To no one's surprise...........A Request for Direction Report, seeking to oppose this application at OLT is coming before the next meeting of NYCC.

This is a well moneyed community that has no interest in permitting this project.

While I think this project overall is reasonable, some tweaks here and there would be a reasonable ask..........but the staff report is remarkably harsh given the scale of this proposal.

First, the report:


So of course we get the not keen on the height, and some shadowing issues.

But there's some more novel stuff here...........

1) The City staff have taken issue w/the Arborist's report......that's not something you see all that often.

2) This one is a substantive in that there is policy to support it; this site is subject to an Alternative Parkland dedication rate which would require a 15% dedication.
That's an extra 465m2 / ~ 5000ft2, which Parks is insisting be delivered on-site.

3) There are references to a couple of plans that frankly slipped under my radar, for this, I will just screenshot the discussion:


1649253427144.png

1649253450473.png


*****

If the applicant wants this, I something here will happen........but clearly the City is making that a bit less economical than the proponent would have hoped. The parkland is a the real kicker here since the City will clearly oppose making up
the lost land area w/more height.
 
Last edited:
So, I'm going to take a position on the parkland issue...........

The alternate-rate is what it is...........

But I would suggest removing the on-site requirement for the parkland entirely.

There are 2 reasons for this:

1) As members/readers here know, I favour larger, more usable parks, rather than a litter of tiny spaces which are more expensive to maintain for far less value in terms of program.
In this case, Eglinton Park a large'ish, very well patronized park is sitting just off the end of Montgomery, one of the streets on to which this site fronts.

On a straight-line basis, Eglinton Park is currently only 177M from the proposed site, except, there is no opening to the park in that location. * measuring from the south-west extent of the site

In the real world, the nearest park entrance is 315M away from the south side of this development.

By acquiring the properties at the end of Montgomery, along Edith, that are adjacent to the park, the City would be able to create a new entrance to Eglinton Park, and enlarge an over-subscribed park in the process of so-doing.

This would reduce the distance to Eglinton Park to 139M from the south-west edge of this site.

I have highlighted what I have in mind below:


1649259761741.png


2) The second reason for eliminating the on-site park is that the additional area could be used to lower the heights of the existing proposals (If desired) w/o lowering the unit count.
This then resolves much of the shadowing concern specified. Or, alternatively, one might add some affordable housing to this proposal (though that would not mollify the neighbours, but I digress)
 
Northern Light said:
So, I'm going to take a position on the parkland issue...........

The alternate-rate is what it is...........

But I would suggest removing the on-site requirement for the parkland entirely.

There are 2 reasons for this:

1) As members/readers here know, I favour larger, more usable parks, rather than a litter of tiny spaces which are more expensive to maintain for far less value in terms of program.
In this case, Eglinton Park a large'ish, very well patronized park is sitting just off the end of Montgomery, one of the streets on to which this site fronts.

On a straight-line basis, Eglinton Park is currently only 177M from the proposed site, except, there is no opening to the park in that location. * measuring from the south-west extent of the site

In the real world, the nearest park entrance is 315M away from the south side of this development.

By acquiring the properties at the end of Montgomery, along Edith, that are adjacent to the park, the City would be able to create a new entrance to Eglinton Park, and enlarge an over-subscribed park in the process of so-doing.

This would reduce the distance to Eglinton Park to 139M from the south-west edge of this site.

I have highlighted what I have in mind below:


View attachment 390664

2) The second reason for eliminating the on-site park is that the additional area could be used to lower the heights of the existing proposals (If desired) w/o lowering the unit count.
This then resolves much of the shadowing concern specified. Or, alternatively, one might add some affordable housing to this proposal (though that would not mollify the neighbours, but I digress)
Click to expand...
This is a great idea. I really wished the City worked harder to facilitate these type of acquisitions to enhance existing parks. There are a lot of opportunities like the one you described. There should be one person at the City that this is their full-time job. Working with developers and communities to identify and acquire lands using parkland fees. I'm sure the operations guys would agree rather than add a new tiny park to their purview.
 
YIMBY519 said:
This is a great idea. I really wished the City worked harder to facilitate these type of acquisitions to enhance existing parks. There are a lot of opportunities like the one you described. There should be one person at the City that this is their full-time job. Working with developers and communities to identify and acquire lands using parkland fees. I'm sure the operations guys would agree rather than add a new tiny park to their purview.
Click to expand...

There is quite a bit of this going on, though not with a dedicated person. Im not sure it would help to be honest though. One of the main issues is that the secondary plan identified parkland expansion areas, which includes a lot of the homes backing onto Eg park iirc.

So now those residents know a) the city is pushing developers to acquire these for them and provide as offsite contribution, and b) that their homes are now quite valuable to developers who want/need to buy some goodwill with staff. It’s caused the asking prices for those houses to be in excess of a typical cash in lieu (and hence why the city wants developers to acquire, it’s overall easier for them).

This means you’re now over dedicating, and need to seek some relief on your Sec 37 to try and balance it out. Local councillors on that area aren’t always on board with that, as they want the s37 cash money for whatever pet project they may have in mind.

I agree with Northern Light in most cases though, but these small parks can also be a great benefit. The impact of some green space scattered throughout can often be greater than a slight expansion to an existing park. Securing the eastern frontage for Wglinton Park should be a priority in this case though given the intensification happening. As pointed out the eastern frontage isn’t very permeable.
 
andresmmax said:
I noticed a lot of homes around with "Save 500 Duplex" signs. They are definitely not happy about it 😂
Click to expand...
COLLE_500_DUPLEX_2022.jpg


Yup, those signs are all part of Councillor Mike Colle's re-election machine... man of the people.. etc.
 
According to Councillor Mike Colle's newsletter, "On March 31st, City Council approved a settlement on the redevelopment of 500 Duplex Ave avoiding a hearing at the Ontario Land Tribunal." Don't know the details.
 
Midtown Hank said:
According to Councillor Mike Colle's newsletter, "On March 31st, City Council approved a settlement on the redevelopment of 500 Duplex Ave avoiding a hearing at the Ontario Land Tribunal." Don't know the details.
Click to expand...

That's the report I linked above, still confidential. Should be public shortly.
 
I'm surprised no new material changes or new rendering. The minor changes are as follows. The unit count changed from 523 units to 514 units. The total car parking changed from 527 car parking to 494 car parking. Finally, the total bike parking changed from 526 bike parking to 532 bike parking.

Info taken from arch plan via Rezoning submission from post settlement.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top