Toronto 155 St Dennis | 184.8m | 56s | Cityzen | Hariri Pontarini

Msleylar said:
Looks like the Refusal has been adopted by Council:

https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.NY8.9

The two submissions provide some more insight as well:
Click to expand...

Again, focusing on the natural hazard aspect (what I can speak to).

Untitled.png


First things first, I am not part of the City or TRCA so I could be wrong. But I would expect the City takes the TRCA's advice, with little to nothing overtop. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the City to provide commentary on top of the TRCA's analysis.

Second, It seems the applicant is asserting that it is not within the erosion hazard. That's a valid argument to make, with justification. But again, the impression I got from the documents is that even if they said "per TRCA", they showed the slopes on either side of St Dennis Drive (i.e. north of the "paleo terrace") as being in the broader erosion hazard.

Untitled 4.png


The letter says the opposite. So if that's the argument you're making, revise your documents. You can't break up the hazard like this, you're either in or out of the overall hazard. Pick a lane. The applicant needs to revise their argument and justify to the TRCA that Slopes 2 and 3 are not part of the overall hazard lands.

Again, I'm not an engineer, and I'm not TRCA judging the policy adherence here. But again, it strikes me they "received this comment from TRCA", but got nothing from the City, and it's up to the City/TRCA to produce a technical report refuting their findings. I don't think that's how it works. I believe it's up to the applicant to do the studies to satisfy. And as I outlined above, no additional work is really needed, it's a disagreement over policy / definitions and the legal team's assertions conflicting with what the studies suggest.
 
CMC was conducted in March, Merit hearing is scheduled for March 31st, 2025.

TRCA was given party status, along with the ABC residents association. Yes, the one from Yorkville. 🤨

On that point:

1715348906698.png


****

1715348954134.png


***

1715349028830.png


****

Look at the hearing length, don't see this all that often:

1715349101156.png


The issues list for the City is really too long to bring over (more than 25 points); the TRCA's list is more concise and clearly focused on whether these lands are appropriate/safe for development at all.

ABC's list is curious...........and seems very focused on golf???

1715349317799.png
 
ABCRA can take a hike.

Looking at TRCA's issues, I'm very interested to see the outcome of the deliberations. There will be due weight given natural hazards are of provincial interest. As stated before, it will likely be a matter of interpretation of the extent of the slope hazard, and where it stops / (re)starts.

That said, a huge change that happened effective April 1, 2024 is that conservation authority (CA) mandates got refined. CAs can no longer consider impacts of "pollution" or "conservation of land" in their decisions. It's all focused on whether something impacts flooding, erosion, and risk to life / property.

Whether or not that will apply given this was filed before the change happened...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
This one will return to Council next week. Its not clear that this is a settlement offer; though it is a Request for Direction, with a confidential attachment and appendix.

The OLT hearings, on the appeal of Council's refusal aren't until March 31, 2025.

But it seems this matter is urgent. Hmmm.

Agenda Item History 2024.CC21.5

Agenda Item History 2024.CC21.5
secure.toronto.ca
 
Northern Light said:
This one will return to Council next week. Its not clear that this is a settlement offer; though it is a Request for Direction, with a confidential attachment and appendix.

The OLT hearings, on the appeal of Council's refusal aren't until March 31, 2025.

But it seems this matter is urgent. Hmmm.

Agenda Item History 2024.CC21.5

Agenda Item History 2024.CC21.5
secure.toronto.ca
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read into the "urgency" too much. Reports / summaries to the OLT have strict due dates, and it takes a lot of backcasting (accounting for staff time and other approvals) to meet them. Plus, the OLT actively pressures both sides to come to a resolution outside of a formal hearing, moreso than they used to from what I hear.
 
The report that came before Council remained confidential.

The hearing at OLTis now underway.

I don't know if anyone will be keeping an eye on it............but it should be interesting, if lengthy.

The hearing is scheduled to last 22 work days, ending May 2nd, 2025.
 
Ok, OLT sleuths.

The Merit hearing wrapped here on June 11th, 2025.

No decision yet posted on the OLT site.

But I noted the lawyers here closed their lobbying file today.

Let's have some spilled tea.

