The councillor who introduced a plan — against city staff advice — that led to a council vote allowing homes to be built next to a rail yard says he was following proper procedure and that staff “misunderstood” the nature of the rail facility.

The province’s transit arm, Metrolinx, is taking the rare step of going to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to challenge the June decision of city council that rezoned a strip of land south of Judson St. and just north of the Willowbrook rail yard in Mimico.

That change — from employment to mixed use — was first introduced by Etobicoke-Lakeshore Councillor Justin Di Ciano at a planning and growth committee meeting in May. Di Ciano, a member of the committee, said he brought the motion for rezoning on behalf of local Councillor Mark Grimes.

“I am extremely confident that the OMB will uphold city council’s decision with respect to the Mimico Judson lands west of Royal York Road,” Di Ciano wrote in an email this week responding to questions from the Star. “As an adjudicative tribunal, the OMB is the only body that will dismiss the politics of this issue and make its decision based on planning law and principles.”

In Metrolinx’s notice of appeal against the city filed last week, the transit agency argues council’s decision was made contrary to city and provincial planning policies, without public consultation, and that it “does not represent good land use planning.”

As the local councillor, Grimes has said a concrete batching plant currently on the site has bothered local residents and that allowing for the construction of 72 townhomes and lowrise commercial blocks as planned by Dunpar Developments would solve the problem. Dunpar has said it has a conditional offer to buy the concrete plant property, pending any zoning decisions the city made.

Both city planners and Metrolinx strongly argued against the rezoning, saying building homes so close to the rail yard will affect current operations and the province’s future expansion plans, which will see around-the-clock activity at the maintenance and storage facility. After years of study, city staff advised the area should remain as employment lands — a zoning that permits industrial, commercial and institutional use — to act as a “buffer” for the rail yard.

Di Ciano said he followed council procedures by introducing the motion at committee.

“The reason I brought forward the motion is because I believe 100 per cent in the vision the local councillor is trying to establish for his community,” Di Ciano said, adding it is often the case that committee members bring forward and vote on motions for issues not in their own wards.

“The local councillor campaigned on regenerating this area for over 10 years and getting rid of a toxic concrete batching plant located directly across the street from a residential community.”

Di Ciano argued the plan to build townhomes is a good planning decision. He said townhomes will create “a more compatible land use function with the existing residential community directly across the street” and that planned lowrise commercial office blocks as part of the development would maintain a buffer.

Di Ciano said staff “completely misunderstood the nature and character” of the Willowbrook yard. He called it a “coach yard,” and not a “freight yard,” one used for less-intrusive maintenance and storage.

At the May committee meeting, a representative for Dunpar said much the same, arguing staff have a “fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and character” of the yard.

At council in June, chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat warned that approving the rezoning, allowing homes to be built too close to the yard, would leave the city vulnerable to appeals. She said expansion plans for the Willowbrook facility would mean a lot of overnight noise, including brake testing, train idling, revving of engines and bells.

“It’s our opinion in city planning that this is not good planning and that these would not be livable units,” Keesmaat said.

Neil Cresswell, the city’s director of community planning for Etobicoke York District, further clarified in an email this week that the rail yard is “not just a passenger train storage yard; it is a major rail maintenance facility.”

“The impact is similar to that of noisy overnight industrial operations. It is expected that with more trains supporting enhanced commuter rail service under Regional Express Rail, the impacts of the overnight maintenance facilities on nearby properties will increase,” he wrote.

Di Ciano said Metrolinx’s claim the motion was brought without notice or consultation is “completely false.”

The public was given a chance to make deputations at committee on the item, as is regular procedure. After those deputations were over, Di Ciano brought forward the motion to amend a plan for the area to allow for mixed use on the site.

The councillor said the overall Mimico plan was discussed during earlier public consultations, including the option to designate land as mixed use. City staff confirmed this, saying documents provided at the public consultations recommended the property remain as employment lands.

The Star has reported that Di Ciano has ties to the developer through his twin brother, Julien Di Ciano, who lists Dunpar as a former employer. The councillor disputes this, saying he has no ties to the developer and no conflicts on the issue.

The councillor said he has never had any “professional or financial relationship” with Dunpar. He said his brother has not worked for Dunpar for more than a year.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Di Ciano confirmed his brother still has a tenant relationship with his former employer, with his brother's consulting business leasing space in a building that is owned by a numbered company in the name of Dunpar’s president. Di Ciano said he “previously had no knowledge of who my brother’s landlord was because it doesn’t matter to me.”

Reiterating he has no conflict, Di Ciano noted that conflict of interest rules governing council members make no reference to the financial interests of a sibling.

At council in June, Di Ciano told his colleagues he had sought “expert legal advice” on this issue and that advice was “crystal clear” that he was not in a conflict of interest. When the vote later occurred, Di Ciano was absent. He told the Star he was absent “for private family reasons which have nothing to do with the vote.”