Attn: Rosemary MacKenzie, City Clerk, Etobicoke York Community Council
CC: Councillor Mark Grimes
CC: City Planning: Kathryn Thom, Bill Kiru, Neil Cresswell & Jennifer Keesmaat
Date: June 17, 2013
Mimico Residents Association Comments on EYCC Agenda Item EY25.15
Final Report – Mimico-by-the-Lake Secondary Plan
to be presented to EYCC on June 18, 2013 at 11am
To the Members and Chair of the Etobicoke York Community Council,
The Mimico Residents Association (MRA) has followed and participated in the Mimico 20/20 planning process over the past 7 years. As stated in our previous communication (April 3, 2013), the MRA supports change in our community, as long as it is appropriately planned change. We would like to see revitalization along our lake, but not at the expense of any additional benefits to the community.
The amended Secondary Plan does not address many of the concerns the MRA and Mimico residents have repeatedly raised. There are very few benefits for the larger community other than new roads and condominiums. The parkland dedication is insufficient, the existing strip of lakeside Linear Park is already overcrowded, and there are no mixed-use areas being proposed along the waterfront to help make this the “destination” described in the 2009 Vision Statement for Mimico 20/20.
The intense development at Humber Bay Shores has shown us that a Secondary Plan does not necessarily result in controlled development. Height limits of 25 storeys could result in much larger applications being approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
Developers tell us that the current Plan will not incentivize development, and will end up on the shelf with the 1980s Mimico Study.
On the other hand, the MRA is very concerned that without a Secondary Plan, our area could develop piece-meal with large-scale developments being approved at the OMB without community consultation or approval. We understand that residents are much more likely to “win” at the OMB if we have a Secondary Plan that supports our concerns and sets limits on height and density.
In short, the MRA, along with many area residents, is frustrated with the current situation. We feel cornered into accepting a Plan that apparently does not provide enough benefit to area residents or to developers to stimulate improvements. When our February 2013 community survey asked if residents would approve the Plan in its current form, nearly half of respondents (47.4%) supported the Plan, while 28.2% did not. Therefore, while we strongly support the need for a Secondary Plan, we have serious reservations regarding the insufficiencies in parkland dedication, community amenities and public mixed use spaces along our waterfront.
We urge the City explore alternative solutions, sources of funding or approach agencies such as Waterfront Toronto that could help improve this Plan and move it forward in a more positive direction.
As stated in our previous communication, the City needs to invest in this section of the waterfront with more than a Secondary Plan.
Kyra Trainor, President
Mimico Residents Association