Toronto 175 Cummer | 10.49m | 3s | City of Toronto | Montgomery Sisam

dustcollector said:
an average listener could be completely missing all the nuance of how lawyers and experts play their game together.
Click to expand...
dustcollector said:
my sense is that Sean is far too ignorant and biassed to be trusted for getting any sense of what was happening there
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Sean is an actual planner who appears as an expert witness at the OLT? I wouldn't exactly say he's ignorant of the OLT process....
I can't speak to the content of his tweets as I can't see them (Twitter is all scuffed; thanks elon) but to say that he's an "average listener" who doesn't know how the OLT works is just incorrect.
 
dustcollector said:
Sean truly thought he's describing what he heard, but humans can be so clouded by bias that they distort or cherrypick what they're hearing. this was an interesting example of cognitive dissonance, projection and fantasy, being presented as 'reporting'.
Click to expand...

dustcollector said:
while listening i found that both sides were presenting a range of reasonable and convincing things for the adjudicator to consider.
Click to expand...
This is because you clearly aren't a planner. The planner witness for Willowdale was arguing that the zoning should be changed to restrict the lands occupancy to seniors only (restricting a land's use to prevent vulnerable people from living there is called 'people zoning' and that isn't legal because it's discrimatory).

This is why when you look at the zoning on existing long term care facilities or seniors residents buildings they will be zoned like Residential Apartments or something else that allows for several different uses (including, but not only limited to, a seniors community house or retirement homes). Any restrictions on age would be from the organization running the building or the definition of a particular use but not the entire zoning itself. And they would still need to comply with the human rights code and to be able to justify those restrictions.

The appellant's witness provided no evidence that this was an incompatible use to have next to a seniors building. Their only meaningful complaint was the loss of open space but the area already has lots of green space and the land was not even designated open space.

Overall I did not find they made a convincing argument. Especially given they were both arguing against the loss of open space and at the same time were saying they wouldn't object to the rezoning being permitted and the exact same size of building if it restricted any occupancy to only seniors. You can’t say you are fine with losing open space and in the same hearing complain about the loss of open space.
 
thank you for explanations to help understand what they were arguing, and how solid their premises were. however there have also been many indications throughout this situation that the site is already currently zoned for seniors only. it might be archaic and unliked by planner, but it's been one of the details that has been part of the decision making from the start - Filion said openly he was trying to get the new supportive housing designated as seniors only (to fit with it's existing zoning), and then the city planner was saying the city wanted it changed (because they consider it discriminatory). in council session it was also questioned by a council member how this is different than other sites, for example "Indigenous only" which also zones for people, not use, and counsel had no specific answer for that

this is why i was saying Sean's twitter narrative is unreliable (also, he is totally free to call it however he wants, twitter is not a tribunal -personally i found his take just overall snide in tone, and reductive, which is why i think it's unrepresentative of what happened in the tribunal... but very typical for twitter tone). i recall the tribunal explored the seniors designation in more detail, saying there are exceptions to the issues of discriminatory use, something like when the population being served is vulnerable. also, the lawyers were saying some subtle things about possible effects that could come about from various decisions the adjudicator could make, like what it woudl mean for many other sites with an existing apartment on it, if this decision chose to override it's prior designation and force this to go ahead

thanks again for the more nuanced explanations about what happened. i am simply a citizen who is learning about civic processes through this situation. i would like the supportive housing to be built, so it's been disturbing to see how botched this process is, and how polarized the discourse is - like, when obvious mess ups have occurred, it took a long time for people on both political sides to both together try calling out the incompetence and accountability that's made this whole situation so wasteful. sadly, with the youtube videos taken down, it's now more unclear about what exactly what was said, and even with this seniors designation i think there was a lo more nuance going on, that's lost in the reductive takes on sean's twitter. whatever it is, at this point we all just wait for the OLT decision, but thank you to anybody who has helped educate about civic process through this situation
 
is the modular housing built at 540 Cedarvale housing seniors only?

"Cedarvale will specialize in housing single seniors exiting homelessness or with insecure housing. Residents will have access to experienced staff in the building 24/7, consisting of professionals who are trained to support vulnerable seniors to improve their health and wellbeing."

www.toronto.ca

Mayor Tory announces opening of 59 new permanent modular homes at 540 Cedarvale Ave.

