ProjectEnd said:
This got very interesting yesterday at TEYCC. If you've got headphones at work, it's well-worth listening in:


In short, there's a bit of Staff infighting going on here. Planning are begrudgingly accepting of this while Heritage wants to elevate the status of the three houses from a 'C' to a 'B', thereby making demolition almost impossible. KWT and other Councillors weren't impressed that Staff would allow an applicant to go through a two year planning process with something like 14 meetings with the community only to take this position at the very end. A lack of transparency and certainty in the process is not only a deterrent, it could be construed as illegal.

Interesting stuff for sure. It's now going to Council without a recommendation. KWT has advised that Lintern (not by name) get his troops in line before the 23rd.
Click to expand...

Just a few tiny nits to pick here. First is that only 7 Dale is proposed to be elevated from C to B. Quote from the June 13 Urban Design (Heritage) report: "In addition, staff are of the opinion that 7 Dale Avenue was classified in error as a category C building. At the time of the HCD coming into force, it was unknown that Architect Gordon Sinclair Adamson had designed the property or that the eminent landscape firm, Dunington-Grubb, had prepared the original landscape design. This report recommends that the SRHCD study be revised to reflect this new information and that the rating of the property be elevated to a B category. B category buildings are intended to be vigorously defended against demolition." https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-116822.pdf

Second is that you're correct that it's going to Council Without Recs, but I thought I saw Councillor Wong-Tam put up an amendment which was adopted which directed the Chief Planner to present a final recommendation at Council. But it's not showing up in TMMIS.

Finally I do not agree that it could be construed as illegal for an applicant to be led in one direction and then to have that direction change, especially when that change is rooted in a specific policy-based argument. I think this is bad process and practice that invites objection, but not illegal. Heritage staff should have identified this issue with the potential misclassification of 7 Dale as a C instead of a B (which obviously it should have been, given its provenance) much earlier and identified this as a sticking point. But a landowner proposing a land use change does so at their own risk and reward, and such a proposal is subject to the decisions of the approval authorities. Investing time and money guarantees nothing nor should it guarantee anything.
 
Last edited:
Every time I come across this proposal I have to laugh. If there were a phrase dictionary this should appear beside 'money talks', or 'wealthy privilege'. Compared to the other stuff that gets torn down across TO every month this must be the definition of elites using their time and resources to get their way.
 
"Settlement plans" have now been uploaded to the City's site:

Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.38.53 AM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.40.20 AM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.40.36 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.38.53 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.38.53 AM.png
    322.9 KB · Views: 1,491
  • Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.40.20 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.40.20 AM.png
    295 KB · Views: 1,464
  • Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.40.36 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.40.36 AM.png
    317 KB · Views: 1,516
I’m glad to see this has been settled. A minor and architecturally irrelevant literary and historical note: noted authour and amateur pugilist Morley Callaghan lived in a house across the road from this site. The amateur pugilist bit is that in Paris in the 20’s Callaghan was reported to have knocked down fellow writer Ernest Hemingway in a specially arranged match. Hemingway and Callaghan knew each other from Hemingway’s time at the Toronto Star. (The timing of this seems awkward to me.) Hemingway was reputedly furious about the result of the match, not so much about the knockdown, but because the amateur referee had inadvertently let the round go on much too long. The inattentive referee was F. Scott Fitzgerald.

I am nevertheless sorry for the loss of 7 Dale. It was a very distinguished structure and contrary to a post earlier in the thread, had been beautifullly maintained, according to a credible source.

My apologies to the moderators if this is too far off topic.
 
Last edited:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.CC1.25

The settlement has been endorsed by Council:

"In the context of a settlement, City Planning staff recommends that Council direct City staff to continue discussions with the applicant, and authorize the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to support the Revised Proposal at the LPAT. Staff are also recommending that a review of the current property ratings found within the North and South Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines be reviewed to ensure that all properties are rated appropriately."
 
I am very impressed that Community and Heritage planning were courageous and open-minded enough to approve this proposal, particularly in this neighbourhood and given the level of attention from the community. This is a big win for sensible planning in Toronto.
 
Three years and three months to settle this? Sensible left the building long ago.

42
 
The two Rosedale residents' associations are appealing this to the LPAT — this fundraising letter was pushed through my door today. Suffice it to say I won't be contributing $10,000 (or even $1) to kill what I think is a pretty good development.

SRRA Letter.jpg
 
I would literally take a week of vacation to camp out at the Board and watch this shitshow go down.

Not that these fools are hurting for cash, but to spend half a mil ($350K seems low) fighting a development that has been provisionally settled with the City is utter lunacy. I'm very curious as to which expert witnesses the RA's have retained.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top