Hmm?...Held By Kristyn Wong-Tam
56 Yonge Street, 21 Melinda Street, 18 to 30 Wellington Street West, 187 to 199 Bay Street and 25 King Street West - Zoning Amendment Application - Final Report (Ward 13 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)

Decision Body Profile

Toronto Meeting Management Information System (TMMIS). Browse and monitor agendas, items, decisions, minutes and meeting schedule for Toronto City Council and its committees. Search for agenda items. Find committee and Council decisions. City Council is the main governing and legislative body...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca
 
Last edited:
There can be many reasons for a motion to be held. Often, a key piece of documentation is missing, or something has/is about to change in the proposal. I'm on one of the City of Toronto committees (Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee), and it even happens there.
 
I watched this approval committee, it had nothing but positive reception from councillors. I imagine she’s holding it just to give a little congratulations speech.
 
For anyone not sure what "Held by Kristyn Wong-Tam" means, when City Council sets their order at the beginning of each day, they rifle through which items the local councillors don't have anything to say about, and are therefore asking Council to immediately approve based on the recommendation of the Community Council (typically from three weeks earlier). Those items all get approved more or less immediately, while others, like this one, are held by whichever Councillor wants until later in the meeting so that she or he may speak to them. There's a good chance that @ProjectEnd is correct, and that KWT simply wants to put something on record at City Council that acknowledges the significance of this particular proposal, being such a prominent site in town.

42
 
ushahid said:
ok i understand that Commerce court is held because it is a very important site and is a big project but why 55 Charles condos, 55C is so damn ugly, whats the significance of that project?
Click to expand...
Wrong thread to ask that in (and why say 'ugly', like that's objective, and like it would have anything to do with a Council decision?): take it to the right thread.

42
 
Aw shoot, and we were hoping for 'Preferred'.

Seems it is going back to Community Council for further consideration. I wonder what the sticking points are?

42
 
interchange42 said:
Aw shoot, and we were hoping for 'Preferred'.

Seems it is going back to Community Council for further consideration. I wonder what the sticking points are?

42
Click to expand...

The thought of @interchange42 being left to wonder, twisting in the wind is just too morose to contemplate!

Soooo, Answers below:



From the latter:

Our client has substantial concerns regarding the proposed Commerce Court redevelopment. To proceed with this single application represents a lost opportunity to plan and intensify this important block on a comprehensive basis. Furthermore, any approval will negatively impact redevelopment opportunities for the intensification of 48 Yonge. The Commerce Court site is located immediately to the west of our client's site at 48 Yonge and is separated from 48 Yonge by a substandard City-owned public lane having an approximate width of only 3.0m.

Potential windows on the east wall of the proposed Commerce Court in such close proximity to 48 Yonge will lead to privacy concerns. In addition, given the permitted intensification of 48 & 60 Yonge under the recently approved OPA 406, the City should take the opportunity presented by the Commerce Court application to consider widening the substandard public lane that separates Commerce Court from the properties on Yonge Street as part of this process

......

We would urge the members of Community Council not to endorse this application in its present form and to direct staff to report back after consulting with all the owners on the east side of the lane between Melinda and Wellington Streets and considering the comments herein
 
Well, there you go then. Thanks for taking the time to look that up @Northern Light! (A tad late in the game though, 48 Yonge?)

42
 
Bah humbug. Kind of an unfortunate delay. I hope though, it does result in 48 Yonge being redeveloped. Although, it looks way too small for an office tower. They would need the other two properties on Yonge to make a development feasible from my view.
 
48 Yonge

48 yonge.PNG
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top