess the Crestline Retirement Home proposal.
Working Group Chair: Mary Ann Robillard Tel: 416-284-9919
Three subcommittees were set up to address specific areas of concern;
1. Parking and Traffic Issues- Chair Blair Anderson Tel:
416-282-9792
2. Urban Design Impact - Chair Clancy Delbarre Tel:416-281-8147
Em; cdelbarre@rogers com
3. Village Business Owners, impact; Chair Lydia Manget Tel; 416-
281-9966
You are invited to address your concerns and suggestions to any or all
of the above.
B) Updated information, Oct. 18, 2007
Retirement Homes. Background
Around 2000 when the City’s Official Plan and Highland Creek Secondary Plan
were under review,
the historic characteristics of Highland Creek Village were recognized as
worthy of special consideration;
given that it was the only visible “village” left in Toronto.
With the support of then Councilor Ron Moeser, in 2002 a committee was
struck including representatives
of the Community Association, Village business owners, other residents and
Planning and
Design staff of the City. Numerous meetings were held and many plans
submitted and reviewed culminating
in the publication of Highland Creek Village Urban Design Guidelines which
were meant to serve
in providing detailed guidance and precision about the implementation of the
plan not achievable in policy
. In March 2004. Scarborough Community Council approved the Guidelines and
on July 20, 2004,
Toronto City Council adopted these Design Guidelines.
In the preparation of these Guidelines it was anticipated that redevelopment
in the Village would
replace the numerous auto-related sites with residential mixed uses,
primarily townhouses. Design features
for these townhouses outlined 3 storey buildings with peaked roofs. That
resulted in an overall
height of up to 12 meters as indicated in the guidelines. The Guidelines did
not contemplate or anticipate
any apartment buildings in the Village as that would not complement or
respect the existing one- and two storey
base.
[Of course, clever Developers focusing on the 12 meter guideline saw that
they could build a flat
roof apartment type building comprising 4 stories and stay within that 12
meter restriction. In addition
given that certain lots sloped , developers then anticipated they could put
up a building comprising 4
storeys at the front and up to 5 or more storeys at the rear and still call
it a 4 storey building falling within
12 meter guideline.]
Motel Site:
In 2005, Pointe-of-View acquired the motel site at the foot of Military
Trial and reportedly having
received tacit approval from a City’s planner proposed a 4 storey apartment
building . The community
was vehemently opposed and another developer Ballantry Homes appeared with a
plan to acquire the
property from P of V and build townhouses. The plan was presented to a
Working Group
(representatives from the residential and business communities) and after
countless meetings a final plan
was approved. Ballantry’s townhouse plan, with the support of the community
association (and despite
City opposition which favoured the apartment plan) was approved at an OMB
hearing in July 2006.
Everyone heaved a sigh of relief. Although the townhouse plan, some 67
units, was not 100% acceptable,
it was a good alternative from the original apartment building.
In April 2007, Ballantry made a new proposal to replace the TH’s with a
retirement home with
135 units plus a seniors apartment building with 140 units on the motel
site. Presumably the developer
believes that utilizing a flat roof, 4 storeys can be accommodated within
the 12 meter height and since the
land slopes towards the ravine and Kingston Rd, the building can increase to
5 and 6 storeys at the rear.
Application has not yet been made to the City as some consultation with
residents and business people
is taking place. As of this date, Ballantry has asked to have another
meeting with the Working Group to
convince us his proposal is entirely satisfactory and meets everyone’s
needs.
Parking Lot Site in the Village:
Earlier this year Romlek Holdings proposed a 4 storey, 91 unit , retirement
home on the parking
lot immediately opposite the food store at Morrish Rd and Old K. Rd. with 21
above ground parking
spaces. That matter has been under consideration by the Working Group and
receiving much opposition
from the village business owners who are concerned about the impact on their
business because of much
reduced parking.
Romlek attempting to speed up the process then applied to the Committee of
Adjustment for a
variance on the zoning which would allow for the 4 storey unit but on
October 2nd, realizing the strong
opposition to 4 storeys, Romlek filed an amended plan with City Planning for
a three storey, 90 unit
building with no outdoor parking.
You can visualize the mass/bulk of this building by looking at the Woodland
Plaza with one more
storey on top of it and extended by another 140 feet. Situated next to basic
one storey shopping plazas
in the heart of the Village it destroys sight lines and the Village
appearance, equivalent to a battleship
in a bathtub.
At its meeting on October 17 the Committee of Adjustment after hearing
opposition from the
City’s own Planning Director, the Highland Creek Community Association and
Ed Fleury of Fleury, Comery,
refused the variance sought by Romlek. Romlek now has the right to appeal
that decision which I
suspect they will do and it will end up with the OMB.
Retirement homes operators state the number of units required to make them
economically viable
ranges from 90 to 130 units per building and a minimum of three storeys.
Developers have seized on
this as justification for their proposals, i.e., “the community is in favour
of a retirement home, so we will build
one for them” The fact that it may be a large 4 storey building is therefore
acceptable because “you
wanted a retirement home and this is how we build them”
Maybe we should encourage all infill development in the Village to be
retirement homes then we could
adopt a new slogan “ Highland Creek Village, God’s Waiting Room”???
Morrish and Kingston Rd.
A third proposal which has been on hold is for two 4 storey apartment
buildings ( 20 units each) for
the site now occupied by used car dealers at the foot of Morrish Rd.
opposite Feeney’s. We believed
that developer was awaiting the outcome of the Romlek proposal because if it
was approved at four
storeys, it would serve as a precedent. Now that Romlek is only three
stories yet to be approved, we
suspect that developer will reactivate his plan and attempt to justify 4
storeys on his site..
Another rumour is that the owner of the property on which the white house is
located opposite Three R
on Morrish Rd. was also awaiting the outcome as a precedent for proposing a
4 storey unit on that
property.
Other Developments; An application for an infill townhouse proposal
consisting of 44 units ( two and
three storeys) at 6440-6452 Kingston Rd. adjacent to the Highway Commercial
area has been filed with
the City. A community consultation meeting will be held on November 21 at
Morrish Public School.
Note our upcoming Meeting Schedule:
All at the Scarborough Archives Building, Wednesday nights from 7 to 9 pm
(except for
April 9, 2008)
Nov. 14, Dec. 12 (if necessary), Jan .9, Feb. 13, March 12,
April 9 ( annual general meeting, location to be announced)
May 14, June 18.
E&OE
CD
October 18, 2007