I'll throw the OLT link again here for convenience:

 
saynotofaux said:
Approved by the OLT this past week - decision should be posted shortly. The Tribunal totally rejected the City and TRCA's arguments against the proposal.
Click to expand...
Looks like I'm too antsy. The links show up on the OLT website but are currently dead.

I'll dive into that later, but in the interim, I wonder what that means for the proposed parkland and the East Don Trail "Phase 3". Given the Metrolinx brouhaha since the original 2014 alignment was proposed, I'm wondering if there's an appetitie to revisit the alignment to eliminate the two rail crossings.

Untitled.png
 
I requested the decision document from the OLT, and will try to hit the main points of this 57-page decision.

The issues most tangible and substantive to me that the OLT looked at were:
  1. Was this an appropriate location for intensification? Is the site isolated, and therefore unable to support a complete community?
    • While outside of an SGA or MTSA, the OLT determined this did not limit growth outside of these areas.
    • It also didn't give weight to the City's assertion it was 'isolated', pointing to nearby developments as well as rapid transit stops at Wynford (Line 5) and Flemington Park (Line 3).
    • It was noted it was a stones throw from the Wynford MTSA, but was unapproved at the time, and didn't really matter because of the first point.
    • They also chided the City for claiming the development did not support public transit, have pedestrian-oriented form or contribute to public realm, finding "that the City’s objection mostly stems from the City’s own failure to meaningfully engage with the Applicant on the [site plan]."
  2. Is development barred by being designated as Open Space?
    • No, designations are amended all the time through development applications. The OLT shot this down, also pointing to how 95% of the property would become a designated natural area.
  3. Is the site aligned with natural heritage policies and safe from natural hazards?
    • These two issues ate up almost half of the judgement.
    • The City relied on an ecologist that argued*check notes* the golf course offers an ecological function?! The OLT rightly shot this down, finding the golf course is highly altered and manicured land.
    • The OLT agreed with the applicant that the project would maintain and improve key ecological attributes. Decommissioning the golf course, significant riparian planting, a 30-metre buffer along the Don River and its tributaries, and the protection of existing woodlots would also enhance, wildlife and fish habitat.
    • Then there was the issue of slopes. I did a preliminary analysis of this earlier in this thread. The OLT found classifying all slopes together as a hazardous land prohibiting development as unreasonable. This goes to my point in the previous post about "picking a lane" and determining whether the lands are in or out of the hazard.
    • While it is (per the Province's technical language) a slope hazard, this part of the site where the towers are proposed was 'not hazardous', and being Provincially labelled as 'hazard lands' did not automatically bar it from development.
    • Untitled 3.png
    • I didn't benefit from accessing a fluvial geomorphology report done for the development, it did not seem to be apparent on the City's Application Information Centre. The Planning Rationale's description of the fluvial geomorph describes this as a "non-alluvial paleo terrace"; a natural shelf in the slope that sits elevated over the frequently flooded valley bottom, formed by river processes centuries or millenia ago (see above "Slope 1", orange, in the above excerpt). It no longer actively interacts with the river or its flooding or fluvial processes, sitting well beyond a 100-year erosion allowance and more than 15 metres from the river, underlain by erosion-resistant clay and till. Because of this, it should not create new or aggravate existing erosion or associated hazards (a key Provincial test).
    • The OLT determined the TRCA overly relied on the Province's guidance in its arguments, noting it's only guidance, that it did not outright prohibit development as a way to manage risk, and that as "a simplification of all the different types of river and stream systems throughout Ontario, including diverse geomorphologies of valleylands...The generalized guidelines cannot reasonably capture all possible potential erosion hazard scenarios." More weight was given to the site-specific analysis by the applicant determining it was safe to develop on the terrace with appropriate setbacks and mitigations.
    • This also met other provincial test for development: it had safe access and egress (via St. Dennis Drive)
    • The Tribunal also rejected the notion this would set a precedent for development in/near ravines. This was a very site-specific feature and would not necessarily apply in the same way elsewhere.

