[christiesplits]

Brampton's downtown is still in a regulatory floodplain and is subject to restrictions on residential development until the related works to remove it from the floodplain are complete.

Brampton very much envisions building up their downtown, there is just an order to these things.

Whoops. I meant Burlington in my first sentence! Your point taken.

 

[Sunnyside]

Whoops. I meant Burlington in my first sentence! Your point taken.

In that case, Burlington made the near-fatal mistake of putting their UGC where they didn’t actually want growth. MTSAs have sortof saved them from the worst of it (by acting as a ‘new downtown’), but there is perhaps ‘too much’ developer interest in downtown Burlington anyhow.

That’s not to say I don’t think development in downtown Burlington is a good idea- I do. But the City disagrees, despite cornering themselves into developing their core.

The drawback of Burlington’s approach is the growth framework for their MTSAs are less thought out than they would need to be- further pushing people to the nice parts of town. Oakville did things ‘right’- just put all the growth policy areas on the GO Station in an employment zone. No one bats an eye at 60 storeys there now.

 

[Northern Light]

In that case, Burlington made the near-fatal mistake of putting their UGC where they didn’t actually want growth. MTSAs have sortof saved them from the worst of it (by acting as a ‘new downtown’), but there is perhaps ‘too much’ developer interest in downtown Burlington anyhow.

That’s not to say I don’t think development in downtown Burlington is a good idea- I do. But the City disagrees, despite cornering themselves into developing their core.

The drawback of Burlington’s approach is the growth framework for their MTSAs are less thought out than they would need to be- further pushing people to the nice parts of town. Oakville did things ‘right’- just put all the growth policy areas on the GO Station in an employment zone. No one bats an eye at 60 storeys there now.

I would argue that Burlington's approach, such as it was..........was wilful blindness or apathy, until tall buildings starting popping up, particularly along the waterfront, willy nilly, in a fashion that degraded the public realm and garnered massive opposition.

Burlington should have been buying up the best sites for waterfront parkland and for green space along Rambo Creek. In doing so it could have carved out high quality bike trails, good public realm, natural transitions and buffers and then sold off surplus land to developers at a profit, while imposing some conditions around architectural quality and the illusion of human scale.

But instead, they buried their head in the sand and waited till properties were assembled, more difficult to purchase and at 3x the price if available......

 

[Sunnyside]

I would argue that Burlington's approach, such as it was..........was wilful blindness or apathy, until tall buildings starting popping up, particularly along the waterfront, will nilly, in a fashion that degraded the public realm and garnered massive opposition.

Burlington should have been buying up the best sites for waterfront parkland and for green space along Rambo Creek. In doing so it could have carved out high quality bike trails, good public realm, natural transitions and buffers and then sold off surplus land to developers at a profit, while imposing some conditions around architectural quality and the illusion of human scale.

But instead, they buried their head in the sand and waited till properties were assembled, more difficult to purchase and at 3x the price if available......

Precisely.

Burlington baffles me, if only because they have been swimming in money (comparatively speaking) and yet Council chose to pretend they didn’t need to plan instead of enabling an effective Planning Department (and the associated exercises). They could have afforded to do what’s needed, with the knowledge of what kind of care and rigour is needed in such a… hostile community.

Not only is it bad planning, it’s poor governance that has created bad will and animosity with the already-apprehensive public towards urban matters. It will be significantly harder trying to fix things now.

Not to introduce too much local exceptionalism, but it feels downstream of the unaddressed particularities of the more established urban areas in the GTHA/GGH. Theres enough localization that they feel they can do things their own way, for better or worse. Their place in a greater region is not apparent till it is too late.

 

[Northern Light]

A piece in the Globe today notes a snafu that's happening in respect of multiplex permissions the City passed some time ago:

Definition of ‘multiplex’ snarls developments, builders say

The City of Toronto’s ground-breaking zoning and planning changes were aimed at breaking down restrictive zoning rules, but some novel interpretations are making things complicated again

www.theglobeandmail.com

So the gist is this..............

The City passed permissive rules around converting SFH into up to 4 units, as-of-right (multiplex).

But several applications have proposed doing this type of work to two semi-detached homes, side by side, where the result is 8 units with a shared party-wall.

Several, but not all City Planners are interpreting such applications as Apartment buildings, reading that they are one building with 8 units, rather than 2 buildings with 4 units.

This is causing Planning to turn some proposals down, some are then having to appeal to the Committee of Adjustment and others are simply being jettisoned as the cost/difficulty exceeds the applicant's tolerance.

****

Clearly, to my mind, Council did not intend for two side by side multiplexes on discrete properties to be read as a single apartment building. (the problem here is that apartments are still typically prohibited in many areas, while in others they come with development charges and other obstacles vs multiplex housing )

The problem lies with the way certain properties are defined in the zoning by-law.

While it is important, ultimately to fix the wording here, that may take a moment, and I think Council should take the step of providing 'direction to interpret' pending any resolution here.

