Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Do you know if it is posted anywhere? I am interested in the amendments.
Last edited:
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Do you know if it is posted anywhere? I am interested in the amendments.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Dont know if this helps...............http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE22.2
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Thanks. Saw that already. I'm interested to know what the communications refer to at the bottom.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
The following points were made to Staff and the councillor by a few people:
- The parking situation was approved by Techinical Standards because the developer secured 50 parking spaces in the neighboring building. However, the language reads "up to 50 spaces for 5 years" which is not the same thing as "securing 50 parking spaces". The motion was revised to point out that whatever this number ends up being, it should be counted as surplus. lol.
- Because the developer could not secure the brown houses immediately South, Staff made their approval conditional on the developer signing a tower separation agreement with that owner. The satisfaction of this condition would allow Staff to overlook the project's significant set-back shortfalls. The councillor revised the motion to exclude this condition.
The whole process is bull-shit. The councillor decides that they like or hate an application based on God-knows-what, and then they massage all the bylaws and guidelines to make it fit the application. In this case, Staff and Wong-tam started out by stating that the developer must buy the land South to make this project viable.... then some Section 37 goodies got thrown in, and they were willing to overlook everything and amend whatever obstacle to get this approved.
Here is the revised motion that passed.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE22.2
- The parking situation was approved by Techinical Standards because the developer secured 50 parking spaces in the neighboring building. However, the language reads "up to 50 spaces for 5 years" which is not the same thing as "securing 50 parking spaces". The motion was revised to point out that whatever this number ends up being, it should be counted as surplus. lol.
- Because the developer could not secure the brown houses immediately South, Staff made their approval conditional on the developer signing a tower separation agreement with that owner. The satisfaction of this condition would allow Staff to overlook the project's significant set-back shortfalls. The councillor revised the motion to exclude this condition.
The whole process is bull-shit. The councillor decides that they like or hate an application based on God-knows-what, and then they massage all the bylaws and guidelines to make it fit the application. In this case, Staff and Wong-tam started out by stating that the developer must buy the land South to make this project viable.... then some Section 37 goodies got thrown in, and they were willing to overlook everything and amend whatever obstacle to get this approved.
Here is the revised motion that passed.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE22.2
ProjectEnd
Superstar
A laughable misreading of how this has proceeded through the planning process but hey, who cares, right?
urbansuburban
New Member
where does it say that she waived the requirement for the tower separation agreement? in the original staff report, staff recommended one, but it wasnt even a requirement in the draft by-law. am i missing something here?
fedplanner
Active Member
Can you elaborate a bit more?
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
No one has bashed Wong-Tam for a few days, so it's time to make some junk up.
DtTO
Active Member
This goes both ways. They frequently reject projects for not adhering to their opinion that the city skyline should slope away from the financial district. It's exactly why we need the OMB.
If you were replying to fedplanner, I think you may have your role as a KWT apologist confused. What value did your comment add to the discussion? It just makes your irrational love of KWT more apparent.
Peepers
Banned
Doesn't surprise me. With Wong-Tam (and others like Adam Vaughan) it is all about securing that Section 37 money. That's their war-chest! This is why Wong-Tam is trying to get rid of the OMB because she *thinks* that that will give her ultimate control over the developers and hence the ability to extort more Section 37 money . When an application goes before the OMB the city loses out completely on Section 37 money. Wong-Tam found out the hard way when the OMB approved a project Church & McGill.
I see with this particular development that Wong-Tam is demanding from the developer - in the way of Section 37 "contributions" - a $500,000 donation to Casey House (I wonder how many votes she thinks that will buy her in the next election?) as well as requiring the Developer to donate 8 condo units to Habitat for Humanity (according to Wikipedia: "a self-described "Christian housing ministry," based in Americus Georgia).
How can such a quid pro quo arrangement not be a conflict of interest? A Councillor - who has the power to veto a development - is demanding that a developer give donations to her various pet-projects that she no doubt expects will yield votes for her in the next election? Wong-Tam won her seat by the thinnest of margins (just a few hundred votes) so for her every vote counts!
This is why we need to completely overhaul Section 37. If a developer is receiving a benefit from the city by being able to build larger and taller buildings we should assign a cash value to those benefits and direct the monies to general revenues for the city to be used as deemed best by council. It should not be up to the discretion of individual councilors to direct this money into pet projects to help boost their reelection.
Last edited:
urbansuburban
New Member
I for one believe that the councillor should have some descretion on this stuff as planning staff sticks to some of their dogmatic ideas on projects without looking at the context of the buildings. However, these councillors better understand that these decisions to look the other way will come back to haunt them on their non-favorable projects at the OMB. This issue with not needing a large tower setback as per the tall buildings guidelines has always been used as a stick against projects staff or councillors didnt like. Well, now KWT ok'd this one as well as 197 Yonge (Massey tower) and its on paper for all to see and use. Sadly most councillors talk out of both sides of thier mouths and have 'short' memories on what they were ok with before.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
I am more than open to hear some specifics... Not sure why you seem to be implying that I am not? This is me trying to understand a process that pretends to be pragmatic and based on method, but is really about pure discretion.
This motion adopted all recommendations from the final Staff report except the tower-separation agreement, which is pretty major, considering the project's largest deficiency is related to set-backs. My guess is that she will say that the Southern property floor-plate is too small to approve a tower, which is hilarious, because 159 Wellesley is too small for a tower as well.
I realize you are her unofficial fanclub leader, but your comment doesn't help. In fact, your comment is a lot closer to "junk" than my post.
To be honest, I think she's very competent and capable, but in the end, she's still a city councillor. I heard her say she was against the original proposal unless the developer included the brown houses to the South. A few Section 37 concessions later and suddenly everything is ok.
Good post. My biggest issue is that Staff and council pretend that this is a process. They spend millions doing studies to come up with a comprehensive list of design criteria in an attempt to standardize the application review process, but it's all smoke and mirrors. A councillor will know pretty quickly if they want a certain building to go up or not. After that, it's about maximizing Section 37 funds and massaging the review process so everything sort of looks by-the-book. I liked Wong-Tam a lot, but she appears to be just another city councillor.
Last edited:
urbansuburban
New Member
They're ALL just another city councillor. Any councillor that says differently is 'just another city councillor'. Human nature.
Peepers
Banned
Habitat for Humanity families are the winners at 159 Wellesley
http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2...amilies_are_the_winners_at_159_wellesley.html
Is this an appropriate Section 37 trade-off? Instead of making a deal that benefits a private U.S. based charity - wouldn't it be better to get a lump sum payment from Diamond Corp equal to the value of the 8 three-bedroom Condo's and directed that money towards badly needed repairs at TCHC units?
What are the value of these units? Lets say they are worth $3 Million in total. If we budget $10,000 in repair per unit - we could bring 300 TCHC units up to acceptable living standards. Isn't this a better use of Section 37 money?
http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2...amilies_are_the_winners_at_159_wellesley.html
Is this an appropriate Section 37 trade-off? Instead of making a deal that benefits a private U.S. based charity - wouldn't it be better to get a lump sum payment from Diamond Corp equal to the value of the 8 three-bedroom Condo's and directed that money towards badly needed repairs at TCHC units?
What are the value of these units? Lets say they are worth $3 Million in total. If we budget $10,000 in repair per unit - we could bring 300 TCHC units up to acceptable living standards. Isn't this a better use of Section 37 money?
Last edited:
thecharioteer
Senior Member
The Final Report, Peepers, puts a cash-in-lieu total of $800,000 for the units.