3194-3206 Dundas St West: LPAT appeal | Gord Perks

gordperks.ca gordperks.ca


3194-3206 Dundas St West: LPAT appeal​


I wanted to give you an important update on the development proposal at 3194-3206 Dundas St West. I have been informed by the City Clerk’s Office and our Planning Department that earlier this week the proponent appealed their application to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT), formerly known as the OMB.

As you may remember in December 2019 a pre-application meeting was held for this potential development site, with a formal application being submitted in June 2020. Following the preliminary report, community consultation, and comments from City Staff, the proponent submitted new plans in December 2020. While this update addressed some of the City’s issues, major outstanding concerns remain, including the massing of the building and proximity to neighbouring properties. These concerns have yet to be addressed by the proponent.

City Planning Staff are still open to finding a solution with the applicant, and discussions can continue up until the hearing. Should the applicant and the City fail to reach an agreement prior to the hearing, a negative staff report will be sent to Council, directing City Legal to fight this case at the LPAT. While the scheduling of a hearing is at the discretion of the LPAT, due to the slowdown at the beginning of the pandemic, we are finding most cases are being heard a full year after an appeal is made.

As always, we will let you know of further information as it becomes available. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Best regards,

Gord
Click to expand...
 
Tim1234 said:
How does a project like this need to go to LPAT to get approval? Seems like such a waste of resources for a city planning staff that is already over worked and under staffed.
Click to expand...
It is indeed a waste. But the narrative around how the neighbourhood and the developer have interacted around this proposal has not captured the nuance of the challenges involved. From the beginning, I think, most neighbours of this proposal (disclosure, I am one of them) have accepted this proposal as both necessary, positive and inevitable. That said, while the inevitability of the proposal is a given that shouldn't mean that developers should just get exactly what they propose. Neighbours had what I think were legitimate concerns around height, setback, privacy, laneway etc. that the developer was just frankly uninterested and unwilling to make any concessions on. The City had similar concerns and that is why it went to OLT. I'm positive (but have no evidence of) that this will be settled in advance of going to the hearing in the developer's clear favour. Unfortunately what I think gets missed in these conversations when they get cast in binary terms of pro or anti development, NIMBY vs YIMBY, is that even when the approval of developments should be easier - that should not mean concerns or issues of the existing neighbours need be ignored.
 
Shothing said:
It is indeed a waste. But the narrative around how the neighbourhood and the developer have interacted around this proposal has not captured the nuance of the challenges involved. From the beginning, I think, most neighbours of this proposal (disclosure, I am one of them) have accepted this proposal as both necessary, positive and inevitable. That said, while the inevitability of the proposal is a given that shouldn't mean that developers should just get exactly what they propose. Neighbours had what I think were legitimate concerns around height, setback, privacy, laneway etc. that the developer was just frankly uninterested and unwilling to make any concessions on. The City had similar concerns and that is why it went to OLT. I'm positive (but have no evidence of) that this will be settled in advance of going to the hearing in the developer's clear favour. Unfortunately what I think gets missed in these conversations when they get cast in binary terms of pro or anti development, NIMBY vs YIMBY, is that even when the approval of developments should be easier - that should not mean concerns or issues of the existing neighbours need be ignored.
Click to expand...
let's hope it is settled where the community and developer win
 
Wonton Soup said:
let's hope it is settled where the community and developer win
Click to expand...
A settlement proposal by the developer has been made and is coming up for a vote at council this week. If the City votes in favour of the proposal I'm skeptical that the community will feel like they got anything out of it The settlement does not offer any meaningful movement on the community's objections. Developer's game the system by coming in with proposals they know are over the top and then come back with a revision which makes them appear "reasonable." It's not exactly a good faith exchange between developers and community's. That said, developers may feel like they have to do that to work around nimbyism. Either way the process is flawed.
 
Shothing said:
A settlement proposal by the developer has been made and is coming up for a vote at council this week. If the City votes in favour of the proposal I'm skeptical that the community will feel like they got anything out of it The settlement does not offer any meaningful movement on the community's objections. Developer's game the system by coming in with proposals they know are over the top and then come back with a revision which makes them appear "reasonable." It's not exactly a good faith exchange between developers and community's. That said, developers may feel like they have to do that to work around nimbyism. Either way the process i
Click to expand...
completely agree here. It's always the community who gets shafted - from this view we are short of housing...... we are short of affordable housing and there are plenty of luxury condos for sale. Indeed the process is completely flawed and it isnt fiar. Do you know if council adopted it and what they adopted?
 
