timmy1618
New Member
Sorry if I am breaking any rules by asking but how can you attend this meeting ,is it open for the public?
Toronto 775 Vaughan Road | 150.48m | 45s | Core Development | Studio JCI
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
No rules are broken. I'm happy to answer the question.
Committee of Adjustment Hearings are public.
Let me grab the participation info, from this link: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...ittee-of-adjustment/participate-at-a-hearing/
Here's a live version of the Youtube link above: https://www.youtube.com/c/TorontoCityPlanning
Should you wish to attend in person, this is where and when you'd go:
This Application is scheduled for the morning session. The preliminary order would suggest it will be heard closer to lunch time; but as the order can be changed for any number of reasons, you would want to attend/watch from pretty close to the beginning, until your confident of the timing.
As per the instructions above, if you wish to speak/depute at the meeting there are deadlines, so make sure to get your request in early. Written submissions are also due ahead of time.
Final note, if Canada Post goes on strike there is a strong likelihood of cancellation.
Ardilla
New Member
Hello. I confirmed this afternoon, with COA that Nov 20th meeting will NOT be canceled. I gather it is future meetings, where correspondence may not be received in time , that may be canceled due to Canada Post strike. If I understand correctly, they consider materials for this meeting to have been already sent out and received.
To participate in hearing you must register by the deadline or show up in person before the meeting.
I hope people will speak up regarding increases to affordable units offered, increase in elevators, increase in parking for the additional 7 floors, if approved. Also, agreeing to reduce required outdoor amenity space per unit I think would be short-sighted considering the extreme increase to densification in the neighbourhood expected over the next 4 - 10 years. 2 new development signs went up just in the last month, in addition to 4 large developments already in the application process within one block.
rdaner
Senior Member
^Great points however I could see no increase in parking as this project is on a transit line as well as being surrounded by storefront retail.
Ardilla
New Member
True, but in spite of availability of nearby transit, I believe it is unllikley that 0% of residents would have cars. If even only 20% of residents have cars more spaces would be needed. There are no multi-level parking garages in the area. Street parking in the area is already generally full.
timmy1618
New Member
I spent 6 hours waiting for this meeting today . The end result it was declined and the committee felt it was not a minor variance. A observation by me is the original 38 story building had something like 15 affordable units .The new one has 6 or 9 plus a community Space yet was packaged as they had increased more space. In fact the speaker was asked how many affordable units were in the first proposal and he said he had to check back .He then said if the project was not approved there may be zero affordable units .There are a number of tenants still living in these buildings that have rights to new units and from what I know there is zero openings as all six units are spoken for.
Ardilla
New Member
Exactly. The 6 'affordable units' are tenant replacement units secured by the City of Toronto for the property. I don't see how they can be up for negotiation at all. It's my understanding that the 6 are a given and likely will all be taken by returning tenants. It's any further affordable units that are at stake. Originally it was 17 replacement units.
It would be interesting to have community consultation regarding whether residents in the area would prefer a community centre gets a 25 year affordable lease OR to have more affordable units offered to residential tenants (affordable meaning rent of about $1450 for a one bedroom.) The developer made it clear it was either one or the other, either the community centre affordable lease or more affordable apartments in the project.
timmy1618
New Member
There has been an appeal to this decision .Is the appeal private or will this be a open hearing like the COA?
Northern Light
Superstar
TLAB is a public process, allowing for both public observation and participation.
TLAB Agendas are here:
Business Meetings: Agendas and Minutes
All Toronto Local Appeal Body business meetings are open to the public. Agendas are posted seven calendar days in advance of the meeting date. For information on the public meeting process, please read the TLAB Procedure Bylaw – Meetings.
www.toronto.ca
The process for participation is described on the agenda docs:
The most up to date documents for this application are here:
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
The items labelled Councillor Letter would be those of interest.
One of them is just that, with Councillor Matlow supporting the C of A minor variance request.
The other is actually a letter from the applicant's Lawyers providing a history of the application and reasons for appeal.
@HousingNowTO may wish to follow this..........
In the two letters we come to learn that there is a kinda/sorta promise, in exchange for the additional height of up to 9 additional affordable units and/or a cultural space in the building.
I think the applicant and their lawyers and planners and the Councillor don't have their act together here. There may be a case for the additional height, though I hate seeing this go though the MV process.....
Regardless.........the fact the benefit is unclear is a problem. That needs to have been firmly decided on, and hard numbers presented.
The 9 unit number is further complicated by the fact I see no reference to a new total number......which should be there.
****
The lawyers also take aim at C of A discussion of elevator performance standards........... that might be of interest to @ProjectEnd.
