ADRM
Senior Member
The proponent held a community engagement session a number of weeks back that included fairly detailed (and lovely) plans. Going to be a great project.
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
AlbertC
Superstar
Northern Light
Superstar
Sure sure, slip that in quietly months after the fact and don't even link to the community engagement site. LOL
Psst, I found it.
Post to follow.
Northern Light
Superstar
Community Engagement Site: https://bathurstbridgman.ca/engagement/
From the above: (the slides are set up so as to not to be directly enlargeable; I may come back to that by editing them, or other may feel free to do that!.)
From the above: (the slides are set up so as to not to be directly enlargeable; I may come back to that by editing them, or other may feel free to do that!.)
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
AlbertC
Superstar
Looks very promising. Tarragon Village will finally become a proper village!
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The worst part of this post Bill-109 world is that we won’t be seeing applications on the AIC until they are basically ready to be approved. Much less public transparency on the design evolution now - we will basically never see public facing revisions to projects as developers won’t submit them until they have staff on board.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
WOW. This is amazing. As a former longtime resident of the Annex, this is exactly how the urban fabric should be stitched together in a denser and more active format outwards from there.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
I'm certain you're right, but could you get deeper into the weeds and explain to us non-experts why?
Northern Light
Superstar
A discussion in the Henning thread would likely be revelatory:
21-35 Henning | 119m | 34s | Madison Group | Turner Fleischer
This is just Planning reacting to a new reality. If they don't want to refund the application fee (and why would they), they have to approve or refuse. My assumption is they'll continue to try and work behind the scenes with the applicant(s) because despite its developer-friendly reputation, few...
In essence, Bill 109 included several features, but one of note is that if a municipality doesn't arrive at a decision on a development quickly, they must refund the application fees.
The result, according to the discussion I linked is that we're going to see a flurry of new Refusal reports for applications that aren't in a state to be approved.
That will trigger lots of costs and appeals by developers; to avoid same, they will now carry out the same process you're used to seeing post-application (community and stakeholder meetings and back and forth with Planning) prior to actually submitting the application, so that it can hopefully sail through the process in the required time.
Innsert may have more to add.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
That’s more or less it. Developers won’t be submitting applications unless they are confident they will receive approval or if they want to go to an OLT appeal. If Staff can’t support the application as submitted, they’ll be issuing a refusal report as there is no longer time for the applicant to resubmit to address issues before fee refunds kick in.A discussion in the Henning thread would likely be revelatory:
21-35 Henning | 119m | 34s | Madison Group | Turner Fleischer
This is just Planning reacting to a new reality. If they don't want to refund the application fee (and why would they), they have to approve or refuse. My assumption is they'll continue to try and work behind the scenes with the applicant(s) because despite its developer-friendly reputation, few...urbantoronto.ca
In essence, Bill 109 included several features, but one of note is that if a municipality doesn't arrive at a decision on a development quickly, they must refund the application fees.
The result, according to the discussion I linked is that we're going to see a flurry of new Refusal reports for applications that aren't in a state to be approved.
That will trigger lots of costs and appeals by developers; to avoid same, they will now carry out the same process you're used to see post-application (community and stakeholder meetings and back and forth with Planning) prior to actually submitting the application, so that it can hopefully sail through the process in the required time.
Innsert may have more to add.
We will also likely see a lot more use of holding by-laws to allow the city to basically provide a conditional approval of an application subject to the applicant addressing some technical issues.
RGB_11
Active Member
A year later, passing by, everything still looks the same.
Northern Light
Superstar
Seeing as no application was every actually submitted here, I'm not sure why one might expect any change?