The following was sent from the Joint Residents Association for Midtown (JRAM) and on behalf of WeLoveOakville.
Dear Mayor Burton and Members of Oakville Council:
As we plan our next steps, we think it is very important that we are all on the same page with respect to our concerns about this TOC initiative which we believe is now the major threat to the development of Midtown and residents of Oakville.
First, let’s be clear, we are going to be perceived and labeled by some people as NIMBYs no matter what we do. So it is important that we have a clearly articulated and documented set of facts and rationale that supports our concerns and suggestions for change.
Here are eight issues we have taken from the staff’s report of July 2nd and the Ministry’s letter of May 31 (sections of the report are in italics followed by my commentary). Together these documents and the CAO’s presentation give us a reasonable picture of where things currently stand with respect to the TOC. Spoiler alert - it is not a pretty picture.
We hope this note will give us a starting point for developing, documenting and presenting a common point of view on this TOC initiative.
1. The Confidentiality Agreement Is A Big Problem
In accordance with the Town’s Delegation by-law, the CAO and Clerk executed a “Mutual Confidentiality Agreement and Non-Disclosure Agreement” on July 5, 2024, which is required by the Ministry to ensure non-disclosure of confidential information.
The Ministry of Infrastructure is targeting the end of Summer 2024 to determine the viability of the program.
An initial meeting between Town and Ministry officials has been scheduled for July 8, 2024, and biweekly meetings to discuss thereafter.
We assume that “viability” means making the critical “go” or “no go” decision. Unfortunately, this decision is being hammered out secretly in the back rooms under the protection of a confidentiality agreement.
At the Council meeting, the Mayor made it clear that there will be no barrier, or wall of confidentiality, that would prevent information being shared with Council. This is good. But, the confidentiality agreement provides a huge barrier/wall that prevents information being shared with residents, taxpayers, and other stakeholders.
This is a problem and it is both a problem of fact and perception.
2. Aggressive Timeline Pose a Major Risk (Haste Makes Waste)
Here is the very aggressive timetable set forth in the letter from the Ministry to the CAO on May 31, 2024.
Municipality, region and province to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to the first meeting – June 2024
Province to convene a meeting with Municipality to discuss the TOC Program, terms of reference package and establishment of working tables – June 2024
Establish Working Group and Steering Table (CAO/ADM/CDO level)– July 2024
Technical discussion on TOC proposal and public/stakeholder engagement – August 2024
Task number 1 above has been completed and meetings have been scheduled with respect to numbers 2 and 3. We need to be prepared for some sort of public/stakeholder engagement (number 4), but when it will be scheduled and what will be discussed is unknown and up to the Ministry. The May 31 letter says the entire process is anticipated to take between six to twelve months.
The timetable suggests that the ministry is running their playbook and jamming it down our throats. Still too early to tell if this perception is correct, but it sure looks like a major risk.
3. Inadequate Stakeholder Engagement
The Province has also noted that an engagement process will be part of the TOC program which will allow at least one opportunity for public input. These opportunities may include engagement with community stakeholder representatives, a public meeting or other engagement platforms, as determined by the Ministry.
At least ONE opportunity for public input ???
At the planning and development meeting the CAO said that the public engagement should happen sometime in the fall. Not to be picky, but the CAO also says the determination of “viability” is targeted for the end of summer and public engagement will occur sometime in the fall - which means the public will have no input into the viability decision.
Residents and stakeholders want to provide input, not just listen to what they decide. We need to consider whether we will play “defence or offence” (i.e., wait for the public engagement to be scheduled or be proactive, like sending a letter to the Minister now expressing our serious concerns with this process).
4. Vision, Density Targets and Population Forecasts: Or Lack Thereof
There is no discussion in either this report or the May 31st letter of developing a shared vision and objectives for the TOC and integrating this TOC into the Liveable Oakville Official Plan. There is nothing on the issues related provincial density targets (103 hectares vs 43 hectares) or population growth forecasts (JBPE vs ROPA 49) that have been of such concern and debate over the past year. Instead the staff report provides the following TOC objectives.
The provincially-led TOC Program is meant to leverage opportunities whereby private sector builders will deliver vibrant, mixed-use communities that will bring more housing (including affordable housing options), jobs, retail, public amenities and entertainment within a short distance of new and existing transit stations.
The goal is to create “vibrant mixed-use communities” which is not defined and will be delivered by private sector builders. Here is what Distrikt has said they will deliver - 11 Towers, 6,300 units on 3.9 hectares with no parks, schools or other amenities for at least a decade or two. Would this meet the TOC’s “vibrant mixed-use communities” test?