News Release November 15, 2022 Today, on the first official day of the new Toronto City Council term, Mayor John Tory announced the opening of 59 new modular homes with support services for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Mayor Tory was joined for the announcement by...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
 
Allandale25 said:
^ have you had the opportunity to check the zoning for the site?
Click to expand...
for 175 Cummer, yes - during the virtual community sessions it was stated by the city staff multiple times that the zoning is for seniors only, and they wanted that changed

for the Cedarvale site, no, but if it isn't zoned for seniors then i find that even more disturbing. why? it is in Brad Bradford's ward, and he has been criticizing the idea of having 175 cummer for seniors only. it is appealing for a councillour because it assures that the people perceived as potentially violent or dangerous (young men) would not be there. so, how did he get the one in his own ward to have only seniors? and, how can one of the sites clearly already be operating that way, and then vilify the idea that this other one is seeking a similar situation?

this is why i am so dismayed by the entire situation ... all y'all "professional planners" are going on about how it's discriminatory and should be impossible (+ morally denounced as pure evil) but seem unaware (or not openly acknowledging) that the city is ALREADY DOING IT THAT WAY!!! it's almost as if people have some preconceived idea that they want a specific result, and will just spout out rhetoric to push to make it that way

meanwhile, the other people involved:
-housing secretariat = taken to task by city council for having mismanaged so much of the rapid housing initiative (expenses doubled, sites not properly inspected, purchased materials in a breach of contract and led to $$$$ wasted for storage + political mess)
-former councillor = called everybody a bigot if they have a different idea
-former mayor = signed an approval on the thing when it breached the contract terms (get zoning permission before purchasing)
-policy advisor beuraucrat = in community consultation basically said "in my role i should not be making political statements", but then when given the soapbox made statements about how the consultation shoudl be open to all people across the city, thus shutting out voices of people who live near it and would have their community changed
-moderators for the consultation = owned by former school trustee who prob has political connections, and then gets to select who can speak and mute whoever they want (virutal is just completely different than in-person, and is convenient but questionable how democratic it is)
-expert witnesses for the appellant = a professional expert witness who does tonnes of these things, and i guess it's just if peopel have the money available to hire them
-people commenting online = cherrypicking and misrepresenting the actual realities, and possibly ignorant... because the thing is already zoned for seniors, and the main complaint in posts above was "the appellant wants to have the zoning changed, to something discriminatory" (reality = it already is zoned that way, and the city is wanting to have it changed)

why didn't the city just keep it easy and agree to zone for seniors only when Fillion was aking them for it? empire building? want total control?

as mentioned, personally i want this built. i don't intend to be fighty here, but i just can't buy what people said above, knowing this info. wish conversations could be actual info sharing, and find they are ruined by political ideology making people polarize, so they just try trashing "other sides"

anyways... if anybody has an answer for how Cedarvale CLEARLY IS OPERATING FOR SENIORS ONLY but having Cummer that way is pure evil, then please help share information
 
dustcollector said:
for 175 Cummer, yes - during the virtual community sessions it was stated by the city staff multiple times that the zoning is for seniors only, and they wanted that changed

for the Cedarvale site, no, but if it isn't zoned for seniors then i find that even more disturbing. why? it is in Brad Bradford's ward, and he has been criticizing the idea of having 175 cummer for seniors only. it is appealing for a councillour because it assures that the people perceived as potentially violent or dangerous (young men) would not be there. so, how did he get the one in his own ward to have only seniors? and, how can one of the sites clearly already be operating that way, and then vilify the idea that this other one is seeking a similar situation?

this is why i am so dismayed by the entire situation ... all y'all "professional planners" are going on about how it's discriminatory and should be impossible (+ morally denounced as pure evil) but seem unaware (or not openly acknowledging) that the city is ALREADY DOING IT THAT WAY!!! it's almost as if people have some preconceived idea that they want a specific result, and will just spout out rhetoric to push to make it that way

meanwhile, the other people involved:
-housing secretariat = taken to task by city council for having mismanaged so much of the rapid housing initiative (expenses doubled, sites not properly inspected, purchased materials in a breach of contract and led to $$$$ wasted for storage + political mess)
-former councillor = called everybody a bigot if they have a different idea
-former mayor = signed an approval on the thing when it breached the contract terms (get zoning permission before purchasing)
-policy advisor beuraucrat = in community consultation basically said "in my role i should not be making political statements", but then when given the soapbox made statements about how the consultation shoudl be open to all people across the city, thus shutting out voices of people who live near it and would have their community changed
-moderators for the consultation = owned by former school trustee who prob has political connections, and then gets to select who can speak and mute whoever they want (virutal is just completely different than in-person, and is convenient but questionable how democratic it is)
-expert witnesses for the appellant = a professional expert witness who does tonnes of these things, and i guess it's just if peopel have the money available to hire them
-people commenting online = cherrypicking and misrepresenting the actual realities, and possibly ignorant... because the thing is already zoned for seniors, and the main complaint in posts above was "the appellant wants to have the zoning changed, to something discriminatory" (reality = it already is zoned that way, and the city is wanting to have it changed)

why didn't the city just keep it easy and agree to zone for seniors only when Fillion was aking them for it? empire building? want total control?

as mentioned, personally i want this built. i don't intend to be fighty here, but i just can't buy what people said above, knowing this info. wish conversations could be actual info sharing, and find they are ruined by political ideology making people polarize, so they just try trashing "other sides"

anyways... if anybody has an answer for how Cedarvale CLEARLY IS OPERATING FOR SENIORS ONLY but having Cummer that way is pure evil, then please help share information
Click to expand...