I take many issues with Councillor Bradford, but he seems to be on the right side of this particular issue and working to resolve it, which is to his credit; assuming anyone still takes his calls.

 

[Sunnyside]

A piece in the Globe today notes a snafu that's happening in respect of multiplex permissions the City passed some time ago:

Definition of ‘multiplex’ snarls developments, builders say

The City of Toronto’s ground-breaking zoning and planning changes were aimed at breaking down restrictive zoning rules, but some novel interpretations are making things complicated again

www.theglobeandmail.com

So the gist is this..............

The City passed permissive rules around converting SFH into up to 4 units, as-of-right (multiplex).

But several applications have proposed doing this type of work to two semi-detached homes, side by side, where the result is 8 units with a shared party-wall.

Several, but not all City Planners are interpreting such applications as Apartment buildings, reading that they are one building with 8 units, rather than 2 buildings with 4 units.

This is causing Planning to turn some proposals down, some are then having to appeal to the Committee of Adjustment and others are simply being jettisoned as the cost/difficulty exceeds the applicant's tolerance.

****

Clearly, to my mind, Council did not intend for two side by side multiplexes on discrete properties to be read as a single apartment building. (the problem here is that apartments are still typically prohibited in many areas, while in others they come with development charges and other obstacles vs multiplex housing )

The problem lies with the way certain properties are defined in the zoning by-law.

While it is important, ultimately to fix the wording here, that may take a moment, and I think Council should take the step of providing 'direction to interpret' pending any resolution here.

I take many issues with Councillor Bradford, but he seems to be on the right side of this particular issue and working to resolve it, which is to his credit; assuming anyone still takes his calls.

I found this whole situation strange. Shouldn’t the planners all be on the same page? If not in the literal subjective interpretation of bylaws, then at least with the intention of these new permissions. I would understand if the latter isnt from planners, or if they just didn’t account for what applicants might propose; then, this might just be teething issues. But It certainly reads like a schism within.

 

[Northern Light]

I found this whole situation strange. Shouldn’t the planners all be on the same page? If not in the literal subjective interpretation of bylaws, then at least with the intention of these new permissions. I would understand if the latter isnt from planners, or if they just didn’t account for what applicants might propose; then, this might just be teething issues. But It certainly reads like a schism within.

It really comes down to choosing not to amend a definition inside the zoning by-law.

I don't think there was any mal intent here..........

The thing is, when you tweak certain definitions they have knock-on effects...........so some folks obviously made the argument........."We don't need to open that can of worms". The thing is, other planners who weren't in on this conversation are interpreting the rules differently.

Remember City Planning is a very large department, and the people on different 'reform teams' are a subset of the department. The reforms don't typically involved department-wide discussion/meetings.

 

[Sunnyside]

It really comes down to choosing not to amend a definition inside the zoning by-law.

I don't think there was any mal intent here..........

The thing is, when you tweak certain definitions they have knock-on effects...........so some folks obviously made the argument........."We don't need to open that can of worms". The thing is, other planners who weren't in on this conversation are interpreting the rules differently.

Remember City Planning is a very large department, and the people on different 'reform teams' are a subset of the department. The reforms don't typically involved department-wide discussion/meetings.

Ah. So essentially they hoped everyone might get the same memo, but they didn’t, and now we need to update the bylaws to get it across. Fair enough.

I wouldn’t have necessarily called it malicious, as much as it was a fairly stringent and the *most* conservative reading of the bylaw. Perhaps from those prone to doing so, but thats neither here nor there. It’s exactly what you need to iron out if you don’t show everyone a PowerPoint explaining things.

This is foreseeable with any new bylaw rules, but it’s certainly hard to pinpoint exactly what the issues will be. Glad we ironed this out at least!

 

[Northern Light]

The Midrise zoning changes previously discussed passed at Committed with Amendments:

 

[alexandthegreen]

So the example of 58-60 McNairn Ave. is interesting. I am wondering if it is falling victim to having the application to sever, and the Minor Variances being included in a single application? Since the application to sever is included planning is reading the property as being under a single owner which means it is 1 building? Whereas if the application to sever was first, and the property ownership split they could have applied for 2 separate variances for the 2 multiplexes and it would have been read as 2 buildings then under separate ownership? If that is the case it would not be the first project which has fallen victim under property ownership rules for adjacent properties under the same ownership.....

 

[Northern Light]

So the example of 58-60 McNairn Ave. is interesting. I am wondering if it is falling victim to having the application to sever, and the Minor Variances being included in a single application? Since the application to sever is included planning is reading the property as being under a single owner which means it is 1 building? Whereas if the application to sever was first, and the property ownership split they could have applied for 2 separate variances for the 2 multiplexes and it would have been read as 2 buildings then under separate ownership? If that is the case it would not be the first project which has fallen victim under property ownership rules for adjacent properties under the same ownership.....

I'll let @innsertnamehere have at that one.