So I'll bring that forward:
timmy1618
New Member
If you look at the original project there was 15-17 affordable units , not they propose 6 units and this community space. Nobody brought this up in the hearing about the reduced number of affordable units in the 45 floor plan.TLAB is a public process, allowing for both public observation and participation.
TLAB Agendas are here:
Business Meetings: Agendas and Minutes
All Toronto Local Appeal Body business meetings are open to the public. Agendas are posted seven calendar days in advance of the meeting date. For information on the public meeting process, please read the TLAB Procedure Bylaw – Meetings.
The process for participation is described on the agenda docs:
The most up to date documents for this application are here:
Application Details
The items labelled Councillor Letter would be those of interest.
One of them is just that, with Councillor Matlow supporting the C of A minor variance request.
The other is actually a letter from the applicant's Lawyers providing a history of the application and reasons for appeal.
@HousingNowTO may wish to follow this..........
In the two letters we come to learn that there is a kinda/sorta promise, in exchange for the additional height of up to 9 additional affordable units and/or a cultural space in the building.
I think the applicant and their lawyers and planners and the Councillor don't have their act together here. There may be a case for the additional height, though I hate seeing this go though the MV process.....
Regardless.........the fact the benefit is unclear is a problem. That needs to have been firmly decided on, and hard numbers presented.
The 9 unit number is further complicated by the fact I see no reference to a new total number......which should be there.
****
The lawyers also take aim at C of A discussion of elevator performance standards........... that might be of interest to @ProjectEnd.
So I'll bring that forward:
View attachment 619160
Northern Light
Superstar
1) The first thing you meant to say was "Thank You"
2) Go and read the documents.......
3) Feel free to phone the Planner and clarify the number of affordable units, and get back to us.
timmy1618
New Member
Thank you .I was at the meeting and have read all the documents to date the units in very first proposal that was shared with me from a tenant was 17 then it changed to 16 units. Sorry I should avoid forums when I am not at my main system so sorry for the unprofessional responses.
From June 12 , 2023 Document
The proposed building would have a total gross floor area of 30,250 square metres and contain 519 dwelling units (including 16 replacement rental units), and approximately 500 square metres of non-residential space.
There were 16 existing tenants at that time who were eligible for a unit and a rent gap payment until the building is completed.
Thank you for all of your help.
Ardilla
New Member
Thank you.TLAB is a public process, allowing for both public observation and participation.
TLAB Agendas are here:
Business Meetings: Agendas and Minutes
All Toronto Local Appeal Body business meetings are open to the public. Agendas are posted seven calendar days in advance of the meeting date. For information on the public meeting process, please read the TLAB Procedure Bylaw – Meetings.
The process for participation is described on the agenda docs:
The most up to date documents for this application are here:
Application Details
The items labelled Councillor Letter would be those of interest.
One of them is just that, with Councillor Matlow supporting the C of A minor variance request.
The other is actually a letter from the applicant's Lawyers providing a history of the application and reasons for appeal.
@HousingNowTO may wish to follow this..........
In the two letters we come to learn that there is a kinda/sorta promise, in exchange for the additional height of up to 9 additional affordable units and/or a cultural space in the building.
I think the applicant and their lawyers and planners and the Councillor don't have their act together here. There may be a case for the additional height, though I hate seeing this go though the MV process.....
Regardless.........the fact the benefit is unclear is a problem. That needs to have been firmly decided on, and hard numbers presented.
The 9 unit number is further complicated by the fact I see no reference to a new total number......which should be there.
****
The lawyers also take aim at C of A discussion of elevator performance standards........... that might be of interest to @ProjectEnd.
So I'll bring that forward:
View attachment 619160
Is anyone here able to read plans well in regards to the 5th elevator mentioned? It seems like that elevator, in a corner location, is planned for going to the parking levels (for bikes and packages as well a for drivers?) but that it does not go to the upper levels? Also there was no verbal information given in the COA about how many people fit in each elevator or their speed.
Furthermore, I believe there is an error in the number for the applicant's calculation for outdoor amenity space in their submitted documents, making it seem like the reduction in space they are asking for is smaller than it actually is. I don't know how to address their calculation error in their papers with the City at this point?
Isn't a large part (majority?) of the outdoor 'amenity space' provided as high green grasses on the roof? i.e. an area where residents can't sit on or walk on? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Comments from the developer regarding improving the current concrete jungle space of the properties and claiming to be providing more green space than is currently there are a little disingenous considering the properties all have back yards the tenants enjoy/enjoyed. Some also have small front yards. The landscape plans show trees on the south sidewalk further reducing walking space and no seating area at the front commercial entrance area for future residents of the building, only a potential cafe seating area on the paved area, belonging to the main floor business.
Wind on the street can be severe, already. Shouldn't a new wind study be required for so many additional floors?
Do appeals like this generally go through?