Thanks @Northern Light.

Is this typical for a development of this size?
Would need to go back and do side-by-side comparisons of unit-count by type on the affordable units from pre-appeal counts until the current state.

If some or all of these TYNDALE Affordable Units are being steered to a specific not-for-profit partnership in North York (eg. Catholic faith-based affordable housing org), then that not-for-profit group might have detailed program-requirements for specific unit types - like clustered STUDIO units with shared supports for Seniors, etc.
 
I will admit to not having followed any of this, but I find the explanation of HousingNowTO to be suspect. I would be curious to understand how Bill 23 impacted this. Surely the truth in the matter is that the original proposal of 50% affordable was poorly planned economically. The developer appealed to the OMB, so they must have budgeted legals for this? The city opposed it, which means the developer did a poor job from the outset arguing their position.
There was a DEDICATED portion of Development Charges that was for "Housing Services" --- that stream of funding is now 100% gone... unless the Province fills that fiscal-hole. Same problem as the HOUSING NOW sites...

 
The City "opposed" it is a huge part of the problem at Tyndale Green --- where one of the developers is the former Chief Planner for the City...


The thing is though, when you look at the final proposal and when you read the City's objections, they had relatively little to do w/Nimby'ism and were 100% predictable.

Private road vs public road, Pops vs Park space, Ravine management. etc etc.

I mean these are all known policies and the starter version of Tyndale went against all of them.

The City actually pushed the height up on one building in order to secure a vision consistent w/current policy.

I really don't understand that, coming from Jenn. In the end, the City didn't lower the density at all, much to NIMBY consternation I'm sure.

So this was mostly avoidable at that level.

That said, let's be clear, the City could have approved this from the get-go and the neighbours would have appealed to the OLT and there was virtually no way they would have been appeasable.
 
There was a DEDICATED portion of Development Charges that was for "Housing Services" --- that stream of funding is now 100% gone... unless the Province fills that fiscal-hole. Same problem as the HOUSING NOW sites...
Are you suggesting this development was guaranteed upfront subsidies from the city? I thought development charges went to things like roads & sewers.
 
Are you suggesting this development was guaranteed upfront subsidies from the city? I thought development charges went to things like roads & sewers.
Yes, the development was guaranteed upfront subsidies & waivers ($56-MILLION) from the City via the OPEN DOOR program --- which was mostly funded/off-set via development charges before the Provincial changes in 2022.

[JUNE 2021] Creating New Affordable Rental Homes at 3377 Bayview Avenue
PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-168161.pdf

1682549478474.png

With the DEFAULT City Planning 'haggle' warning = "It is anticipated up to 752 affordable homes will be created. The number of potential affordable rental units is estimated at this point given that the necessary development application(s) have either not yet been filed or are currently under review by staff. Through the development review process and community consultation, an appropriate built form will be reached, which will ultimately determine the final number of affordable units."
 
That said, lets be clear, the City could have approved this from the get-go and the neighbours would have appealed to the OLT and there was virtually no way they would have been appeasable.
City Council should have asked for a MZO at Tyndale Green "as is " on the original application ---- but it would have been unlikely to have been signed by the Provincial Minister of Housing as the site is located inside a ON PC help MPP area of the City.
 
City Council should have asked for a MZO at Tyndale Green "as is " on the original application ---- but it would have been unlikely to have been signed by the Provincial Minister of Housing as the site is located inside a ON PC help MPP area of the City.

I can't agree. As much as I prioritize affordable housing, it can't come at the expense of other critical public policy objectives.

What the City prioritized and Jen knew this, wasn't expensive, it didn't impede the project or reduce density. That the proposal contravened key expectations just for the sake of doing so and in a way that made the proposal materially worse (and initially contravened TRCA rules as well) there was never any chance of this getting a free pass from the City 'as is' nor should there have been.

Markee flubbed on that score.

But again, had they done everything right, this still would have gone to the OLT because of the NIMBYs, making it something of a moot point.

In theory, I'd be supportive of an MZO here, had the proposal been properly structured, as it should have been, from day one.

However, even then, I'm loathe to undermine essential principles of democracy just for something I support; because if we do it for one good cause, why not all of them?

Let's just approve developments that deliver zero affordable housing or even demolish existing because they achieve some other high-minded objective (fighting climate change?, ecological restoration?, reducing crime?, promoting higher education? The list of public goods is endless and if everyone gets exempted from the rules, then there are none.

By all means, we need certain zoning reforms as long discussed and advocated for by yours truly among many others, by all means we need better public policy, but shutting down opposition to anything just because it's my preferred cause makes me very uneasy.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something? At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm not sure how Bill 23 killed these incentives. Don't think Bill 23 impacted the property taxes or planning fees. I think part of Bill 23 eliminated the development charges. If that is the case, the developer would have been exempt of the development charges regardless of whether Bill 23 waived them or the city waived them.
 