I really struggle to see how an 8 storey mid rise building is unfair to the "community", whoever they are in this circumstance. You're never going to get everything you ask for when it comes to public consultation and engagement - just because you're not getting what you want does not necessarily mean your concerns were ignored. Ultimately, homeowners in the area hold all the cards and can cash out on a hot real estate market at any moment and move to a smaller community with less development pressure than Toronto.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
I really struggle to see how an 8 storey mid rise building is unfair to the "community", whoever they are in this circumstance. You're never going to get everything you ask for when it comes to public consultation and engagement - just because you're not getting what you want does not necessarily mean your concerns were ignored. Ultimately, homeowners in the area hold all the cards and can cash out on a hot real estate market at any moment and move to a smaller community with less development pressure than Toronto.
Click to expand...
Hey - not sure if you're referring to my comment above in yours but, if so, I just wanted to make a few clarifications. I never said 8 storeys was unfair and never referred to height as the most meaningful issue that the community brought up. You wrote: "just because you're not getting what you want does not necessarily mean your concerns were ignored." Yup, agreed. Don't think I ever suggested differently. My point was that as we enter into an era where more and more mid and high rise will enter into traditionally low rise areas, there has to be a system where there is some for of reciprocity between developers and neighbours. In this case, there was none, and the development will go forward almost exactly as it was originally proposed. Finally, you write the homeowners holds all the cards and can just sell up and move - this is a ridiculous statement on many levels that just seeks to dismiss meaningful critique or dialogue.
 
Shothing said:
as we enter into an era where more and more mid and high rise will enter into traditionally low rise areas, there has to be a system where there is some for of reciprocity between developers and neighbours.
Click to expand...

I mean, this is very much presenting subjective opinion as objective fact, and it is very much debatable. Just because people feel affronted by a shift in standard operating procedure doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect accommodations, whether large or small.
 
ADRM said:
I mean, this is very much presenting subjective opinion as objective fact, and it is very much debatable. Just because people feel affronted by a shift in standard operating procedure doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect accommodations, whether large or small.
Click to expand...
Ok, sure, I'll bite. What I presented was very much an opinion, not at all masquerading as fact. If you read carefully what you quoted from me it is clearly an aspirational statement for a system where developers and neighbourhoods can come together. I also agree with you entirely that just because people may disagree with a process doesn't mean they are entitled to accommodation. I surely did not suggest that "everyone needs to get something out of the process and that compromise, no matter what, is the order of the day." That said, the idea that I floated - that there should be a sense of reciprocity in this process - is surely not so controversial, but maybe I am wrong.
 
Shothing said:
Ok, sure, I'll bite. What I presented was very much an opinion, not at all masquerading as fact. If you read carefully what you quoted from me it is clearly an aspirational statement for a system where developers and neighbourhoods can come together. I also agree with you entirely that just because people may disagree with a process doesn't mean they are entitled to accommodation. I surely did not suggest that "everyone needs to get something out of the process and that compromise, no matter what, is the order of the day." That said, the idea that I floated - that there should be a sense of reciprocity in this process - is surely not so controversial, but maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Fair enough -- it certainly wasn't my intention to misquote you. On your latter point -- there should be a sense of reciprocity -- is the substance of what I'm putting my finger on. It's absolutely a nice sentiment, but there are other limitations and realities at play that complicate the picture. Personally, I have an issue with it at a foundational, conceptual level: it supposes that new housing development is something that inherently needs to be mitigated, rather than an amenity in itself that should be welcomed, or at the very least neutral.

Every setback, every stepback, every height chop, every angular plane, and so on -- each of those elements typically does one or more of three things: 1) Reduces the number of people who have the opportunity to call that building home; 2) Reduces the livability of some of those homes; and 3) Imposes new costs on the development that will either be passed on to the new homeowners or kill the viability of a new housing project entirely. That is just a simple reality of development economics and design, one that I think very few people have an understanding of, and one which as a result poisons the well of almost every debate about housing.

Compromise is always a nice thing to achieve, but it needs to be understood that it comes at a cost that has a much more nuanced imposition than just "developer x will just make less money as a result."
 
Last edited:
Shothing said:
That said, the idea that I floated - that there should be a sense of reciprocity in this process - is surely not so controversial, but maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are wrong, but I think things become much more nuanced when dealing w small midrise projects, and a developer that is known for starting with realistic and approvable plans. Versus the typical shock and awe developer massive application and then make adjustments to ensure the community/planning/councillor et al. feel like they have power and played a role in the process.
 
Tim1234 said:
I don't think you are wrong, but I think things become much more nuanced when dealing w small midrise projects, and a developer that is known for starting with realistic and approvable plans. Versus the typical shock and awe developer massive application and then make adjustments to ensure the community/planning/councillor et al. feel like they have power and played a role in the process.
Click to expand...
Agreed absolutely. In fact the whole point is that there has to be room for nuance, too often it gets lost on both sides of an arguments that tend to get polarized quickly.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top