Re "no" for Cedarville and then going all the way to the end of your post on "how" as it relates to what the zoning allows, would it be helpful if I posted the link to the zoning documentation for Cedarville? It's public and outlined in the staff report that requested the Cedarville MZO. Happy to post the link to save you time.
 
Allandale25 said:
Re "no" for Cedarville and then going all the way to the end of your post on "how" as it relates to what the zoning allows, would it be helpful if I posted the link to the zoning documentation for Cedarville? It's public and outlined in the staff report that requested the Cedarville MZO. Happy to post the link to save you time.
Click to expand...
yes, thank you ... is there something in it that explains how Cedarvale is appropriate for seniors only, despite all of the notions that doing that is discriminatory? i am just baffled by this situation, and appreciate anything that helps understand it, and how development is made to happen or prevented/slowed from happening
 
@dustcollector:

This is the City's page for "540 Cedarvale Ave. (East York)" also known as 20 Bracebridge Avenue (Trenton Avenue & Cedarvale Avenue).

Via the above-noted link, if you go to "Community Engagement Materials and Supplementary Information" you will see "Supplementary Information". Under that heading, you will see:
  • Council Decision on June 8, 2021
If you click on that link, you will see under "Background Information (Committee)" this report:
  • (May 6, 2021) Report and Attachments 1 to 6 and 8 from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Housing Secretariat on Modular Housing Initiative: Phase Two - 20 Bracebridge Avenue (Trenton Avenue and Cedarvale Avenue) - Final Report
If you link, you will see that the report (as well as many other helpful materials that explain the project) has a section on zoning and the zoning label that existed at the time.

The MZO issued by the Minister is also on the page linked above and under "Supplementary Information". The title of the MZO as shown on the page is:
  • On July 30, 2021, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing made Ontario Regulation 547/21: Zoning Order City of Toronto.
You can see from it the slight zoning changes required. Further, the above-noted City staff report discusses the zoning changes that were required.
 
thank you for sharing! from what i see it's not zoned for seniors, yet still the city's website shows it's being operated for seniors exiting homelessness (people 55+) ... would that mean that the zoning is not discriminatory, but the actual effect of how it's operating is?
 
^

I've provided the zoning information for both 175 Cummer Ave and 540 Cedarvale Ave. You are asking if the "actual effect of" how these modular homes will operate (i.e., who will get to live there) is "discriminatory". It's not, in my opinion. I'll use an example. TMU (formally Ryerson) had a proposed at 202 Jarvis Street and 160-166 Dundas Street East for the following (from the final staff report here via here):

36,784 square metres of institutional space (predominantly classrooms and ancillary laboratories), a student residence including 589 units (dorms), 181 square metres of retail space, and a public square in the form of a privately owned public accessible space (POPS) with a total gross floor area of 57,525 square metres at 202 Jarvis and 160-166 Dundas StreetEast. The proposed building would have a height of 173.7 metres including the mechanical penthouse. The proposal includes one below-grade level for loading, bicycle parking, and mechanical rooms.
Click to expand...

The staff report provided this review for the zoning section:

Zoning

The site is zoned [Commercial Residential] CR T4.0 C2.0 R 4.0 for the portion of the property fronting Jarvis and Dundas and CR T4.0 C0.5 R4.0 for the portion of the property fronting Mutual Street under Zoning By-law 438-86. Under Zoning By-law 569-2013, the site has four separate zoning designations. The relevant designations are: CR 4.0 (c0.5; r4.0) SS1 (x1195); CR 4.0 (c2.0; r4.0) SS1(x1884); CR 4.0 (c2.0; r4.0) SS1 (x1729); and CR 4.0 (c2.0; r4.0) SS1 (x2092). Both By-laws refer to a maximum density of 4.0 times the area of the lot and maximum heights of 30 metres. The site is also subject to certain permissions and exceptions, including permissions for combined retail, manufacturing, and warehouse use; a maximum of two driveways being permitted onto Jarvis Street; prohibitions on parking uses; restrictions on non-residential GFA and the requirement to adhere to the Hospital for Sick Children's helicopter flight path.
Click to expand...

