Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte

Automation Gallery said:
Of course you are..you must be part of the same group that believes that city planning should have the last say, hey, as far as i know we still live in a democracy..
Click to expand...

Let me get this right. You think that an unelected and entirely unaccountable body swayed by whatever interests can buy the most convincing consultants and who are given the power to overturn the wishes of planning departments who are overseen by and take direction from a democratically elected government has something to do with democracy?! It's amazing a body like the OMB even exists in a democracy. My understanding is that there is no similar mechanism in any other jurisdiction in Canada or the US.
 
tad11 said:
It's amazing a body like the OMB even exists in a democracy. My understanding is that there is no similar mechanism in any other jurisdiction in Canada or the US.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats the same broken record mentioned many times throughtout previous threads and posts.
Anyways this Ontario Land Tribunal has been around for over a 100 years, and thank goodness for it here in the City of Toronto.
 
Ontario is the only province that maintains such a tribunal. It was established to deal with railway right-of-ways, not development and planning issues in a modern city. Planning should be the responsibility of city planners, and city plans are passed democratically by elected city councils. OMB members are not elected. Clearly, Automation Gallery likes this kind of authoritarianism.

So, when it actually comes to understanding democracy, we can clearly see that Automation Gallery has a very poor grasp of the concept and is entirely willing to pass off the important and crucial responsibilities of city planning to one single individual with no planning background, and individual who belongs to an outmoded organization that can overturn the efforts of professional planners, elected councils, citizens of the city and local rate-payers. For him, it's all just a broken record. Professional planning and public participation is just too much of a bother when it comes to his tower fantasies.

Poor thing. If he had actually uttered that there should be a city-based appeals body to address development concerns across Toronto, that would be one thing. But he didn't. No doubt he's never set foot into an OMB hearing, nor would he care to. He just likes the fact that his belief about what the OMB does somehow support his tower fantasies.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yeah, thats the same broken record mentioned many times throughtout previous threads and posts.
Anyways this Ontario Land Tribunal has been around for over a 100 years, and thank goodness for it here in the City of Toronto.
Click to expand...

To recap the arguments in support of the OMB:

1. It's been criticized many times before
2. It's old
3. I like it?
 
gristle said:
Ontario is the only province that maintains such a tribunal. It was established to deal with railway right-of-ways, not development and planning issues in a modern city. Planning should be the responsibility of city planners, and city plans are passed democratically by elected city councils. OMB members are not elected. Clearly, Automation Gallery likes this kind of authoritarianism.

So, when it actually comes to understanding democracy, we can clearly see that Automation Gallery has a very poor grasp of the concept and is entirely willing to pass off the important and crucial responsibilities of city planning to one single individual with no planning background, and individual who belongs to an outmoded organization that can overturn the efforts of professional planners, elected councils, citizens of the city and local rate-payers. For him, it's all just a broken record. Professional planning and public participation is just too much of a bother when it comes to his tower fantasies.

Poor thing. If he had actually uttered that there should be a city-based appeals body to address development concerns across Toronto, that would be one thing. But he didn't. No doubt he's never set foot into an OMB hearing, nor would he care to. He just likes the fact that his belief about what the OMB does somehow support his tower fantasies.
Click to expand...

Anyways gristle all along you have been slamming the OMB..(i could easily find over a dozen posts by you) its here to stay, and yes. i like it.:)
Toronto is a boomtown at the moment and one of the fastest growing cities in North America... i think i am going to keep to my tower fantasies than your small town mentality.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Toronto is a boomtown at the moment and one of the fastest growing cities in North America... i think i am going to keep to my tower fantasies than your small town mentality.
Click to expand...
No, no no. It's too easy to write off well-considered design and planning for long term livability as "small town mentality." Try harder.
 
Well, this is getting seriously off-topic, but the OMB is a judicial body - it exists to ensure that planning decisions are applied uniformly throughout the various municipalities. The problem with Toronto's planning situation is that there has not been *enough* planning (the planning department is seriously underfunded), so planning decisions tend to be made on the fly, and through negotiations with developers, and sometimes for very base political reasons. Which is why there is a constant stream of decisions going to the OMB: the city will negotiate one thing with one developer, but then stop a similar project in its tracks. The city's whole planning department needs to be funded properly, and comprehensive plans need to be made to ensure that growth doesn't cause excessive harm to existing neighbourhoods. When these things are in place, the OMB won't matter (consider how the Leslieville Wal-Mart was stopped through effective planning, and the decision was upheld at the OMB).

