Toronto 100 Davenport | 72m | 19s | Diamante | Scott Shields

Downtown Toronto said:
Spoke to Sandra Chan who is the case coordinator in charge of this project @ the OMB on Feb 15th, she said the decision should be forthcoming as late as 3 months from when we spoke, so lets see what the OMB decision says in 2.5 months!
Click to expand...
Do you mean three months from now, ie when you made the post?
 
This has been rejected by LPAT: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl160330-Oct-29-2019.pdf

[60] The Tribunal finds that the proposal does not conform to the Official Plan; it is inconsistent with the Bloor Yorkville /North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines; it does not fit within the existing and planned context for Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Area; it creates unacceptable adverse impacts on Belmont House.
 
So...OMB wants height tapering down from the Florian and any tower shifted off the north end of the site..
But it’s also hard not to wonder to what extent this may have turned on the developer asking for 106m to only deliver 56 units of housing.
It’s hard to scream “Growth Plan” when your delivering to the ultra luxury market.
 
bilked said:
So...OMB wants height tapering down from the Florian and any tower shifted off the north end of the site..
But it’s also hard not to wonder to what extent this may have turned on the developer asking for 106m to only deliver 56 units of housing.
It’s hard to scream “Growth Plan” when your delivering to the ultra luxury market.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Boutique luxury condo towers like this one may not deliver the density of a typical building, but they're far better than the low density of suburban mansion neighbourhoods. So much farmland in York Region has been wasted on mansion enclaves.
 
junctionist said:
Boutique luxury condo towers like this one may not deliver the density of a typical building, but they're far better than the low density of suburban mansion neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...
True but no one was debating whether McMansions are better urbanism than 57th Ave type nonsense. The point is that the appellant’s Growth Plan pitch to justify bending City guidelines or justify shadow impacts, etc, would have been much stronger had the ask been for, I dunno, actual “Growth” (ie density more typical of a building of its size). When the developer raised your argument, they drove their appeal into a brick wall:

[57] The Tribunal finds that in respect to those high-level policies, the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan. However, both documents recognize that the Official Plan is the effective vehicle for implementation. Policy 2.2.2.4 of the Growth Plan provide that municipalities will develop a strategy to achieve intensification throughout delineated built-up areas, which will identify the appropriate type and scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas, and these strategies will be implemented through official plan policies and designations, updated zoning and other supporting documents.​

[58] The tribunal finds that the proposal is not the appropriate type and scale of development for the subject site and it does not create an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas. The City and the other opposing parties submit that there are alternative built forms that would accommodate the modest intensification of the 56 residential units which the Applicant seeks to achieve on the subject site, that would conform with the Official Plan, which itself conforms to the Growth Plan and is consistent with the PPS.​
 
bilked said:
True but no one was debating whether McMansions are better urbanism than 57th Ave type nonsense. The point is that the appellant’s Growth Plan pitch to justify bending City guidelines or justify shadow impacts, etc, would have been much stronger had the ask been for, I dunno, actual “Growth” (ie density more typical of a building of its size). When the developer raised your argument, they drove their appeal into a brick wall:

[57] The Tribunal finds that in respect to those high-level policies, the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan. However, both documents recognize that the Official Plan is the effective vehicle for implementation. Policy 2.2.2.4 of the Growth Plan provide that municipalities will develop a strategy to achieve intensification throughout delineated built-up areas, which will identify the appropriate type and scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas, and these strategies will be implemented through official plan policies and designations, updated zoning and other supporting documents.​

[58] The tribunal finds that the proposal is not the appropriate type and scale of development for the subject site and it does not create an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas. The City and the other opposing parties submit that there are alternative built forms that would accommodate the modest intensification of the 56 residential units which the Applicant seeks to achieve on the subject site, that would conform with the Official Plan, which itself conforms to the Growth Plan and is consistent with the PPS.​
Click to expand...

Actually, it sounds like the main issue from those two paragraphs comes down to height. They're saying that there's nothing wrong with a 56-unit luxury building, but the proposal doesn't transition well to the adjacent neighbourhood. They're saying that such a building could conform to the Official Plan and the Growth Plan but not in the form proposed. Personally, I feel that a neighbourhood with sufficient diversity to be vibrant and attractive needs a good variety of housing types, from smaller condos to larger homes.
 
Developers win most appeals, but it's not a guarantee; the LPAT/OMB has turned down a pile of applications.

42
 
Hail Mary for the win?????

Referee GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top