The CR list of permitted uses in City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 is here. In the analysis section for housing:
Housing

The Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe clearly acknowledge the importance of providing a full range of housing options as a matter of Provincial interest. The provision of affordable, secure, and diverse housing stock to meet housing needs of a wide range of people throughout their life cycle is essential to the creation of complete communities.

Further to this policy direction, Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.1 states that a full range of housing, in terms of form, tenure and affordability will be provided and maintained to meet the current and future needs of residents. A full range of housing includes student housing. Downtown Policy 2.2.1.1 c) also refers to the provision of a full range of housing opportunities. OPA 82 Objective 2.1 references the provision of a full range of housing in terms of form, tenure, and affordability.

In this application, the applicant is proposing a student residence including 588 one-bedroom dorms and 1 two-bedroom dorms. As a student residence, the proposed housing is of a different form from what is typically provided in residential developments. Staff are of the opinion that, given this is a student residence and Ryerson University other forms of student housing located elsewhere on their campus, that the proposed residence supports the objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines, OPA 406and applicable Official Plan and Growth Plan policies related to the provisions of abroad range of housing.
Click to expand...

TMU subsequently had to drop the student housing component not because of any Official Plan or zoning concerns, rather, it's my understanding they didn't get the necessary financial support from the Province for that component.

So in summary, zoning provides built form and use permissions. It doesn't cover the discretionary operating model decision-making outcome by elected representatives in our democratic system. You may not like the fact that a Starbucks went into a particular retail space instead of a Coffee Time, but it doesn't mean automatically that the zoning is discriminatory against Coffee Time or that coffee time can't go into another retail space at another location.

Getting back to my analogy of student housing and since you are interested in the topic of the impacts of zoning on certain types of dwelling units, there are various articles out there that note the difficulty of getting student housing built because of zoning. See here.

That's probably all I have time to respond to on this topic. The links I've already above provide in several messages have the key pieces of information. The provincial policy, Official Plan, and zoning information and a rationale for the amendments for 175 Cummer Ave and 540 Cedarvale Ave (and the other modular home sites), are detailed extensively and clearly in my opinion in the staff reports, presentations, and when Councillors got to ask questions of staff at Committee and Council meetings. It's very clear in my mind.
 
Last edited:
thank you again for engaging about this, and sharing info

what i get from it now is this:
... in the 175 cummer situation, the site was chosen by the city for modular homes. then it turns out the site is already zoned for seniors only. that's an outdated practice, and once the city knew it they couldn't really just keep going ahead with it in those terms, they wanted it changed. the former councillour even was saying "hey, why not keep it seniors only?" ... and, sure the city could say that it can operate that way once it's built, but they don't want to put it into the actual zoning. also, in this case they were not willing to say they would operate it as seniors only
... in the tribunal, the appellant was saying they don't want it built, but they were trying to offer a compromise, one which they'd be comfortable with because the target population being 55+ would not include unpredictable young men with drug addictions and mental health concerns. they were saying the site is inappropriate, that the tribunals decision could impact many other future situations where the legal language was involved, etc., but ultimately their argument about accepting seniors only is just not something the tribunal or zoning law can't really comfortably address

i hear you're saying that in some situations, like student housing, it could be just fine to zone for specific groups, with the recognition that different life stages have specific needs. and, building for those needs is just fine - so, you seem to be sharing that even the zoning isn't really the issue

about the tribunal then ---- i can appreciate it's a challenging situation for them, because they're being asked to make solutions where identity categories are involved, like age and class and poverty levels. what the appellant was asking them for about making it for seniors only was probably just their way of trying to open up a possible compromise, but a tribunal can't easily accommodate that for human rights reasons

... a thing that still baffles me though, how can so many people get upset about the 175 cummer site possibly operating for seniors only, when other sites already do? it's okay for everybody to express their opinions, i guess it's just complicated when it's also presented as being right because it's coming from a person with professional credentials. but, that's all just talk, and the tribunal itself decides at this point. so, thank you Allendale25 for helping share the info above! the whole situation for 175 cummer has involved so many public entities, like media and government and tribunals, so it's been eye opening (and at times frustrating) to see how these decisions are made
 
Kenojuak said:
Wonderful news, at long last. It would appear the OLT has dismissed the appeal. The good guys win.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1742280855970619871
Click to expand...

The screenshots linked in the Tweet above: (excuse the annoying font size, they are not my images)

1704227650232.jpeg

1704227706367.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top