Toronto 42 Tuxedo Court | 96.75m | 28s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,879
Reaction score
89,429
Location
Toronto/EY
1620121807164.png


Link: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=pGvT0qrWYjk22ZZ8+ds/0A==

*Mods* note that this proposal also shows 40 Tuxedo Court as included; though that address is one of the existing apartment towers.
 
Last edited:
ADRM said:
Another day, another instance of the Planning department doing its utmost to keep Toronto unaffordable and exclusive.
Click to expand...

I wanted to think on this one before commenting. I shared that concern, but I only looked at this fleetingly before posting and wanted to consider it.

While I want to give Planning some benefit of the doubt......I'm inclined to agree.
I'm looking for a tangible reason to quibble and I don't see it.

I think there's certainly room to negotiate benefits for existing tenants, public realm and other improvements, etc, and if that were the concern here, I'd be all ears.

But that's not what I'm seeing. I would love to understand why this is 'over development'.

The proposal would certainly benefit from refinement in a number of ways; but absent an argument that local services such as water/sewer etc. can't handle the load.......
I think this represents a tremendous opportunity to provide tangible improvement to this community. I would hate to see that opportunity wasted without a compelling reason.
 
Last edited:
ADRM said:
Another day, another instance of the Planning department doing its utmost to keep Toronto unaffordable and exclusive.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It’s telling that they don’t justify why the site can only support “modest intensification”, and why the proposal would prevent the stated upgrades etc from going through.

My disappointment with Toronto Planning deepens. The entire organization needs a shakeup, from the leadership downwards.
 
Request for Direction Report to authorize staff to opposed this at OLT, to the next meeting of SCC:


Stated Reasons, with my comments after:

1652708351269.png


Fair; should be an easy fix.

1652708385311.png

1652708408764.png


Questionable, doubtless the proposal is inconsistent w/the plan, but on its face, so what?, The plan as all plans are guides not iron-clad rules.
Precedent outside of the court system informs, but is not binding.

I'm open to a legitimate argument about the height, but simple non-conformation w/the plan is not sufficient to my mind.

1652708553090.png


Maybe, I m still waiting to hear why, in this case those items are at issue.

1652708647146.png


This is a better argument than some of the others. I have difficulty seeing this as a deal-breaker for either side

1652708727887.png


In respect of units, I don't know if I've seen this precise argument made before; there are obviously lots of inter-related arguments..........

In respect of the valley lands, shadowing can be an issue for a forest, it would really depend on what species are currently present, Sugar Maple, and Basswood do fine in part-sun/shade; but if the
forest is oak-dominant, cutting its light drastically would have an adverse effect {though probably wouldn't kill the trees, just stunt their growth). Mitigation may be an option.

1652708906117.png

Good argument. Lots of other proponents of similar infill sites have met this obligation w/o issue; should be resolvable.

****

Elsewise, there are some technical issues w/various reports, some TRCA concerns not yet addressed, and the City wants a daycare here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top