Section 37 is gone now too.. I'm not convinced that the community benefits charge will fail to replace it in terms of financing these types of things however.
 
WislaHD said:
The bike path is in the OP. The 10% affordable residential portion is from S.37.

I don't think the OMB would have affected the above two things. As for the removal of building 6, we saw many large developments be reduced in scope and magnitude under the old OMB rules.
Click to expand...
With the old OMB you're right but with the new OMB, the affordable residential portion and removal of building 6 would have definitely been affected. Details are trickling out with the new OMB since the province (as per usual) has been so vague with what will be affected.

I'm very skeptical of the community benefits charge, to the point I think it will significantly and adversely impact what was once known as Section 37.
 
We shall see as details are made clearer. Unlike development charges and the like, the development industry enjoys paying S.37 because it is a density bonus, meaning they can get towers approved with the blessing of City Planning at denser and taller than would otherwise be permitted - OMB or no OMB.

DoFo's government isn't doing this because they are policy wizards, these changes are assuredly coming directly from groups like Realpac and Toronto Board of Trade. Their objectives isn't to make life more difficult for developers by removing what makes S.37 good.

(I actually think the point of these changes were more so to incorporate S.42 within S.37 than to alter how S.37 works, is my speculation.)
 
The point of the CBC is to make section 37 contributions predicatable. Section 37 right now is a wild negotiation of luck and skill.

section 37 also has the bad habit of being an extreme deterrent to municipalities from upzoning. An as of right development is a development that doesn’t have any kick backs for councillor slush funds.
 
Does it even make sense to spend section 37 on something so narrowly focused as affordable housing. Park expansions and improvements make sense because new residents need to be accomodated, but with affordable housing only a small number of individuals get the benefit, .Taking money away from community improvements and bringing in even more residents will only put a strain on existing infrastructure.
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
Does it even make sense to spend section 37 on something so narrowly focused as affordable housing. Park expansions and improvements make sense because new residents need to be accomodated, but with affordable housing only a small number of individuals get the benefit, .Taking money away from community improvements and bringing in even more residents will only put a strain on existing infrastructure.
Click to expand...
It's a legitimate question to ask. I'd counter that housing people takes strain off of social services.

But then it becomes a question of what should be funded with S. 37 and what shouldn't, given that affordable housing ostensibly can tap into other public funds (such as CMHC) whereas community improvements would have to look to property taxes, if not S. 37.
 
While I don't think the CBC as currently planned has all things right, the direction it is taking is badly needed. The way they are handling its calculation through a percent of land value is problematic for cities other than Toronto which have much lower land values, and the inability for municipalities to forcefully secure additional land for park land in exchange for reduced CBC payments is also an issue - but these can be fixed before it is implemented.

The idea of a simple payment for community benefits is a great one. The province needs to leave it up to the city on how to spend it - if they want an increased parkland dedication to provide a park as a public benefit, great. If they want to use it for affordable housing, sure. If it's for a new bike trail, go for it. Whatever is deemed necessary.
 
The trick will be in leaving Toronto with a system that nets as much funding in the future as it is getting now… my confidence is not high that will happen.

42
 
Section 37 provisions since there was some discussion earlier in the thread about Sec 37 and Bill 108 implications.

e. a Section 37 agreement has been executed and registered to the subject property, to secure the following matters:

i. The owner shall provide affordable rental housing units on the subject site, equal to a value of $6,000,000.00 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, or provide a $6,000,000.00 financial contribution to the Affordable Housing Capital Revolving Fund in lieu of the affordable rental housing units being provided on the subject site.

ii. If taken as a cash contribution, the $6,000,000.00 contribution referred to in Section (i) above shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with Statistics Canada's Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, calculated from the date of the LPAT decision to the date of payment. All cash contributions will be payable prior to issuance of the first above-grade building permit.

f. The following matters are also recommended to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement as a legal convenience to support the proposed development:

i. The owner agrees to implement above base park improvements to the proposed parkland on the west side of the site, to be funded by a combination of development charge credits and any financial considerations required in lieu of the parkland dedication shortfall, in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act, as of the date of this report;

ii. The owner agrees to construct a multi-use path at a minimum width of four metres, located on private property along the rail corridor at the south side of the site, to be offset by development charge credits;

iii. The owner agrees to maintain, at the owners cost, the multi-use path referred to in Section ii. above, clear of any debris, snow and ice and also to be responsible for all capital maintenance costs;

iv. The owner agrees to, at the owner's cost, design and implement improvements to the southern terminus of the Tecumseth Street right-of-way above the base condition, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

v. The owner agrees that, of the residential market units provided on the site, a minimum of 20% and 10% will be provided as two-bedroom units and three-bedroom units respectively;

vi. The owner agrees to submit, and thereafter implement, a construction management plan to address such matters as wind, noise, dust, street closures, parking and laneway uses and access. Such plan shall be to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, in consultation with the local Councillor and shall be submitted prior to the commencement of any shoring and excavation work;

vii. The owner agrees to use reasonable efforts to secure affordable rent for additional units within the proposed building, beyond those referred to in Section e. i. above, through Federal, Provincial and/or Municipal funding programs which may become available;

viii. The owner agrees to provide a minimum of one times the area of the lot (approximately 19,480 square metres) as residentially compatible employment space;

ix. The owner agrees to implement any mitigation measures as identified through the review of the Site Plan application to mitigate impacts from the adjacent City Works Yard;



The site is also being used for a couple of Nuit Blanche installations iirc.
 
Sept 5, 2019

Before asphalt ...
fullsizeoutput_2cab.jpeg




DSC00874.JPG




fullsizeoutput_2ca9.jpeg
 
Amare said:
I would have preferred if the city took hold of the land for a future extension of Front Street. It would have made for a great alternative alignment (since they abandoned the original alignment by allowing development to proceed at the railway triangle).

But of course the city is pretty miserable at planning things these days, so I'm sure the though never crossed their minds.
Click to expand...
The future of the city is transit and pedestrians. The love affair with a potential Front street extension ends now!
 
416ForLife said:
The future of the city is transit and pedestrians. The love affair with a potential Front street extension ends now!
Click to expand...
The thing is...building it would have made transit for everyone a whole heck of a lot smoother than the way things are right now.

Why you're bringing up a comment that was made almost 4 years ago right now is beyond me though.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top