Am I missing something? At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm not sure how Bill 23 killed these incentives. Don't think Bill 23 impacted the property taxes or planning fees. I think part of Bill 23 eliminated the development charges. If that is the case, the developer would have been exempt of the development charges regardless of whether Bill 23 waived them or the city waived them.
...pre BILL-23, the "Development Charges for Housing Services" from OTHER developments in the City would have been used to off-set the CIty's "loss" on not charging the Fees and Property-Taxes on the Tyndale Site.

That funding model is no longer available to them now... until the Province actually provides back-fills the gap on those OLD "Development Charges for Housing Services" - which is still TBD.
 
The thing is though, when you look at the final proposal and when you read the City's objections, they had relatively little to do w/Nimby'ism and were 100% predictable.

Private road vs public road, Pops vs Park space, Ravine management. etc etc.

I mean these are all known policies and the starter version of Tyndale went against all of them.

Two points here. These are all, ultimately, qualitative things that are debatable. In my view, the city was wrong on all of them.

More importantly: why does it take three years to negotiate questions of urban design and siting? The design work required to address the city concerns can’t have taken more than a couple of months in total.

And if that was how things worked – the city and the developer settle out issues in focused meetings – this would have been approved before the pandemic when money was cheap.
 
Two points here. These are all, ultimately, qualitative things that are debatable. In my view, the city was wrong on all of them.

More importantly: why does it take three years to negotiate questions of urban design and siting? The design work required to address the city concerns can’t have taken more than a couple of months in total.

And if that was how things worked – the city and the developer settle out issues in focused meetings – this would have been approved before the pandemic when money was cheap.

Things didn't melt down over the City's concerns, but rather the stakeholder/working group .......(the NIMBYs).

Which is why things went to the OLT, by Markee's choice (but it would have happened later had they not).

There was no way around that.

That's unfortunate, but it's also a reality when proposing to take a low-rise pastoral site to mid-rise/hirise in an affluent community.

****

While we disagree on the City / Markee's disagreements as previously discussed; there was no added value to Markee in disagreeing, they were never going to win on those and would not have won on them at OLT either.

It is what it is. unfortunate and more about the NIMBY set here than anyone else.

But Markee didn't help matters by contravening things they knew the City would not ever accept and did not not when Jen was running Planning either.

Again, had they made the smart play, this was going to OLT either way; just might have got there faster.
 

After striking an agreement with the city this spring and reaching a settlement at the Ontario Land Tribunal in the summer, Markee Developments, a company co-founded by former Toronto chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat, expects to finally break ground on its first ever housing project next year.

Markee’s project, marketed as Tyndale Green, includes 1,510 units spread across 12 buildings at 3377 Bayview Ave., between Steeles Avenue East and Cummer Avenue. It is a collaboration with Tyndale University, the north Toronto private Christian university that is providing the land.

“It’s been incredibly exciting and challenging,” Keesmaat told StreetsofToronto.com of the project’s recent landmark. Some of those challenges, she explains, have been higher interest rates that lead to ballooning building at a time when Toronto’s housing crisis is only getting worse. “The sense of urgency for me has just become more apparent.” (Before getting shovels into the ground, Markee still needs approval on a site plan application as well as to obtain building permits.)

The initial proposal, submitted in June 2021, was for a 15-building development of roughly the same number of units but entirely comprised of rental apartments, with 50 per cent of the suites dedicated for affordable housing. However, the green-lit plan sees about a third of the units converted to condos and the overall share of affordable apartment drop to approximately 16 per cent.

A year-long delay with the OLT, coupled with rapidly rising interest rates, unfortunately resulted in fewer affordable units penciling, Keesmaat suggests. “[During] that period, where this was sitting at the OLT, there were 10 interest-rate hikes, so our borrowing costs in that time period for the overall project went up by $76 million,” she said.

Post City contacted the Bayview Woods Neighbourhood Association — whose members had previously been vocal in their opposition to the project — but did not hear back as of publishing.

Markee had appealed the development to the OLT in March last year after the city did not respond to the zoning and official plan amendments within the time frames laid out in provincial policy.

“It was not a simple approvals process,” said Keesmaat. “There were some bad-faith actors from the community who came forward in the process who quite frankly just didn’t want any new housing in the city.”

To Keesmaat, though, her development establishes the kind of new family-friendly community that the city needs more of. A café and market are going to be located in the heart of the site, and Tyndale Green will also include a daycare facility and two public parks, including a 2.7-acre green space fronting Bayview. That large park is an example of some of the positive changes that came from discussions with the city, says Keesmaat. The first plan, she notes, had only incorporated privately owned public space.

“All of the input from the city was incredibly valuable and useful. It made the plan stronger, which is always the best-case scenario when you have a very collaborative dynamic,” said Keesmaat.

While the site’s tallest towers reach heights of 24 and 15 storeys, respectively, the rest are 10 storeys or shorter, with most between six to eight storeys. “We’re really passionate about the gentle density.”

At least some housing advocates are glad that Tyndale Green can move ahead, but they also express disappointment at delays that they say resulted in less affordable housing getting delivered.

“We’re really happy to see this project proceed,” said Mark Richardson, technical lead at HousingNowTO, a volunteer organization that tracks affordable-housing developments in Toronto. “But we did leave over 500 units on the table because our processes are broken,” he added.
 

Back
Top