Toronto 1837 Bayview | 100.6m | 27s | Gupta | Arcadis

DavidCapizzano said:
leasidelife.com

Gearing up for a big fight at Bayview and Broadway - Leaside Life

If you want to win, you need to be prepared, and that takes both a plan and resources. “We are working on a plan and now we need people to state their opposition, and invest ...more
leasidelife.com leasidelife.com
Click to expand...

Not at all unexpected.

Edit to add: Watch this file in relation to the Glazebrook App. If they both head to the OLT, as I expect they are/will; the precedent of one will very much effect the other.
 
NYCC kicks off in less than two weeks with the new term's first meeting.

On the Agenda, a request for direction report in respect of this app.


The request is to attend the OLT in opposition to the appeal filed here (which we knew about).

No surprise.

I will say the Planning Report really rips into this application on so many fronts, I think this one will be a scrap.

On some issues, I think Planning has a strong case, standard ROW widening as per the OP, adequate soil volumes for trees, issues w/the bus stop, and wind mitigation issues among others.

On some issues, its a bit fuzzier, height/neighbourhood transition, in that, being an MTSA the policy framework for the area has evolved to favour greater height/density. That said, the neighbours here are a well monied and organized lot.....

On one front, I think Planning is out of its mind:

1668696564341.png


Bad Take!
 
mkennedy said:
@Northern Light I'm a bit of a novice here, but am dying to understand, why are they talking about parking requirements in Nov 2022? Were those not scrapped city-wide?
Click to expand...

Err, well, not quite; the City scrapped minimums entirely in parking zones A and B which refer to sites within 400M distance of rapid transit and/or a 10M or better bus route.

That also doesn't apply, generally, to visitor parking requirements and there are a whole slew of weird exceptions.

When it comes to weird zoning eccentricities I like to seek out @innsertnamehere to elaborate; I'm sure I can dig up the stuff on this spot, but he'll be able to do it faster, I imagine.

This site should meet the zone A/B requirement though.

Indeed it does:

1677614105184.png


I would have thought the minimums repeal would have applied at this site........... hmmmm
 
Not sure why staff would be opposing based on parking issues here. The parking by-law amendments are fully in force and parking is not required city-wide, zones A/B are mostly related to parking maximums, which this project does not nearly approach.

Technically as this application was made in advance of the by-law amendments removing parking requirements, the version of 569-2013 which requires parking continues to be in force, but I am confused as to why staff would be trying to enforce it. If they cancelled their application and re-applied they would require no parking at all.

Many new developments which applied prior to parking requirements being removed are still seeing staff request site-specific rates be codified in their site-specific by-laws though for whatever reason, so I have seen staff trying to hold on to parking requirements to some extent.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Many new developments which applied prior to parking requirements being removed are still seeing staff request site-specific rates be codified in their site-specific by-laws though for whatever reason, so I have seen staff trying to hold on to parking requirements to some extent.
Click to expand...

Well and truly bizarre.

I stated I thought the parking objection was a 'bad take' by staff and I stand by that; thanks for the insight!
 
This one was the subject of a confidential settlement offer at the July meeting of Council.

That offer was accepted (Adopted) without amendment, and is now public.

Building was reduced to 22s. Assorted other changes.

Offer here:


The above reads in a rather convoluted way, so I'll just skip to the new plans:

Site Plan:

1691163861797.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1691163915674.png





1691163976641.png
 
288 units, 3 elevators, 96 units per elevator. Nice!

giphy.gif


42
 
The total number of units changed from 288 units to 259 units. The total parking spot was reduced from 90 parking to 47 parking. The total bike parking changed from 30 bike parking to 306 bike parking.

Rendering taken from the architectural plan via rezoning submission.

PLN - Architectural Plans - Architectural Drawings_1837-1845 Bayview Ave-94.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - Architectural Drawings_1837-1845 Bayview Ave-96.jpg
 
Residents in the neighbourhood tried to stop/limit the development with the typical arguments. Now they are opposing the demolition application because it removes housing .... Isn't it ironic?
 
Jaco said:
Residents in the neighbourhood tried to stop/limit the development with the typical arguments. Now they are opposing the demolition application because it removes housing .... Isn't it ironic?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure ironic is the word.

That said; I feel like its really hard to condemn anyone giving Gupta a hard time. They produce such terrible junk that almost always offends everyone with a modicum of taste. I abstain from this conflict, LOL
 
Northern Light said:
I'm not sure ironic is the word.

That said; I feel like its really hard to condemn anyone giving Gupta a hard time. They produce such terrible junk that almost always offends everyone with a modicum of taste. I abstain from this conflict, LOL
Click to expand...

Don't candy coat it. Tell us how you really feel. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top