Canada’s largest school board is fighting a proposed condo development in the downtown core that threatens to leave a local elementary school in the shadows.

The 38-storey mixed-use building slated to be built at Church and Wood Sts., at the southern end of the Church-Wellesley Village, would cast a shadow on the nearby Church Street Junior Public School, prompting the Toronto District School Board to join those battling to save the sunshine for the elementary school students.

“We need to protect these young kids,” said Chris Moise, the rookie trustee who, just six weeks into the job, rallied the TDSB to participate in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing — a rare move for the school board.

“We know (sun) is important for the kids,” said Moise. “It helps your mood, it helps you learn. . . . It’s good for cognitive growth.”

“To remove any other opportunities for sunlight. . . . I think it’s almost a criminal act,” particularly in Canada’s northern climate, added local Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam.

Since the students are “bound to the school grounds,” Wong-Tam said, “the quality of living space for children cannot be compromised.”

The OMB, the province’s quasi-judicial body that handles land and planning disputes, will decide the fate of 411 Church St. in the coming months following a two-day hearing this week. The space is currently used as a parking lot.

At the hearing, the city, which is leading the fight to save the sun, put forward an altered, 25-storey design. Their model is intended to limit the shadow mostly within that of existing buildings and, notably, within the shadow to be cast by a 37-storey tower going up at 70 and 72 Carlton St. — next door to the proposed building.

In an emailed statement, Danny Roth, spokesperson for the property owners, Church/Wood Residences Limited Partnership, said the company had engaged in “a lengthy consultation phase” with all concerned stakeholders, including residents, the local councillor and members of the TDSB.

“These discussions have resulted in significant changes to our proposed application,” the statement said, including, “most significantly . . . a reduction in the building’s height, from 45 to 38 storeys.”

But local residents and parents at Church Street school, which houses more than 300 kids between junior kindergarten and Grade 6, say they’re concerned they will be left in the dark.

Access to sunlight is “paramount,” said Lisa Fleischmann, whose daughter is starting Grade 2 at the school in September. It’s not just that it’s a shadow, she said, but it’s a big one.

“These kids don’t get enough sun as it is,” added Fleischmann, who is a board member of the school’s child-care centre. She explained the daycare operates year-round — often in the school’s playground — offering a day camp from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. throughout the summer.

At the hearing, counsel and experts for Church/Wood Residences argued that the concern about the shadow was overblown. Any shadow cast by the development will be “transitional and limited in time,” land use planner Michael Goldberg, of Goldberg Group, told the OMB.

The shadow would land on any one place at the school for a maximum of 90 minutes, said Goldberg, later testifying the shadow may offer relief from the “uncomfortable condition” of direct sunlight.

But area residents were largely unconvinced by such arguments.

“The hour that (the shadow) is outside on the schoolyard is the hour my daughter is outside at lunch,” said Russell Gordon, whose daughter is set to start Grade 2.

“My daughter doesn’t have a lot of time to be outside,” Gordon said, “the shadowing that’s going to occur . . . it will have an impact on the kids who play there.”

“Whether the shadow is 10 feet or 12 feet is for the lawyers to decide,” said Nicki Ward, local resident and board member of The 519. “It’s a 400-foot building — it’s going to have a 400-foot shadow.”

“Every developer argues the same thing: it’s not a lot of shadow, it’s just a little bit of shadow,” said Wong-Tam, but every building that goes up adds to the growing “shadow creep.”

These buildings are permanent, said Wong-Tam. “In perpetuity, are we confining children to study and to play and develop their best years in darkness?”

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

Unwelcome shade is not all that is riling up area residents. They say the OMB battle is merely a sign of “broader community issues,” namely the proliferation of condos in Toronto that now encroach upon the Church-Wellesley Village.

The proposed condo is just one in a series of highrise developments that have recently laid claim to the village. All have been met with local protest.

“There hasn’t been an application in this quadrant of Church St. that we’ve approved,” said Wong-Tam. “Everything has been appealed” to the OMB, which she described as “the mostegregious process when it comes to city planning.”

“The shadow is a symptom,” said Ward. “Growth is inevitable, but the village needs time to heal itself in between growth spurts.”

The towers, out of place in the largely lowrise village, will cast a shadow “literally and figuratively” on the community, she said.

There are “issues of neighbourhood character,” said Lyndon Morley, whose son attends Church Street school. “At some point we have to say it’s enough.”

Not everyone is convinced the steady spread of condos will hurt the village.

“I see it fundamentally as a positive thing,” said Larry Richards, professor and dean emeritus at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design, and a Church-Wellesley resident.

While Richards stressed the importance of maintaining the character of the village, he explained that the addition of highrises, particularly in place of derelict buildings and parking lots, will not erode the unique quality of the area.

“Neighbourhoods need to maintain their distinctiveness,” he said, “but I don’t believe these towers will really seriously undermine that.”

“One of the things that I’m very hopeful about . . . is that it’s going to be a real boost for businesses,” Richards said. “The greater good is the increased opportunity and vitality (these buildings) will bring to Church St. and the neighbourhood.”

Richards’ optimism is not universal. And other highrises were not approved without a fight.

The 37-storey tower set to go up at 70 and 72 Carlton St. was also the subject of an OMB hearing before it won approval last year. Residents had raised objections over the shade the highrise would cast over Church Street school, but in that case, the TDSB was not a key opponent. As previously reported by the Star, the TDSB agreed to a $1.5-million settlement from the developer.

And, in 2014, the board accepted $1 million to back out of a fight against a 22-storey condo next to Lord Lansdowne Public School, despite concerns from parents of shadows and safety — specifically, with the lack of direct sunlight preventing ice from melting off the playground in winter and causing slippery conditions.

“It’s our practice to work with developers whenever a development could affect a school, in order to understand what the developer has in mind, contribute our thoughts on the potential impact of the development on our school, and protect the interests of the students, staff and board,” said Ryan Bird, spokesperson for the TDSB in an emailed response.

Ultimately, the fight for sun may become routine as new highrises sprout up along the city’s landscape.

“(Toronto has) already become a city of towers,” Richards said. “They are fundamentally transforming the character of the city. . . . There will be some compromises.”