Ok, a bit of a shocker I think..............this one gets a Refusal Report to the next meeting of NYCC!


There are three clear argument's made by planning here.

1) That growth was not envisioned for this site at all which is designated 'open space'.

2) That the site is within the erosion hazard area (risk of slope instability above or below the proposed development.)

3) There are 'servicing' issues w/the site as well as problems with the site layout such that if slope instability were to occur, repairs may not be able to be easily affected.

From the report:

1696427107449.png

1696427146305.png


Of note, the TRCA, the likely beneficiary of the donation of most of the site as park space came out opposed:

1696427210734.png


Engineering and Construction Services had this to say:

1696427253373.png


*****

Overall, I'm surprised by this one, as most people I know in the environmental community seemed quite prepared to take this trade (restoring the bulk of the golf course)

That said, the TRCA certainly raises legitimate concerns around safety which appear not to have been adequately addressed here.

I'm not taken by the broader policy arguments, we're talking about developing where there is a building and a parking lot; but I certainly would not want to see something built which jeopardized public safety.
 
Northern Light said:
Ok, a bit of a shocker I think..............this one gets a Refusal Report to the next meeting of NYCC!


There are three clear argument's made by planning here.

1) That growth was not envisioned for this site at all which is designated 'open space'.

2) That the site is within the erosion hazard area (risk of slope instability above or below the proposed development.)

3) There are 'servicing' issues w/the site as well as problems with the site layout such that if slope instability were to occur, repairs may not be able to be easily affected.

From the report:

View attachment 510969
View attachment 510970

Of note, the TRCA, the likely beneficiary of the donation of most of the site as park space came out opposed:

View attachment 510971

Engineering and Construction Services had this to say:

View attachment 510972

*****

Overall, I'm surprised by this one, as most people I know in the environmental community seemed quite prepared to take this trade (restoring the bulk of the golf course)

That said, the TRCA certainly raises legitimate concerns around safety which appear not to have been adequately addressed here.

I'm not taken by the broader policy arguments, we're talking about developing where there is a building and a parking lot; but I certainly would not want to see something built which jeopardized public safety.
Click to expand...
you think this one will come back as amended proposal? or is the whole project dead now.
 
toronto647 said:
you think this one will come back as amended proposal? or is the whole project dead now.
Click to expand...

The applicants are likely to be out a fair bit of money here, even if they only 'optioned' the course.

If they optioned it, they'll have to do a deep think on whether to appeal here or cut their losses.

If they're the owners now, I can't see how they don't appeal as that would be one hell of a write-off.

The only partial salvation might be if they got the Federal ecological land tax credit for donating......but still..........

****

The proponents are in tough here, the TRCA is citing safety and regulatory precedent and they're pretty much the accepted experts.

I do hope we see the valley portion end up in public hands one way or other. But I'm not sure where the proponents will go from here.

@AlexBozikovic may be more informed, I don't know.
 
Northern Light said:
The applicants are likely to be out a fair bit of money here, even if they only 'optioned' the course.

If they optioned it, they'll have to do a deep think on whether to appeal here or cut their losses.

If they're the owners now, I can't see how they don't appeal as that would be one hell of a write-off.

The only partial salvation might be if they got the Federal ecological land tax credit for donating......but still..........

****

The proponents are in tough here, the TRCA is citing safety and regulatory precedent and they're pretty much the accepted experts.

I do hope we see the valley portion end up in public hands one way or other. But I'm not sure where the proponents will go from here.

@AlexBozikovic may be more informed, I don't know.
Click to expand...
What do you think? It comes back for round 2?
 
toronto647 said:
What do you think? It comes back for round 2?
Click to expand...

I really don't know. I can see how to address some of the concerns of ECS and TRCA, though it would mean one less building and a lot less profit on the site.

But I can't fathom anyway to address being below the top of slope for the erosion hazard; unless the City/TRCA were flat out overuled, I'm not sure I see a fiscally or politically viable solution.

However, I may be missing it.
 
Northern Light said:
I really don't know. I can see how to address some of the concerns of ECS and TRCA, though it would mean one less building and a lot less profit on the site.

But I can't fathom anyway to address being below the top of slope for the erosion hazard; unless the City/TRCA were flat out overuled, I'm not sure I see a fiscally or politically viable solution.

However, I may be missing it.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your insights as usual, just a thought perhaps once the Eglinton LRT is running and Ontario Line is closer to opening it may become more financially viable. But I guess time will tell
 
If it's in an erosion hazard, the PPS directs new development to be outside of any natural hazards. No ambiguity about that.

Whether it's all truly an erosion hazard may be more of a grey area. It's hard to tell how much of the slope is original / modified valley slope and how much is fill from road construction. It's also hard to tell how much the slope is affected by the floodplain and what isn't. So I dug into the application to see their position in a bit more detail.

Untitled 2.png



Untitled 3.png

Untitled.png

Untitled 2.png


The argument appears to be that the development is between the regulatory floodplain and slopes that can be considered erosion hazards, on a terrace between Slope 1 and Slope 2. The point of disagreement is whether the terrace is part of the larger valleyland and erosion hazard. The applicant says no, while the TRCA says yes. I think that there's room for that argument but it's a difficult one to make. Slope 2 does interact with the floodplain (making it an indisputable erosion hazard) at the east and west ends of the site. Does that same slope suddenly stop being part of the erosion hazard along the terrace gap? And if it does, where is that threshold of influence ending?

