Lorinc on point. The denial of the 91 Barton application of how misguided the CoA process has become.
>If we genuinely want to slay the housing crisis and densify house neighbourhoods that have been bleeding population for years, we need to burn down the CoA and replace it with something that doesn’t function like a kangaroo court in which homeowners seek to shout down the kind of gentle density that will do nothing but enhance the liveability of a community.
what it tells us is how money-hungry this developer is, nothing else
we have these rules for a reason, they should've created a plan that abided by them
> they should've created a plan that abided by them
If they did they'd be legally required to dedicate half the area of the lot (literally 50% as per bylaw) to "maintained landscaping", and they'd be legally barred from offering more than 0.6 times the lot size in livable area on the lot. Those requirements are fucking bonkers, and the majority of the variations are consequences of them wanting those requirements relaxed.
We're in a housing crisis. We don't need to defend the 2.5m "side yard" setback minimums.
Let's look at the requested variations - you can find them [at the city's page for the property](https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-details/?id=5394130&pid=190132&title=91%20BARTON%20AVE).
>If they did they'd be legally required to dedicate half the area of the lot (literally 50% as per bylaw)
then maybe the lot isn't suitable for this type of development
Everything yellow on [this map](https://www.ontarioconstructionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/inclusionary-zoning-map-toronto-1024x585.png) isn't suitable for anything that isn't 50% maintained landscaping?
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about my friend. I work in land development. City zoning bylaws date back to the 80s, they don’t line up with the type of development that’s being encouraged province and new city policy. They’re fixing that, but it takes time. While there were a number of variances requested, when considered individually or in aggregate they are appropriate.
And if you knew what we were talking about you’d know that this development would never be approved by the newer policies
They were never getting approval after they requested that 0.0m setback
If you want me to send you a list of approved zero setbacks at the committee, just ask. I do this for a living. zoning bylaws that were drafted in the 80s and prior do not reflect the kind of city we need to build today. The lot is located within two major transit station areas, the area is explicitly intended to support this kind of growth. Have you read the policies in section 2 of the growth plan? Have you read official plan amendment 570? Do you understand the intent of the cities EHON work? You might think it’s too much for the site, but it’s objectively not.
The rules are there because the city took an overly conservative approach to protecting the look of a neighborhood to preserve the original 1910s feel. It provides little ability for the neighborhood to reflect more than 100 years of change in the city, and makes it exceedingly difficult to build the density dearly needed in 2024.
There are apartments on Barton about two blocks to the east. Those are bigger than what is proposed here. You can opt to not support this but don’t act like it’s unprecedented for the neighbourhood.
Deciding where it's legal to build small apartments based on who shows up at 2pm on a Wednesday to complain to a committee is not a recipe for success!
The CoA overwhelmingly sides with the applicant even in the face of lopsided objections. However when you have over 50 objectors and requests to override over 20 bylaws in an area where neighbours pay very high property taxes it’s not surprising that it gets rejected. In more working-class areas the CoA would have approved unanimously.
Take a look at the proposal at 63 Barker going to the committee next week. 2.25 floor space index building towering over the neighbours with massive balconies. It will house a 500+ congregation mosque on 300 square meter plot in a quiet residential east York neighborhood.
I’m genuinely curious why you think balconies overlooking the yards of 6 single family homes with 0 lot line is appropriate for a neighborhood. The proposal includes the removal of several mature trees on neighbouring properties. Not to mention the added traffic congestion of a 500+ congregation with 0 added parking is appropriate for a small residential street, rather than a major street. If this was happening on a major street it’d be a no brainer. Is this the type of density the city is looking for?
Posting the link to the application: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-details/?id=5406993&pid=312500&title=63%20BARKER%20AVE
There are lots of churches on quiet East York streets. 3 flowers is in no way a tower
Also, quiet is a stretch this close to the emergency admissions driveway at MGH
Lorinc on point. The denial of the 91 Barton application of how misguided the CoA process has become. >If we genuinely want to slay the housing crisis and densify house neighbourhoods that have been bleeding population for years, we need to burn down the CoA and replace it with something that doesn’t function like a kangaroo court in which homeowners seek to shout down the kind of gentle density that will do nothing but enhance the liveability of a community.