5. Resourcing Challenges
That staff be authorized to execute any single-source agreements necessary to secure external expertise for the purpose of undertaking the Transit-Oriented Communities program with the Ministry of Infrastructure.
The resources of the Town have clearly been stretched with this TOC command performance and the conflicting Midtown programs and priorities this creates. The resourcing need is real, but approving an open ended single-source procurement process, which the Town has done, is problematic.
More problematic however, is the likelihood that staff will again engage Urban Strategies/Jacobs, which means that a high density “viability” TOC proposal will be supported by staff and that serious work on Council’s petition could be pushed into a distant second place. We should be ready for a retread version of the April 22 proposal or Distrikt’s applications for 11 towers to be jammed down our throats.
6. The scope of this TOC project is not defined.
Although Midtown is not specified in the letter, the CAO sought clarity from the Ministry, and it was confirmed that the area around the Oakville GO station was being considered, including lands subject to development applications and appeals by Distrikt Developments Inc.
The Ministry of Infrastructure has indicated that it is extending the TOC program to GO locations; however, the Bronte GO MTSA has not been considered at this time since there are no interested builders proceeding. Further, no other locations in Oakville are under consideration.
Before we get into the specifics, let's consider the mandate of the TOC program. The report from the Interim Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning (Toronto) states “Only lands directly impacted by Metrolinx are eligible to be considered for a TOC development. IO does not have a mandate to acquire additional lands as part of the TOC program.”
So if the scope of this TOC is broader than lands directly impacted by Metrolinx, then they need to have an “interested builder” partner. The fact that the CAO identified Distrikt suggests that this interested builder partner is already actively engaged in this process and is lobbying for a “viable” TOC option for developing their lands that is aligned with their interests. Surprise, surprise.
Whatever the scope of the TOC, its development is bound to prejudice the parameters for the rest of Midtown.
Resolving this scope of the TOC poses significant planning challenges and implications. If the scope of the TOC embraces all of Midtown, then it will effectively replace the OPA that is being developed. If however, the scope of the TOC is limited to the Metrolinx lands, and those owned or controlled by Distrikt, then we will have a piecemeal approach with the Province directing the planning and development in one part and Council in the other. How will we ever develop a complete and liveable community in Midtown under these conditions?
7. Negotiating With Third Party Builders With Limited Transparency And Governance
The main thrust of the TOC program is to facilitate new housing at, or in proximity to, transit stations. To that end, the Province will lead negotiations with third-party builders at TOC sites, and consider Oakville’s and the Region’s input.
This statement and the May 31 letter, makes it clear that the Province is running the TOC show. They are leading negotiations with the developer and they may or may not “consider” input from the Town or region. What we don’t know is whether the Ministry and Distrikt have already agreed on a deal for the development of a portion of Midtown (eg. an agreement to approve Distrikt’s development applications)?
Backroom deals and commercial arrangements that are negotiated under the cover of a confidentiality agreement should raise serious concerns and red flags. There will be limited, if any, oversight or governance of this negotiation process or the end result. And there is a lot of money on the table.
Remember the report from Auditor General of Ontario that described how the provincial government's approvals for the extraction of land from the Greenbelt to build houses would have enabled certain developers to benefit to the tune of $8 billion?
8. Jamming Decisions With Enhanced Ministerial Zoning Orders
The intent, to staff’s understanding, is to create a TOC proposal that will either be reflected in municipal planning documents – such as the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law, or result in a Ministerial Zoning Order. The end goal is ultimately to be able to deliver housing faster.
The MZO strong arm tactic has not gone away. It is back in full force, with a new name and poses an immediate threat. According to the Coronation Park Residents Association newsletter, in Markham and Richmond Hill both municipalities objected to the level of density, building heights and other aspects of the government’s plans, and both municipalities were then hit with an “Enhanced Minister’s Zoning Order”, which resulted in permitted building heights of 80 stories.
Concluding Thought
This TOC initiative represents a very serious invasion and override of the Town’s Official Plan, which is the cornerstone of municipal planning. The goal is delivering housing faster, not building complete and livable communities. The TOC approach has major short term and long term risks that are not being identified, acknowledged or addressed. It is based on a belief that municipal planning is unnecessary bureaucratic “red tape” that is curtailing the building of new homes and causing the housing shortage. The Ministry is saying we and our developer partners are the best people to plan the development of Midtown and we are going to do it our way.
There is however, an opportunity to make this TOC initiative a success. This will require major changes to the process, such as a more collaborative working arrangement, much greater stakeholder engagement, a more realistic timetable etc. The benefits of doing this TOC right, will be worth this additional investment.
Yours Sincerely,
WeLoveOakville
Joint Resident’s Association for Midtown