Appealed back in July; now the subject of an Appeal Report to the next meeting of TEYCC:


From the above:

View attachment 450854

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa............ you don't see this that often:

View attachment 450855

Comments: All pretty resolvable issues here, this should be a settlement sooner than later.

I count at least three instances of Staff commenting on an oversupply of parking just in this one TEYCC agenda. You love to see it (despite the other dumb stuff Staff have commented on across those applications).
 
With apologies to Bono and U2... today will go down in UT history as Planning's "Monday Bloody Monday" 🎶

No to a taller Mirzahi, no to a stunning Calatrava Jr. skyscraper (the sort we desperately need ;-) and even push back here on a simple but handsome addition to Davenport.

When will the carnage end... 🏥
 
With apologies to Bono and U2... today will go down in UT history as Planning's "Monday Bloody Monday" 🎶

No to a taller Mirzahi, no to a stunning Calatrava Jr. skyscraper (the sort we desperately need ;-) and even push back here on a simple but handsome addition to Davenport.

When will the carnage end... 🏥

LOL.........equating a couple of planning decisions to a bloody riot in Kentucky btw religious sects? Maybe just a wee bit much.

Note, I think this one is resolvable and there will be a settlement at OLT.

Scollard is a very nice looking building that likely was never serious, and in any event has a number of serious problems.

The One, is of course, still being built.
 
This one was before the June Council meeting, with a settlement offer.

The latter was adopted.

Link to Settlement Offer: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-236998.pdf

Here's the offer:

1687463886541.png



Height remains 19st; but drops to 66m

New renders:

1687464033230.png


1687464062950.png
 
Settlement was affirmed by OLT.

Decision isn't posted yet, but it will be shortly.
 

Back
Top