CreateTO 's agenda for next week is out, and this site is the subject of a report with a confidential attachment.


While I still think the 'new approach' is taking a bit longer than it should here........ I will note that we now have a revised, and hopefully final timeline for construction that appears to have been advanced vs where we were just a short while ago.
I'd like to think some discussion here may have played a small role in that, whether or not that's true! LOL

Key public bits of info:

1718287323148.png

1718287354769.png
 
Northern Light said:
CreateTO 's agenda for next week is out, and this site is the subject of a report with a confidential attachment.


While I still think the 'new approach' is taking a bit longer than it should here........ I will note that we now have a revised, and hopefully final timeline for construction that appears to have been advanced vs where we were just a short while ago.
I'd like to think some discussion here may have played a small role in that, whether or not that's true! LOL

Key public bits of info:

View attachment 572031
View attachment 572032
Click to expand...
WED. JULY 24th - Committee of Adjustment - Scarborough
777 VICTORIA PARK AVE application for a "Minor Variance" is being heard in the afternoon.

PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...t-Scarborough-Hearing-Agenda-July-24-2024.pdf
 
Thanks to @HousingNowTO for the headsup, lets grab the details from the Cover Letter:

@Paclo

1719959718236.png

1719959749307.png

****

1719959843714.png


Render from the Arch. Plans:

1719959962926.png


Site Plan:

1719960058348.png


I'm going to say here, I don't have any real problems w/the height or massing as proposed...... but I'm not keen on the path through the C of A here.

A height increase of 11s or just shy of 50% by storey count really is not 'minor'.

I'm happy to support this proposal, and I won't throw up any road blocks, but, to me, rules/guidelines ought to have a reasonable, (if flexible), consistent meaning. and I don't see how the word minor is being consistently applied here.
 
Last edited:
Scarborough Committee of Adjustment tends to be pretty "timid" in what they will normally allow for consideration as a "Minor Variance".

It will be interesting to see how they respond to adding 11-Storeys and 194-Units to a City-sponsored project as a "Minor Variance"...?
 
HousingNowTO said:
Scarborough Committee of Adjustment tends to be pretty "timid" in what they will normally allow for consideration as a "Minor Variance".

It will be interesting to see how they respond to adding 11-Storeys and 194-Units to a City-sponsored project as a "Minor Variance"...?
Click to expand...

I think that's aggressive, as I note above. I support the proposal, and moving it through at an expedited timeline (something that should have happened moons ago, but we all know that story at this point) .....

But I'm not sure this is the right process track......

If this doesn't clear, that would move it to the September SCC/Council agendas, I assume; unless there were a means to bring it to the July meeting of Council directly.
 
@HousingNowTO was monitoring this one yesterday......which passed, with some amendments related to more parking......... Ok...then.

1720794121907.png
 
Northern Light said:
@HousingNowTO was monitoring this one yesterday......which passed, with some amendments related to more parking......... Ok...then.

View attachment 579978
Click to expand...
Will post some VIDEO later, it was a bit of a gong-show on the PARKING stuff -- but this motion was watered-down to just "REQUEST" status, rather than "REQUIRE" status... so it is mostly "Suburban Performance Art" by the Rookie City Councillor for Scarborough Southwest.

For the record, the PARKING LOT was actually declared surplus way back in the Mayor David Miller years -- and it generates a tiny amount of annual revenue which will be exponentially off-set by the net new property taxes that will be paid annually on the Market-Rate section of the new Apartment Towers -

(July 11, 2024) Letter from HousingNowTO - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/comm/communicationfile-181737.pdf

1720804060115.png


1720804101315.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
Here is the 2023 TPA revenue number from that Victoria Park TTC parking-lot, and a LINK to the source - https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/E34kw/4/

View attachment 580020
Click to expand...

I don't have an inherent problem with offering (paid) parking as an option at sites where that provides a necessary or highly desirable amenity; but if you can only yield $2.46 per space, per day, clearly that parking is not in high demand, or you have grossly under-priced it, or both.

There are advantages in having Green P lots in that they can accommodate car sharing, bikeshare, and bike parking, as opposed to just private vehicle parking. But I expect them to make money that supports things like affordable housing, and if at all viable, they should be underneath said housing. But we shouldn't provide it at a loss!
 
Last edited:
Paclo said:
This was approved at yesterday's CoA and was also discussed as a confidential item at council: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2024.PH14.6

Additional renderings:
View attachment 583290View attachment 583291View attachment 583292View attachment 583293
Click to expand...

I do hope the private proponent is set to maintain those large beds of perennials. The City installed a small one when they re-did VP Station some years ago on the west side of the street, a bed of juniper actually.

They then promptly forgot about it.........and it's been a bed of Dog-strangling-vine ever since.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top