Overall, I found the arguments by the applicant very reasonable, and am perplexed that the City and TRCA fought this. In exchange for opening up the East Don Valley here and protecting it for generations to come, 5% of the site would be dedicated to high-density towers amongst many others nearby that are a 5 minute walk from a (hopefully) soon-to-open LRT stop. This seems like a huge gain. Inflexible policy interpretations have now delayed this by 2 years, and who knows what it'll take to get this into a viable market now.
 
Metroscapes said:
I requested the decision document from the OLT, and will try to hit the main points of this 57-page decision.

The issues most tangible and substantive to me that the OLT looked at were:
  1. Was this an appropriate location for intensification? Is the site isolated, and therefore unable to support a complete community?
    • While outside of an SGA or MTSA, the OLT determined this did not limit growth outside of these areas.
    • It also didn't give weight to the City's assertion it was 'isolated', pointing to nearby developments as well as rapid transit stops at Wynford (Line 5) and Flemington Park (Line 3).
    • It was noted it was a stones throw from the Wynford MTSA, but was unapproved at the time, and didn't really matter because of the first point.
    • They also chided the City for claiming the development did not support public transit, have pedestrian-oriented form or contribute to public realm, finding "that the City’s objection mostly stems from the City’s own failure to meaningfully engage with the Applicant on the [site plan]."
  2. Is development barred by being designated as Open Space?
    • No, designations are amended all the time through development applications. The OLT shot this down, also pointing to how 95% of the property would become a designated natural area.
  3. Is the site aligned with natural heritage policies and safe from natural hazards?
    • These two issues ate up almost half of the judgement.
    • The City relied on an ecologist that argued*check notes* the golf course offers an ecological function?! The OLT rightly shot this down, finding the golf course is highly altered and manicured land.
    • The OLT agreed with the applicant that the project would maintain and improve key ecological attributes. Decommissioning the golf course, significant riparian planting, a 30-metre buffer along the Don River and its tributaries, and the protection of existing woodlots would also enhance, wildlife and fish habitat.
    • Then there was the issue of slopes. I did a preliminary analysis of this earlier in this thread. The OLT found classifying all slopes together as a hazardous land prohibiting development as unreasonable. This goes to my point in the previous post about "picking a lane" and determining whether the lands are in or out of the hazard.
    • While it is (per the Province's technical language) a slope hazard, this part of the site where the towers are proposed was 'not hazardous', and being Provincially labelled as 'hazard lands' did not automatically bar it from development.
    • View attachment 688433
    • I didn't benefit from accessing a fluvial geomorphology report done for the development, it did not seem to be apparent on the City's Application Information Centre. The Planning Rationale's description of the fluvial geomorph describes this as a "non-alluvial paleo terrace"; a natural shelf in the slope that sits elevated over the frequently flooded valley bottom, formed by river processes centuries or millenia ago (see above "Slope 1", orange, in the above excerpt). It no longer actively interacts with the river or its flooding or fluvial processes, sitting well beyond a 100-year erosion allowance and more than 15 metres from the river, underlain by erosion-resistant clay and till. Because of this, it should not create new or aggravate existing erosion or associated hazards (a key Provincial test).
    • The OLT determined the TRCA overly relied on the Province's guidance in its arguments, noting it's only guidance, that it did not outright prohibit development as a way to manage risk, and that as "a simplification of all the different types of river and stream systems throughout Ontario, including diverse geomorphologies of valleylands...The generalized guidelines cannot reasonably capture all possible potential erosion hazard scenarios." More weight was given to the site-specific analysis by the applicant determining it was safe to develop on the terrace with appropriate setbacks and mitigations.
    • This also met other provincial test for development: it had safe access and egress (via St. Dennis Drive)
    • The Tribunal also rejected the notion this would set a precedent for development in/near ravines. This was a very site-specific feature and would not necessarily apply in the same way elsewhere.

Overall, I found the arguments by the applicant very reasonable, and am perplexed that the City and TRCA fought this. In exchange for opening up the East Don Valley here and protecting it for generations to come, 5% of the site would be dedicated to high-density towers amongst many others nearby that are a 5 minute walk from a (hopefully) soon-to-open LRT stop. This seems like a huge gain. Inflexible policy interpretations have now delayed this by 2 years, and who knows what it'll take to get this into a viable market now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for grabbing this and sharing; much appreciated.

