Townhouses better than highrises, residents told.
North York councillors have agreed in principle to the proposed development of 203 townhouses made up of 41 freehold and 162 condominium townhouses in the Bathurst Street and Finch Avenue area of North York.
Image/SUBMITTED DRAWING
For residents of a North York neighbourhood northwest of Finch Avenue and Bathurst Street, a proposed development of more than 200 townhouses means the loss of precious green space and an influx of traffic.
But their outcry has left others shaking their heads, arguing the townhouses would be much less imposing than highrise buildings that are permitted on the land at 55 Antibes Dr.
"Given that we're down-zoning (for townhouses instead of highrises), I'm shocked" by the community opposition, said Don Valley East Councillor Shelly Carroll, who also agreed residents have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.
At the Tuesday, Jan. 10 North York Community Council meeting, councillors agreed in principle to the proposed development of 203 townhouses made up of 41 freehold and 162 condominium townhouses.
But York Centre Councillor James Pasternak stressed the development "is not a done deal. Far from it."
Not only does the zoning amendment still need approval from city council on Feb. 6, but several issues such as densities, the streetscape and traffic concerns must be resolved, he said.
Pasternak, who said there will be no development on the adjacent Antibes Park, is hoping to arrange another meeting with the community in March.
"Ideally, we would keep it as green space and let the community enjoy it," he told The Mirror, pointing out he lost a bid to have councillors' decision on the proposed development delayed for a month.
"If it is going ahead, we have to negotiate the best deal possible. My job is to try to stop the development and if it is going ahead, to protect the community as best we can."
While the site has always been used as green space by the community, the land had, in fact, been owned since 1969 by the Toronto District School Board, which never followed through on plans to build an elementary school there.
A couple of years ago, the board decided it no longer needed the property.
When the city and other government agencies didn't express an interest in buying the site, the land was sold to developer Menkes.
While residents have complained about the townhouses, Menkes vice-president Mark Karam has argued that other developers who bid on the site planned on building condo towers on the property.
"It could easily accommodate four or even five buildings," he told The Mirror a year ago.
"We're probably the only one (developer) that went in, we didn't see this as an apartment situation, we saw this as a medium density site."
Several residents spoke out against the development at Tuesday's meeting.
For example, David Cymerman said he doesn't understand the logic of putting development on green space to generate revenue for the city so it can provide residents with community amenities.
"To me, it is like saying to a sick person, 'I'm going to give you medicine but I'm going to cut off your air supply,'" he told councillors.
"Are you here for the benefit of the developers or are you here for the benefit of the residents?"
However, resident Enna Pearlston said the community has to be practical that development is coming to the site.
"I don't have a great appetite to have 200 townhouses across the road," she said. "(But) I see it mitigating having highrises."
Meanwhile, bureaucracy helped fan the flames of residents' anger, Pasternak said.
First, the community was only notified that the issue was coming to Tuesday's meeting over the holidays when many people were away or focused on other things, he said.
Second, while the issue was scheduled to be addressed by councillors at 11 a.m., the many residents who attended the meeting grew increasingly agitated before the proposed development was debated more than two hours later.
A frustrated Pasternak asked why issues to be debated at the council meeting, several of which involved hearing from delegations and requiring discussion from councillors, were crammed on to the agenda in 15-minute intervals in the morning session rather than more reasonably spacing them throughout the day so residents could be given more realistic times to attend.
Instead, people who attended the meeting on a number of issues were sometimes forced to wait hours for their item to be addressed.