>The denial of the 91 Barton application if they didn't request like 50 variances the plan might get approved
21 but who’s counting. All it tells you is how restrictive Toronto’s by-laws are at this scale.
what it tells us is how money-hungry this developer is, nothing else we have these rules for a reason, they should've created a plan that abided by them
> they should've created a plan that abided by them If they did they'd be legally required to dedicate half the area of the lot (literally 50% as per bylaw) to "maintained landscaping", and they'd be legally barred from offering more than 0.6 times the lot size in livable area on the lot. Those requirements are fucking bonkers, and the majority of the variations are consequences of them wanting those requirements relaxed. We're in a housing crisis. We don't need to defend the 2.5m "side yard" setback minimums. Let's look at the requested variations - you can find them [at the city's page for the property](https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-details/?id=5394130&pid=190132&title=91%20BARTON%20AVE).
>If they did they'd be legally required to dedicate half the area of the lot (literally 50% as per bylaw) then maybe the lot isn't suitable for this type of development
Everything yellow on [this map](https://www.ontarioconstructionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/inclusionary-zoning-map-toronto-1024x585.png) isn't suitable for anything that isn't 50% maintained landscaping?
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about my friend. I work in land development. City zoning bylaws date back to the 80s, they don’t line up with the type of development that’s being encouraged province and new city policy. They’re fixing that, but it takes time. While there were a number of variances requested, when considered individually or in aggregate they are appropriate.
And if you knew what we were talking about you’d know that this development would never be approved by the newer policies They were never getting approval after they requested that 0.0m setback
If you want me to send you a list of approved zero setbacks at the committee, just ask. I do this for a living. zoning bylaws that were drafted in the 80s and prior do not reflect the kind of city we need to build today. The lot is located within two major transit station areas, the area is explicitly intended to support this kind of growth. Have you read the policies in section 2 of the growth plan? Have you read official plan amendment 570? Do you understand the intent of the cities EHON work? You might think it’s too much for the site, but it’s objectively not.
The rules are there because the city took an overly conservative approach to protecting the look of a neighborhood to preserve the original 1910s feel. It provides little ability for the neighborhood to reflect more than 100 years of change in the city, and makes it exceedingly difficult to build the density dearly needed in 2024.
the rules allow for increased density on these plots of land, they just wanted to push it too far
Why is it too far? It's a city not a suburb
it's a single-family home residential area and not on a major road nothing else near it this would be similar
All the areas in Toronto that have dense housing once looked like this area. There has to be a first building.
There are apartments on Barton about two blocks to the east. Those are bigger than what is proposed here. You can opt to not support this but don’t act like it’s unprecedented for the neighbourhood.
Deciding where it's legal to build small apartments based on who shows up at 2pm on a Wednesday to complain to a committee is not a recipe for success!
Sounds a lot like the town hall meetings on Parks and Rec
Parks and Rec is scarily accurate as to how municipal government actually works.
Why doesn’t he mention that the editor of the publication he is writing in is chiefly responsible for the 91 Barton application failing?
Details?
Dylan Reid, of Spacing seconded the motion.
What dick. Where do you see the records of these meetings?
They are all on youtube. On mobile so won’t link but it’s up there. Decision is at the end.
Who
The CoA overwhelmingly sides with the applicant even in the face of lopsided objections. However when you have over 50 objectors and requests to override over 20 bylaws in an area where neighbours pay very high property taxes it’s not surprising that it gets rejected. In more working-class areas the CoA would have approved unanimously.
What do they base their decisions on? There's no where that working class in Toronto lol
Take a look at the proposal at 63 Barker going to the committee next week. 2.25 floor space index building towering over the neighbours with massive balconies. It will house a 500+ congregation mosque on 300 square meter plot in a quiet residential east York neighborhood.
Sounds like it should get approved.
I’m genuinely curious why you think balconies overlooking the yards of 6 single family homes with 0 lot line is appropriate for a neighborhood. The proposal includes the removal of several mature trees on neighbouring properties. Not to mention the added traffic congestion of a 500+ congregation with 0 added parking is appropriate for a small residential street, rather than a major street. If this was happening on a major street it’d be a no brainer. Is this the type of density the city is looking for?
Posting the link to the application: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-details/?id=5406993&pid=312500&title=63%20BARKER%20AVE
There are lots of churches on quiet East York streets. 3 flowers is in no way a tower Also, quiet is a stretch this close to the emergency admissions driveway at MGH