The West facing windows have been largely edited out. East-facing units retain their windows. I suspect the architect/developer has been informed that the property at the corner of Yonge and Wellesley is a candidate for future development.
 
Councillor Wong-Tam was unaware ? She was blind sided? ----> http://imgur.com/wWsXIsJ

A difference in ideology and/or priorities is one thing. Reasonable people can always come to a compromise. However, out an out lying when there really is not reason is just infuriating. It's always someone else fault.

I happen to know of the developer from a friend. He as well has not been able to get a straight answer from the councillor office for the past three years, but again, she didn't know. *shaking head*

Forgive my posting, I just needed to get that off my chest. ;-)


urbansuburban said:
i heard that the property was for sale since the beginning of 2011. I am sure most of the neighbourhood knew this. I am pretty sure KWT would have known as well. She also should have known that a developer would most likely be the buyer. She could have tried to designate it than before the sale. I am sure Wellspring wouldnt have cared since they would be leaving. why didnt she do it than? could it be that a heritage house wouldnt draw the same value for sale as an undesignated property? screw the future buyer but help out the current owner?

if she had tried to designate it while under the ownership of Wellspring, than any potential purchaser would have been aware and the final buyer would most likely be an end user who would have kept the building up. probably a law firm or other business.
Click to expand...
 
Dichter4ward27 said:
Councillor Wong-Tam was unaware ? She was blind sided? ----> http://imgur.com/wWsXIsJ

A difference in ideology and/or priorities is one thing. Reasonable people can always come to a compromise. However, out an out lying when there really is not reason is just infuriating. It's always someone else fault.

I happen to know of the developer from a friend. He as well has not been able to get a straight answer from the councillor office for the past three years, but again, she didn't know. *shaking head*

Forgive my posting, I just needed to get that off my chest. ;-)
Click to expand...

The second time in the last few days I've seen you quote a 2 year old post for the purpose of taking potshots at KWT. C'mon, dude.
 
Many don't care to blame the owners of these buildings, blame the City Councillor for not keeping her thumbs on about two thousand issues going on at any one time in her Ward.
 
Application: Temporary Structures Status: Not Started

Location: 81 WELLESLEY ST E
TORONTO ON M4Y 1H6

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 15 131380 TPS 00 TS Accepted Date: Mar 24, 2015

Project: Other Sales Pavilions

Description: Proposal for a temporary showroom for condominium sales for a period not exceeding three years from April 15, 2018. (dismantle by April 15, 2018)
 
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.TE4.9
Request for Direction Report - 81 Wellesley Street East - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications
Community Council Recommendations
The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1. City Council authorize the City Solicitor, together with City Planning staff and any other appropriate staff, to oppose the applicant's appeal respecting the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for 81 Wellesley Street East and attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in opposition to such appeal.

2. City Council authorize City Planning in consultation with the local Ward Councillor to secure services, facilities or matters pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act as may be required by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, should the proposal be approved in some form by the Ontario Municipal Board.

3. City Council authorize City staff to continue discussions with the applicant on a revised proposal which addresses the issues set out in the report (January 16, 2015) from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District.

4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor, together with City Planning and other appropriate staff, to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to oppose the appeal to Official Plan Amendment No. 183 (OPA No. 183), being the North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy 382 as it relates to 81 Wellesley Street East.
 
The city appeal is a cake-and-eat-it-too scenario: oppose the application, but secure Section 37 funding. It's quite easy to describe developers in unflattering terms of self-interest, but in fairness, the public zoning appeal/Section 37 process is risible.

Implementation of an updated city-wide zoning code would free councillors from this time-consuming game, and then, maybe, they would have time to pay more attention to heritage issues and other fine-grained details.
 
Pretty much all Request for Direction reports now include the Section 37 request, being that the City will go to the OMB to oppose the application, but should the applicant prevail, the OMB is requested to hold final approval until such time as a Section 37 agreement is worked out between the applicant and the City.

So the City is saying 'we don't want this, but if you're going to force it on us against our wishes, there's no reason that this developer should be able to get around a Section 37 contribution like every other developer going above and beyond the current zoning'.

That's not really cake-and-eat-it, that's just a statement that community improvements are important no matter how the approvals for a development are attained.

Yes, to avoid further appeals, updating zoning city-wide to increase allowed densities to around what the OMB would allow would be a good thing. Section 37 would have to be rewritten as a combination of per unit and per square metre (or something similar) formula so that the lengthy negotiation process could be replaced by every developer just making a simple calculation.

So far though, our City Councillors don't seem to have the stomach to increase zoning densities. It's a very tough sell in their wards.

42
 
College Park said:
The city appeal is a cake-and-eat-it-too scenario: oppose the application, but secure Section 37 funding. It's quite easy to describe developers in unflattering terms of self-interest, but in fairness, the public zoning appeal/Section 37 process is risible.

Implementation of an updated city-wide zoning code would free councillors from this time-consuming game, and then, maybe, they would have time to pay more attention to heritage issues and other fine-grained details.
Click to expand...

The City lost out on up to $1.5 million by not negotiating a Section 37 agreement for 60 Colborne, so they are basically forced to negotiate even if they are against the proposal
http://thebulletin.ca/omb-thumbs-nose-at-st-lawrence-nhood-priorities/
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2014/08/omb-approves-freed-developments-sixty-colborne-condos
 
I'd fully support a standard formula to replace Section 37. Developer contributions to the public sphere is a great idea, and it really does upgrade our communities.

My issue with the current system is this: Section 37 looks a lot like a bribe to the elected official and local community to alter really old rules. To see a legal claim claiming right to the "bribe" is hilarious.

On that note (rubbing my hands) - any idea of what Section 37 funding for this site would go to?
 
A large sign was erected this week (for Aragon, not the 81 Wellesley project) and trailers moved on site to eventually form the sales office. The trailers still have artwork for Enigma Lofts on them. The website advertised on the new sign doesn't lead to anything for 81 Wellesley St. E. yet.
www.aragon.ca/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top