Toronto Tyndale Green | 80.29m | 24s | Collecdev-Markee | KPMB

The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

The community working group is being disbanded. I imagine the absolutely RIDICULOUS letter the neighbourhood associations sent to the city with regards to the working group terms of reference would have been a factor in that decision.
 
The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

The community working group is being disbanded. I imagine the absolutely RIDICULOUS letter the neighbourhood associations sent to the city with regards to the working group terms of reference would have been a factor in that decision.
Who filed the appeal..? Don't see it listed as an appeal on the Toronto AIC records for the site.

 
Who filed the appeal..? Don't see it listed as an appeal on the Toronto AIC records for the site.

The email to the working group members doesn’t indicate who appealed.

It does say that Councillor Carroll will be hosting a virtual information session next month so maybe we’ll find out by then.

Also, A Request for Direction Report is targeted for the May 24, 2022 meeting of North York Community Council.
 
Who filed the appeal..? Don't see it listed as an appeal on the Toronto AIC records for the site.


Seeing as Council has not made a decision, I believe the only entity w/grounds to appeal non-action would be the proponent.

How could a neighbourhood group appeal Council's failure to decide?
 
Seeing as Council has not made a decision, I believe the only entity w/grounds to appeal non-action would be the proponent.

How could a neighbourhood group appeal Council's failure to decide?
The city planners mentioned that the proponent was already in a position to go this route so I assume it was the proponent.
 
Community meeting tonight was okay. Nothing new, just updating the community on the end of the working group (thanks NA’s!), the OLT process, and provided some space for people to say the development doesn’t fit with the local character despite similar high rises to the north and further south at Cummer. 🤷‍♂️

Oh shit I almost forgot about the real suggestion to block these new residents from accessing the ravine!
 
Last edited:
Community meeting tonight was okay. Nothing new, just updating the community on the end of the working group (thanks NA’s!), the OLT process, and provided some space for people to say the development doesn’t fit with the local character despite similar high rises to the north and further south at Cummer. 🤷‍♂️

Really appreciate your contributions here.
 
A Request for Direction Report seeking permission to have staff oppose this at OLT is coming to the next meeting of NYCC.


Before we get into the areas of dispute..........here's the skinny on Markee going the OLT route.

From the report:

....

1652295789111.png

1652295811002.png


****

Now onto the meat of the matter, which is that Planning staff do not support the application in its current form, and frankly I understand why, as I've opined on in previous posts.
I think Planning is on the money here. I should add that disappoints me no end as I really like what Markee is trying to do in terms of affordable housing and I laud that completely.
But there are several things in this proposal Planning could never get behind, and frankly, shouldn't. Overall, that's not about height or density (to me anyway), its about the conceptual site layout....
But let me quote staff.

1652296019005.png


Next:

1652296117938.png


That's a hard no from the City and so it should be............we can build you a park that will never see the sun is absurd and same goes for the daycare play area.

****

They also managed to get on the wrong site of the TRCA:

1652296225634.png


There's lots more in there ranging from massing (setbacks/angular plane etc.) ...to
a pretty rough take on the Heritage component as well.

To be frank staff dumped on this badly enough it likely would have gone to a Refusal report had they not filed the appeal (my opinion, not a quote from staff)

I'm perplexed that a company co-founded by the former Chief Planner thought this would fly..............she knows the policies........
 
A Request for Direction Report seeking permission to have staff oppose this at OLT is coming to the next meeting of NYCC.


Before we get into the areas of dispute..........here's the skinny on Markee going the OLT route.

From the report:

....

View attachment 399772
View attachment 399773

****

Now onto the meat of the matter, which is that Planning staff do not support the application in its current form, and frankly I understand why, as I've opined on in previous posts.
I think Planning is on the money here. I should add that disappoints me no end as I really like what Markee is trying to do in terms of affordable housing and I laud that completely.
But there are several things in this proposal Planning could never get behind, and frankly, shouldn't. Overall, that's not about height or density (to me anyway), its about the conceptual site layout....
But let me quote staff.

View attachment 399774

Next:

View attachment 399775

That's a hard no from the City and so it should be............we can build you a park that will never see the sun is absurd and same goes for the daycare play area.

****

They also managed to get on the wrong site of the TRCA:

View attachment 399776

There's lots more in there ranging from massing (setbacks/angular plane etc.) ...to
a pretty rough take on the Heritage component as well.

To be frank staff dumped on this badly enough it likely would have gone to a Refusal report had they not filed the appeal (my opinion, not a quote from staff)

I'm perplexed that a company co-founded by the former Chief Planner thought this would fly..............she knows the policies........
Thanks for informative post! I think that the park shadows are unacceptable and I'm happy to see a push for the conveyance of the below top-of-bank area to the TRCA. I'm guessing that, with public ownership, there would be a re-naturalization of the grassy area.