And AG, you probably wouldn't *love* the OMB if they allowed a developer to build a rendering plant next to your home. Although you think city planning shouldn't have the last say, the point of city planning is to allow for growth while preventing as much harm to existing owners. Once again, you might think this is just NIMBYism, but that's because you don't live there. You like tall buildings, but probably only when they aren't being built to block out *your* view.
 
My response here is not in defence of any of AG’s comments as it is clear from a variety of postings in the past he has no respect or likely any understanding of the planning and development process here in Toronto. However, I can’t let these misleading statements on the function of the OMB as a critical and legitimate aspect of the process continue without a response…

The OMB plays an essential role to ensure that provincial and municipal planning policies are adhered to. If municipalities are unable to make planning decisions that are in conformity with provincial statutes and municipal official plans, or in some cases refuse to make any decisions at all, it is incumbent on the province to have a mechanism such as the OMB in place to resolve these disputes to protect long-term planning interest vs short-term political interests. The failure of many municipal councils to uphold planning policy is why we need an OMB that is independent and impartial – it must be prepared to make decisions based on the Provincial Policy Statement, the growth plan the Planning Act, official plans and the merits of a development application itself.

The right of appeal of a municipal council decision or where no decision has been provided to the OMB is an important counterbalance to the politicization of many applications at local councils. It is also important that this venue is available to proponents, neighbours, community associations and interest groups who have participated in the planning process to ensure they have an opportunity to raise legitimate concerns with respect to planning issues – these issues can be hashed out in detail at the OMB, whereas at council the opportunity for detailed discussions is limited to say the least.

The OMB provides a venue for sober second thought on planning decisions. The benefit of a highly experienced group of experts and expert testimony when relevant ensures that municipal & provincial policy is adhered to.
 
Thank you Mike, I was waiting for someone to say that for months... Great explanation, and a very thorough explanation of the function of the OMB. Although I would wonder about that situation that occured in Brantford (I think it was) where an entire main street of heritage structures were destroyed for a bunch of new plain as hell brick facade suburban style townoffices. Was the OMB involved there? If they were then there are times when even a board with many experts on it might make some mistakes in judgement. Not saying they did, as I don't know whether that case even made it that far.
 
Mike in TO said:
The OMB provides a venue for sober second thought on planning decisions. The benefit of a highly experienced group of experts and expert testimony when relevant ensures that municipal & provincial policy is adhered to.
Click to expand...

Very well said Mike. I would add further that the costs of an OMB hearing to the developer are often astronomical and can exceed the entire rezoning budget in some instances. An OMB is no assurance of approval for a developer.

I think Automation is off the mark on his setback comments. The setback defines the streetscape and should not be flippantly overlooked.
 
grey said:
No, no no. It's too easy to write off well-considered design and planning for long term livability as "small town mentality." Try harder.
Click to expand...

He can't. The fantasies prevent this.

The trouble with the OMB is that it all too often rules on exceptions and not on the basis of the actual plan. If the OMB exists to make sure that planning decisions are applied uniformly, then it does so by citing what doesn't fit as being the basis to exceed the actual plan. In short, the city or its planning department can make no exceptions - otherwise the OMB can potentially enable the exception to become the defacto rule for all following applications.
 
Last edited:
From Adam Vaughan's Office:

Development Update: 621 King St W

The City of Toronto participated in a hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board regarding a development application at 621 King St W. This proposal by Freed Developments is for a 12-storey and 11-storey building at the former site of the Travelodge Hotel, in a development called the Thompson Residences.

The proposed development was presented at a community meeting hosted by the Ward 20 office in January 2010 and significant concerns were heard from area residents. One of the key concerns was that the development is proposed to be predominantly bachelor-sized units.

The application was refused by the Committee of Adjustment but was subsequently approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. The City opposed the development on the grounds of the height, massing, and shadow impacts, amongst others. Several area residents participated in the OMB hearing in opposition of the application.

The City is seeking leave to appeal to Ontario Divisional Court. The hearing is scheduled for May 16.
If leave is granted, the City will proceed with the actual appeal which will be scheduled for a later date.

While the appeal is being pursued, the property owners have the right to conduct some construction at the site, including excavation work that is underway now.
 
SLOCRO said:
From Adam Vaughan's Office:

. Several area residents participated in the OMB hearing in opposition of the application.

The City is seeking leave to appeal to Ontario Divisional Court. The hearing is scheduled for May 16.
If leave is granted, the City will proceed with the actual appeal which will be scheduled for a later date.
Click to expand...

It figures and Gee, what a waste of taxpayers money to please a couple individuals.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top