Let City Council know Your Voice is active, act today

With you support we are close to reaching our goal of 1,000 signatures.  Now is the time to take it up a notch.   

The concern is that Community Consultations are not being taken seriously by the City.  Nor is the need to review Applications that are ONLY complete. 

There is an Application being put to the Toronto Planning and Housing Committee on Thursday morning February 26th, regarding the Swansea Mews (21 Windermere Avenue) property, owned by the City, and a Proposal by Toronto Community Housing Corporation.  It is Application - 264832.  It proposes a  mammoth complex instead of a livable destination for the former residents to return to after an emergency evacuation.    The former residents don't want it, the neighbours are in agreement with, and support them, and yet the Community has not been consulted, nor regarded.  What to do ? 

If interested you can make a submission to  advise the Planning and Housing Committee (PHC)  Clerk at phc@toronto.ca , that you oppose this based on the arguments below.    But do make it before the deadline Wednesday February 25, 2026, end of day, to add to the volume of concern had about this situation.  If desired, express that the City remove your personal information.

"PH28.2 - 21 Windermere Avenue" is the essential subject heading to let them know why the Toronto City Housing Corporation Application is incomplete and should be resubmitted only when ready.  It is too important to overlook!!!

PHC Members should you wish to contact them directly are: 

Gord Perks (councillor_perks@toronto.ca) Chair

Frances Nunziata (councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca) Vice-Chair

Brad Bradford (councillor_bradford@toronto.ca)

Vincent Crisanti (Councillor_Crisanti@toronto.ca)

Josh Matlow (councillor_matlow@toronto.ca)

Jamaal Myers (Councillor_Myers@toronto.ca)

If you do wish to make a statement to PHC@toronto.ca, please put together your thoughts so that it will inspire them to understand the concerns that are had by a rush to approve a development Application that is incomplete.  Please consider some of these arguments, as you consider this matter:

Overview
Concern:  Deficiencies in the 21 Windermere Avenue (Swansea Mews) Development Proposal 264832

Submitted to: Planning and Housing Committee, City of Toronto

Position: Opposition, citing incomplete and non-compliant submission under City, Provincial, and Federal policies.

 
Key Deficiency Areas:

1. Community Consultation Findings:

• Only one in-person session and one pre-application meeting were held with the public.
• Former tenants (mainly low-income and equity-deserving groups) were not meaningfully included, based on their assessments, violating Toronto’s Engagement Policy (2023).
• Concerns about security, building height, transparency, and loss of townhouse typology were not addressed.

Policy Non-Compliance:

Violates PPS 2024, Policy 2.3.1.3 and Official Plan Section 3.1.1(5). Contravenes City Council Item EX7.2 (2023) on early and continuous engagement.

Conclusion:

The consultation process is not “complete” under Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 415, Article III, Section 415-30(A).

2. Transportation and Infrastructure Capacity Findings:

• Traffic study does not address cumulative congestion or multi-modal impacts.
• Only one vehicular access point, increasing pressure on a narrow street near schools.

Policy Non-Compliance:

Contradicts Growth Plan Policy 3.2.2.4 and Official Plan Policy 2.2.1(4).

Conclusion:

No proposed mitigation or transit enhancements; submission is incomplete.

3. Livability and Built Form Findings:

• Building 2’s design limits daylight and airflow, contrary to City guidelines.
• Density exceeds what’s envisioned for the area; no assessment of community services and facilities.

Policy Non-Compliance:

Violates PPS 2024, Policy 2.3.1.3 and Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines.

Conclusion:

Fails to demonstrate physical transition, sunlight access, and social infrastructure planning1.

4. Environmental and Geological Risk Findings:

• Methane levels above screening trigger need for a Record of Site Condition (RSC), which is missing.
• Proximity to sensitive wetlands requires more hydrological modeling.
• No methane mitigation or independent environmental audit provided.

Policy Non-Compliance:

Fails Toronto Green Standard Tier 2 and Growth Plan Policy 2.2.1(6).

Conclusion:

Environmental due diligence is incomplete.

5. Financial Viability and Maintenance Risk Findings:

• Relies entirely on public subsidy and foregone revenue, with no third-party financial guarantees.
• Applications to federal funding are speculative and not confirmed. 
• TCHC’s ongoing maintenance risk is high due to existing capital backlogs.
  Policy Non-Compliance:

Contradicts City By-law 1715-2019 and Canada’s National Housing Strategy Policy Objective 1.2.

Financial Table (Summary):

Category Estimated Foregone Revenues:

Concern
Development Charges (2025 rates) $20,380,823
No third-party financial guarantee Parkland/CBC Waivers (2026 est.) $9,207,000
Removes obligations for public realm enhancement Property Tax Exemption (99 yrs) $86,829,679
No sustainability performance metrics

Total Incentives: $116,417,502 Loss to City revenue, affecting long-term maintenance

Conclusion:

No demonstration of sustainable lifecycle funding or fiscal durability1.
 
Precedent Examples:

• 
  Regent Park Phase 1 (2005): Required verified financial partnership before rezoning.
• Lawrence Heights (2010): Included comprehensive community and environmental analysis.
• Don Summerville TCHC Revitalization (2023): Integrated third-party environmental review and TTC capacity study—absent here.
   

Final Recommendation:

The report recommends that City Council defer approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for 21 Windermere Avenue until:

• Independent environmental, financial, and infrastructure reviews are completed.
• A comprehensive, co-created consultation process with displaced tenants and local residents is conducted. 
• Sustainable long-term funding sources are verified, compliant with the National Housing Strategy and City of Toronto fiscal standards.

City Council should defer approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments until several critical conditions are met.

1. Independent Reviews 

• Complete independent reviews covering environmental, financial, and infrastructure capacity.
• Ensure these reviews address methane mitigation, hydrological modelling, and sustainable funding.

2. Comprehensive Consultation

• Conduct a comprehensive, co-created consultation process with displaced tenants and local residents.
• This process must be iterative, culturally appropriate, and genuinely participatory, in line with Toronto’s Engagement Policy.

3. Verify Funding Sources

• Confirm sustainable long-term funding sources that comply with the National Housing Strategy and City of Toronto fiscal standards. 
• Demonstrate fiscal durability and accountability mechanisms for long-term affordability.
   
  Summary:
  The proposal cannot proceed to approval until these steps are completed. The City Council is advised to require these actions to ensure compliance with municipal, provincial, and federal policies, and to address deficiencies in consultation, infrastructure, livability, environmental risk, and financial viability

YOUR Name to verify that you are a real person

YOUR email to verify that you you are such person

(again: If desired, express that the City remove your personal information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wishing us all good fortune in our efforts - Together Forward

Thank you on behalf of Swansea Neighbourhood Group.