On the other hand, could you explain why we need all buildings to front on public streets? I might be missing something, but what if there's a way to do things differently without creating a desolate tower-in-the-park layout? If those streets are replaced with pedestrian mews and squares, and have many amenities that create vibrancy then what's the problem? The only issue I see is that circulation isn't built around cars, which is a good thing!
 
Thanks for informative post! I think that the park shadows are unacceptable and I'm happy to see a push for the conveyance of the below top-of-bank area to the TRCA. I'm guessing that, with public ownership, there would be a re-naturalization of the grassy area.

On the other hand, could you explain why we need all buildings to front on public streets? I might be missing something, but what if there's a way to do things differently without creating a desolate tower-in-the-park layout? If those streets are replaced with pedestrian mews and squares, and have many amenities that create vibrancy then what's the problem? The only issue I see is that circulation isn't built around cars, which is a good thing!

There are several reasons that the City strongly prefers buildings front public roads.

The first is to avoid any semblance of a 'Gated Community'. There is a desire to have area be welcoming, and excluding private back yards/amenities etc, for the public to have an unambiguous right of entry to a building or neighbourhood.

A second reason is ease of access for emergency services and for other city agencies. Gates aside, areas not easily reachable by emergency vehicles and/or not easy to navigate (where is 42 private mews anyway?) can cause issues.
One way of thinking of it is a private apartment or condominium today; police have no general right to patrol, or enter beyond a front lobby. This can impair access, and is often an issue with buildings that are less safe.

Obviously, one doesn't anticipate that as an issue in a progressive, modern build.............of course, at one point, St. Jamestown was considered just that.

The move in redeveloping Regent Park and Lawrence Heights has been to open up those communities to public roads , and broader community access. The previous concepts which while not car-free, were certainly car-reduced, but were not considered successes.

Of course, neither of those communities were mixed income; but St. Jamestown was solidly middle class when it was first built, featuring an outdoor pool, and tennis courts and was seen as a great place to rent in your 20s.......

But then things changed, landlords didn't maintain the property, security was lax, the pool was closed.....etc etc.

The City is very suspicious of that design approach.

I think it's perfectly fine to think of shared streets, car-reduced streets; and even pedestrian-only streets that communities can be designed around; the issue isn't that it's car-reduced/free, the issue is who owns and maintains the space; and is it inviting to the general public.

Private community spaces, even when nominally open to the public can have that access restricted by private security; security whose discretion may not always be used wisely.

That's the essence of the objection.

I think we can absolutely build more pedestrian-centric communities, but we need to do so within a context of the public realm.

*****

I hasted to add, the community as laid out does not bring any significant retail to Bayview, and absent local retail options, the community will not be very walkable.
 
A Request for Direction Report seeking permission to have staff oppose this at OLT is coming to the next meeting of NYCC.


Before we get into the areas of dispute..........here's the skinny on Markee going the OLT route.

From the report:

....

View attachment 399772
View attachment 399773

****

Now onto the meat of the matter, which is that Planning staff do not support the application in its current form, and frankly I understand why, as I've opined on in previous posts.
I think Planning is on the money here. I should add that disappoints me no end as I really like what Markee is trying to do in terms of affordable housing and I laud that completely.
But there are several things in this proposal Planning could never get behind, and frankly, shouldn't. Overall, that's not about height or density (to me anyway), its about the conceptual site layout....
But let me quote staff.

View attachment 399774

Next:

View attachment 399775

That's a hard no from the City and so it should be............we can build you a park that will never see the sun is absurd and same goes for the daycare play area.

****

They also managed to get on the wrong site of the TRCA:

View attachment 399776

There's lots more in there ranging from massing (setbacks/angular plane etc.) ...to
a pretty rough take on the Heritage component as well.

To be frank staff dumped on this badly enough it likely would have gone to a Refusal report had they not filed the appeal (my opinion, not a quote from staff)

I'm perplexed that a company co-founded by the former Chief Planner thought this would fly..............she knows the policies........
The plan from my understanding was for the developer to work with the working group and submit updated plans that reflected an additional round of comments from the city and others including the TRCA, and the working group. At the final public meeting the planning staff said this - the plan was for an updated submission from the developer then the city would have their response to that update.

I feel like these specific issues were being actively worked on in the working group and when that blew up due to the NA’s, the developer is going to OLT route and will address these issues as part of a settled agreement or whatever with the city, just my two cents of course.

Meanwhile the NA is now mailing this fancy mailer attached.BF1DF185-5E23-48E6-807A-485BCC610773.jpegF97F8A4F-BE63-4ACE-AB6A-DE75CDF05B55.jpeg
 

Back
Top