Untitled 4.png


I skimmed the slope report and I do not see a clear argument on how the extent of the natural hazard should be, simply a geotechnical analysis of what the stable slope and development setbacks are for each. It was also noted that "a supplementary geotechnical investigation...is recommended." I'm left wondering. I'm also left wondering what role pluvial runoff and other gullies have influence over this section of the slope.

I'll qualify all this with the fact that I'm not an engineer (civil or water resources), and this is a very quick cursory review. But I can see why this could be recommended refusal on the basis of a lack of justification for why it's not in a natural hazard, which is a straightforward and consistent prerequisite.
 
Metroscapes said:
If it's in an erosion hazard, the PPS directs new development to be outside of any natural hazards. No ambiguity about that.

Whether it's all truly an erosion hazard may be more of a grey area. It's hard to tell how much of the slope is original / modified valley slope and how much is fill from road construction. It's also hard to tell how much the slope is affected by the floodplain and what isn't. So I dug into the application to see their position in a bit more detail.

View attachment 511681


View attachment 511682
View attachment 511683
View attachment 511684

The argument appears to be that the development is between the regulatory floodplain and slopes that can be considered erosion hazards, on a terrace between Slope 1 and Slope 2. The point of disagreement is whether the terrace is part of the larger valleyland and erosion hazard. The applicant says no, while the TRCA says yes. I think that there's room for that argument but it's a difficult one to make. Slope 2 does interact with the floodplain (making it an indisputable erosion hazard) at the east and west ends of the site. Does that same slope suddenly stop being part of the erosion hazard along the terrace gap? And if it does, where is that threshold of influence ending?

View attachment 511685

I skimmed the slope report and I do not see a clear argument on how the extent of the natural hazard should be, simply a geotechnical analysis of what the stable slope and development setbacks are for each. It was also noted that "a supplementary geotechnical investigation...is recommended." I'm left wondering. I'm also left wondering what role pluvial runoff and other gullies have influence over this section of the slope.

I'll qualify all this with the fact that I'm not an engineer (civil or water resources), and this is a very quick cursory review. But I can see why this could be recommended refusal on the basis of a lack of justification for why it's not in a natural hazard, which is a straightforward and consistent prerequisite.
Click to expand...

You know I've always enjoyed your contributions to public land-use discussions in the GTA; but I don't recall seeing you get into the weeds like this before. I'm most impressed; you're one of only 1/2 a dozen people I've ever known to use the word pluvial correctly in a sentence!

Edit to add, to comment on the substance, I think you're on point, but would then add, if there's any dispute about hazard slopes in the GTA, the TRCA are generally seen to be the default experts; the onus on the applicant to provide evidence to get them over ruled would be substantial.
 
Northern Light said:
You know I've always enjoyed your contributions to public land-use discussions in the GTA; but I don't recall seeing you get into the weeds like this before. I'm most impressed; you're one of only 1/2 a dozen people I've ever known to use the word pluvial correctly in a sentence!

Edit to add, to comment on the substance, I think you're on point, but would then add, if there's any dispute about hazard slopes in the GTA, the TRCA are generally seen to be the default experts; the onus on the applicant to provide evidence to get them over ruled would be substantial.
Click to expand...
I usually don't have the time these days to dive this deep, but I figured while I did some file transferring tonight...glad you enjoy!

TRCA aren't just the 'default experts', they are the regulatory authority. The builder needs a TRCA permit prior to construction, and if they're telling the City a planning application doesn't meet provincial / TRCA natural hazard policy, you ain't getting far.

I'd like to see TRCA's comments to the City to see if there was additional analysis of the erosion risk, or if it was a plain hazard-land-therefore-prohibited take. It could also be somewhere on the spectrum between.
 
Northern Light said:
You know I've always enjoyed your contributions to public land-use discussions in the GTA; but I don't recall seeing you get into the weeds like this before. I'm most impressed; you're one of only 1/2 a dozen people I've ever known to use the word pluvial correctly in a sentence!

Edit to add, to comment on the substance, I think you're on point, but would then add, if there's any dispute about hazard slopes in the GTA, the TRCA are generally seen to be the default experts; the onus on the applicant to provide evidence to get them over ruled would be substantial.
Click to expand...
TRCA loses slope arguements in greenfield development all the time - but you are correct that it takes a lot of work to prove otherwise.
 
innsertnamehere said:
TRCA loses slope arguements in greenfield development all the time - but you are correct that it takes a lot of work to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't look at very many greenfield proposals....... interesting.
 
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...

Excellent post! Good Links, the bottom one is to the lawyers letter on behalf of the applicants. Said correspondence is too long for me to copy it all, but I would encourage anyone interested to to read the whole thing, its maybe a 3-4 minute read.

I will, however, extract this piece.........:

1699578429236.png


Obviously, we're getting only one side of the story...........but this certainly makes City staff appear quite unprofessional.

That may not be fair, but I think City staff are going to have defend their choices at OLT..........

Someone get the popcorn.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top