HousingNowTO said:
It's been over a YEAR - since anything was posted about this site.

I can't find the case on the OLT site any more - OLT-21-001856

Site is still an empty-lot.

Anyone have any insight / links..?
Click to expand...

Missed this post before.

This one had a procedural order in April '22.

It was set to go to a hearing on.....Aug 10 '22:

1691499587183.png



I cannot find any reference to a hearing or settlement thereafter.

@innsertnamehere is often handy with CanLII, maybe he can dig something up.

****

To add, the City shows no post-appeal action on file; that I can see; and there are no permit applications filed at this site (as one might expect)
 
only thing on CANLII I can find related to that appeal is the April 2022 order.

It's not unheard of for a decision to take over a year - but it's less common than it used to be. I'd be surprised if they were really still just waiting for a decision here, my experience is that decisions take closer to 2-3 months right now following even a contested hearing.

I will note that the OLT case status no longer lists the appeal as active, so perhaps they advised the OLT they no longer wanted to pursue the appeal and the case was closed?
 
From the Cover Letter:

1730234651003.png

1730234671530.png


Revised Site Plan:

1730234757804.png



Hmmm: Amount of at-grade parking is very high, and gives a parking ratio of 0.43.

The landscape next to the street seems a bit bloated...........but............hmmm.


1730234757804.png


What if the site were configured this way so it could support a second building of very similar scale while only losing a handful of parking spaces....?
 
Last edited:
AlbertC said:
This has the aesthetics of a hotel building on the outskirts of the city, mixed with a UTSC student residence.
Click to expand...

Materiality aside, this proposal would benefit from actually being a tiny bit larger on the bottom 3 floors and extending the colour up to the third floor. That would potentially add some additional bedrooms, and it would make the building work just a bit better.

The parking is an issue, but I have addressed that above, in part.

Were my above speculation right, it would also be plausible to shift some parking under the next building and create opportunity to repurpose more of the surface parking.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Materiality aside, this proposal would benefit from actually being a tiny bit larger on the bottom 3 floors and extending the colour up to the third floor. That would potentially add some additional bedrooms, and it would make the building work just a bit better.

The parking is an issue, but I have addressed that above, in part.

Were my above speculation right, it would also be plausible to shift some parking on the next building and create opportunity to repurpose more of the parking.
Click to expand...
We have no special knowledge of this revised proposal, but based on the design and positioning of the building - and the 100% Residential Rental -- this looks like the kind of building that would meet all of the criteria for municipal and federal "Affordable Rental Housing" funding programs, and gives the Bungalow-owners and the Condo-owners along DALE AVE, exactly what they demanded -


"Nothing Overlooking the Bungalows" -and-
"Nothing Blocking Condo Unit Views of the Golf Course to the North"

1730239017840.png

Proposal is 100% rental,

1730238454839.png


1730239497048.png

...and is 24% STUDIO / BACHELOR units - which likely is by request of their not-for-profit partner(s)

HNTO will await further details on the Terms & Conditions around the "Affordable Rental" apartments required on this site in early-2025..?
 
Last edited:
ZERO (0) underground vehicular parking in this new 80 DALE proposal, hence the larger surface lot...

1730240151847.png
 
Northern Light said:
From the Cover Letter:

View attachment 608212
View attachment 608213

Revised Site Plan:

View attachment 608214


Hmmm: Amount of at-grade parking is very high, and gives a parking ratio of 0.43.

The landscape next to the street seems a bit bloated...........but............hmmm.


View attachment 608215

What if the site were configured this way so it could support a second building of very similar scale while only losing a handful of parking spaces....?
Click to expand...
I see two additional buildings and so might the developers!
 
Going to CoA this week -
IMG_9396.jpeg
 
For the record, Councillor Ainslie has sent in a letter of objection because of the removal of the underground parking -
1733175242068.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
For the record, Councillor Ainslie has sent in a letter of objection because of the removal of the underground parking -
View attachment 616553
Click to expand...

I will note that Mr. Ainslie really ought to proof read a bit better............ "at the time of position' is clearly supposed to read 'at time of possession'.

***


That said, while I'm in favour of this development and generally supportive of less parking (though opposed to same on the surface); I'm inclined to agree that the change here doesn't fit in with the 'minor variance' requirements.

There's a substantive change in both quality (surface vs underground parking) and quantity (85% reduction)

I think its a real stretch to call that minor, and if that were to stand, I think the normal planning process is likely the more appropriate vehicle here.

We'll see what C of A does w/this.
 
Northern Light said:
I will note that Mr. Ainslie really ought to proof read a bit better............ "at the time of position' is clearly supposed to read 'at time of possession'.

***


That said, while I'm in favour of this development and generally supportive of less parking (though opposed to same on the surface); I'm inclined to agree that the change here doesn't fit in with the 'minor variance' requirements.

There's a substantive change in both quality (surface vs underground parking) and quantity (85% reduction)

I think its a real stretch to call that minor, and if that were to stand, I think the normal planning process is likely the more appropriate vehicle here.

We'll see what C of A does w/this.
Click to expand...
You and I usually disagree on "process"... ;)

Also, worth noting that Councillor Ainslie was the person who initiated the City of Toronto REMOVING default Parking-Minimums and supported it at Council in 2021.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1357080896768266240

THIS revised site at 80 DALE AVE is what reduced parking-minimums looks like, and asking an affordable rental housing provider to build over $20-MILLION plus in underground-parking in 2024 is an absolute "project-killer".
 
HousingNowTO said:
You and I usually disagree on "process"... ;)

Also, worth noting that Councillor Ainslie was the person who initiated the City of Toronto REMOVING default Parking-Minimums and supported it at Council in 2021.
Click to expand...

Which I whole heartedly support, and which I championed before the Councillor.

HousingNowTO said:
THIS revised site at 80 DALE AVE is what reduced parking-minimums looks like, and asking an affordable rental housing provider to build over $20-MILLION plus in underground-parking in 2024 is an absolute "project-killer".
Click to expand...

And as noted, I'm not opposed to reduce parking here at all; though the ratio might be a bit low for the site.

It is indeed a process question for me. Is the alternation 'minor' or 'substantive'......if the latter, then there is a process for that and C of A isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top