I certainly think the City put forth some suspect arguments.

But I think this site is relatively isolated and under-serviced when one fairly considers the surrounding topography. Nothing is a particularly easy/short walk, the intersection with Eglinton not being at-grade is a barrier, there are no schools within a short walk, nor supermarkets. (on paper some look close, but the reality of adjacent hills/no connections to Eglinton belie that) That doesn't have to preclude building here, but I think there is an argument to be made that should at least be given consideration.

The site is not MTSA, and 'MTSA adjacency is not legitimate thing yet (or maybe the OLT just made it that), and that could be problematic.

I do have some concerns about the precedent around ravine protection. While there are compelling ecological benefits to the 40 acres of restoration here (and for that reason I lean to supporting this, albeit with some tweaks); It certainly has hte potential to inform greater development ambitions adjacent to ravines/natural areas.

Finally there are some compelling questions around servicing.

Still, I hope to see the 40 acres of new parkland, which will in turn enable a viable and non-destructive route for the Phase 3 East Don Trail, and could represent an ecological restoration site only rivaled by the new outlet for Don near'ish to the core.
 
Northern Light said:
Thanks for grabbing this and sharing; much appreciated.

I certainly think the City put forth some suspect arguments.

But I think this site is relatively isolated and under-serviced when one fairly considers the surrounding topography. Nothing is a particularly easy/short walk, the intersection with Eglinton not being at-grade is a barrier, there are no schools within a short walk, nor supermarkets. (on paper some look close, but the reality of adjacent hills/no connections to Eglinton belie that) That doesn't have to preclude building here, but I think there is an argument to be made that should at least be given consideration.

The site is not MTSA, and 'MTSA adjacency is not legitimate thing yet (or maybe the OLT just made it that), and that could be problematic.

I do have some concerns about the precedent around ravine protection. While there are compelling ecological benefits to the 40 acres of restoration here (and for that reason I lean to supporting this, albeit with some tweaks); It certainly has hte potential to inform greater development ambitions adjacent to ravines/natural areas.

Finally there are some compelling questions around servicing.

Still, I hope to see the 40 acres of new parkland, which will in turn enable a viable and non-destructive route for the Phase 3 East Don Trail, and could represent an ecological restoration site only rivaled by the new outlet for Don near'ish to the core.
Click to expand...
Valid points on amenities like grocery stores, as well as servicing, I don't buy the MTSA thing at all. See below.

Untitled.png


An able-bodied person could walk from this development to Wynford LRT stop in 5 minutes (350m), using stairs and a crosswalk at the southwest corner of the Eglinton bridge. 12 and 18 Concorde Place, at the top end of the MTSA, are more than twice as far (800m). Going around the loop ramps for accessibility reasons adds another 200m, but that applies in either case.

The City likely didn't envision this site being viable when they drafted the MTSA, but the whole point of the application was to say 'hey, the valley mapping is excessive, we actually have a viable site here'. The City was totally not open to it based on inflexible interpretations of the valley and proximity to a transit station.
 
The full decision has now been posted to the OLT Decisions Page.


@Metroscapes summary above is solid, and while there are some interesting tidbits in the main body of the decision which could merit further dissection, I see no pressing need to do that just now.

What I will do is provide the SPA related content at the end of the decision as that reads as the road map forward.

The OLT has upheld the appeal for the OPA and the ZBA, but is going to let the City and the proponent try to work out the SPA.

***

1761313836912.png

1761313867982.png

1761313897244.png

1761313929868.png


1761313972706.png

1761314031967.png

There are some ZBA conditions, most are of the usual variety (Functional Storm Water Report etc.)

There are a couple of note though:

1761314164264.png

1761314193231.png

And, of course:

1761314227115.png
 
Northern Light said:
Are we looking at an appeal of the OLT rulings here?

Something's up on the Council agenda next week (confidential)

Agenda Item History 2025.CC34.3

Agenda Item History 2025.CC34.3
secure.toronto.ca
Click to expand...
They're contemplating appealing the OLT ruling.

In my personal opinion, they should not. No need to waste taxpayer dollars to get spanked a second time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top