Pickering Seaton Sideline 22 | ?m | ?s | Mattamy Homes

[Paclo]

Seaton Sideline 22 is a proposed subdivision of medium-density condominiums, townhouses, single detached homes, elementary school and public park by Mattamy, TACC, Fieldgate and Paradise Developments (operating as "Mattamy (Seaton) Limited" and "Seaton TFPM"), north of Whitevale Road, south of Highway 407 and east of the future Sideline 22 Road in the Seaton area of Pickering.

Subject lands:

Plan of Subdivision from the submission package:

 

[cd concept]

More subdivisions! Is this a good thing?

 

[JBR]

More subdivisions! Is this a good thing?

GreenBelters will not like this statement

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

We saved this prime farmland from an airport only to turn it over to suburbia. Paving over farms is paving over farms.

 

[Northern Light]

More subdivisions! Is this a good thing?

In a word, "No"

GreenBelters will not like this statement

No one should like this proposal; it is a moral crime; it ought to be one under law.

 

[innsertnamehere]

This subdivision is part of Seaton which was a land swap deal from the early 2000’s with developers to preserve sensitive lands within the Oak Ridges Moraine. This subdivision in many ways predates the Greenbelt, and exists solely to protect the Greenbelt.

 

[Northern Light]

This subdivision is part of Seaton which was a land swap deal from the early 2000’s with developers to preserve sensitive lands within the Oak Ridges Moraine. This subdivision in many ways predates the Greenbelt, and exists solely to protect the Greenbelt.

I am familiar w/the McGuinty land swap.

It was not necessary, as the creation of the Greenbelt would establish clearly, the Ontario government can downzone by fiat, without compensation.

It needs to be added that McGuinty did not campaign on opening up Seaton, but did campaign on protecting the entire Oak Ridge's Moraine (Kettle Lakes area in Richmond Hill) which he went back on, deeming it too expensive and doing the landswap for only a portion of the Oak Ridges land.

Seaton land swap failed miserably

Lawyer defends greenbelt land swap

www.thestar.com

From the above:

What was traded: (Dark red, what developers gave up on the Moraine, orange, what the gov't provided in exchange)

Source: Neptis Foundation

 

[innsertnamehere]

"all but 900 of the 6,600 homes"? uhh, what? The Uxbridge lands quite clearly have not been developed - in fact, the province is currently in process of turning them into a provincial park, and the Oak Ridges lands have pretty clearly been preserved as well.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

As to "the province can downzone without compensation" - not sure where you are getting that. There have been some pretty large recent court cases indicating that downzoning unilaterally to the point where development is effectively not permitted (as would have been the case here) and without compensation is unconstitutional.

The case I linked involved some land outside of Halifax which was designated for development. The developer purchased it with that understanding, then Halifax council changed their minds and said "actually, no development now". They sued, went to the supreme court, and the supreme court ruled that downzoning to environmental protection lands effectively resulted in "constructive taking" of the land and that the developer required compensation. So yea, the land swap was required. That, or the Province would have had to pay hundreds of millions for the land.

The majority (Côté and Brown JJ. (Wagner C.J.C. and Moldaver and Rowe JJ. concurring)) held that the Court of Appeal erred in holding that constructive taking requires that land be actually taken from an owner and acquired by the state. According to the majority, a “beneficial interest in the property or flowing from it” (the first part of the CPR test) does not require the state to actually acquire a proprietary interest. Rather, it is enough if the state, in effect, obtains an advantage from the property (at para 38).

An “advantage” could be demonstrated by, for example, permanent or indefinite denial of access to the property; the government’s permanent or indefinite occupation of the property; regulations that leave a rights holder with only notional use of the land, deprived of all economic value; or confining the uses of private land to public purposes, such as conservation, recreation, or institutional uses such as parks, schools, or municipal buildings (at para 45). However, the majority cautioned that not every regulation over the use of property amounts to a constructive taking. Governments and municipalities can validly regulate land in the public interest without effecting “takings” (at para 19).

Rezoning lands from residential to industrial is completely legal - rezoning it from urban residential to environmental protection? Not so much.

 

[Northern Light]

"all but 900 of the 6,600 homes"? uhh, what? The Uxbridge lands quite clearly have not been developed - in fact, the province is currently in process of turning them into a provincial park, and the Oak Ridges lands have pretty clearly been preserved as well.

Right, that's what I showed, which you seem to be suggesting I did not. The Uxbridge lands were traded to the gov't, along with Oak Ridges lands for Seaton.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

As to "the province can downzone without compensation" - not sure where you are getting that. There have been some pretty large recent court cases indicating that downzoning unilaterally to the point where development is effectively not permitted (as would have been the case here) and without compensation is unconstitutional.

The case you show is disturbing, for reasons outlined in the dissent (it was a 5-4 decision).

However, it does not change the settled law............yet.

For two reasons, first, this decision only served to allow a case to proceed, in did not in fact order any compensation. (the case against Halifax had been dismissed as per settled law).

Second, that narrow 5-4 decision, in which Harper appointees wrongly inferred a constitutional right to private property, where there is none.............. will likely not be upheld by the very same court should the case arrive there again.

Two of the five justices voting in the majority, have since retired, and their successors seem unlikely to vote the same way.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the test is pretty clearly that all reasonable private uses of land must be removed for it to be unconstitutional - i.e. retaining an agricultural permission (like the Greenbelt does) is completely legal. Similarly, if land has "always" been protected, continuing that protection is fine - i.e. existing natural heritage area protections.

Where Halifax went wrong in the case is they started advertising the lands as a public park and denied all use rights to the landowner. It's a pretty extreme case.

Basically the decision says that a government cannot remove all use permissions from a land. Had the Liberals downzoned it from urban residential to agricultural, it would have been legal.

The Seaton trade resulted in the creation of actual large areas of natural heritage and park spaces within the Oak Ridges, which is reasonable in my opinion. The Uxbridge lands will soon be a Provincial Park, for example.

Seaton is also exceptionally well located over most greenfield areas in the GTA. If we are going to put greenfield development anywhere, it's probably here. It makes sense for it to be developed - and indeed, at the time at least, the intent of the government's ownership of the lands was not for conservation but to withhold the lands for an eventual airport and associated industrial development. To this day the government withholds lands for that, albeit a much smaller footprint than what they once owned between the Seaton land swap and the land given to Rouge National Park.