Toronto Cherry Place | 55.7m | 13s | Rekai | Montgomery Sisam

Some URGENT motions in Toronto are as sweet as Cherry Pie...like Wong-Tam and Matlow asking for a MZO. 🤓

MM36.32 - Requesting the Minister of Municipal Affairs to Make a Minister's Zoning Order for the Rekai Centre at Cherry Place, a Non-Profit Long-Term Care Facility at 55 Eastern Avenue - by Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, seconded by Councillor Josh Matlow
 
ADRM said:
RESPECT LOCAL PLANNING….
Click to expand...
I think there is very strong local support for this development and the City has signed off on it so this looks like a case where an MZO is justified and what they are supposed to be used for.

See KWT motion:

The proposal for the new Rekai Centre at Cherry Place has been presented to the community numerous times for public consultation, specifically to the West Don Lands Committee which has submitted written support for the project to the Ministry of Long-Term Care (Attachment 1). In addition, the proposal was presented three times to the Waterfront Toronto Design Review Panel and has received a vote of full and unanimous support.

Rekai Centres has been working collaboratively with City Planning staff on the proposal for several years and the local City Councillor has been consistently engaged throughout the process.

Recommended Framework for the Use of Minister's Zoning Orders and Response to Bills 245 and 257.
Agenda Item History - 2021.PH22.8 (toronto.ca)

This Motion is urgent because the funding from the Federal Government for the new Rekai Centre building is time-sensitive and cannot wait until the November City Council meeting.
 
Last edited:
DSC said:
I think there is very strong local support for this development and the City has signed off on it so this looks like a case where an MZO is justified and what they are supposed to be used for.
Click to expand...
Then it shouldn't take a year-plus for the city to approve it. Either a convoluted process with extensive consultation is good, or it isn't.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Then it shouldn't take a year-plus for the city to approve it. Either a convoluted process with extensive consultation is good, or it isn't.
Click to expand...

While it is true that governments, businesses and people should generally be subject to the same, or comparable laws, rules and processes in similar circumstances, I'm not sure that it follows that that process must role out identically from start to finish in every case.

I'm content to oppose MZO's in general; in so far as we have a planning process, however flawed, which ought to be applied in the manner described above, and not have exemptions that seem or are in fact, arbitrary or capricious.

But, in the real world, where the planning process, at its worst, 'protects' the neighbours of a proposal, sometimes at the expense of the common good, and those neighbours are on-board; and the professional planners and politicians are inclined to agree, I think it's hard to argue that the conventional process has any further value to bring.

We can all agree the process is deeply flawed on any number of levels; both in terms of base-level zoning/density rules in many places, and in terms of rules/policies that are sometime maddeningly contrary to good public policy (see parking minimums).

The above, of course, justifies material changes/reforms. (some, but not enough of which are being worked on).

But we still have an interim condition. During this period, if there is such a thing as a clear case for MZO, other than, say, a public health emergency etc.......

It's where there is broad consensus from all parties that the process adds no further value; why go through the motions to get to the same conclusion?
 
New documents posted February 10th. Some changes made to the design here and there, updated renderings, and some detailed elevations to feast upon.

There are about 30 renderings, so I can't post them all. Here are some of the highlights:
1649995765031.png

1649995820413.png

1649995836567.png

1649995865880.png

1649995882858.png

1649995895556.png

1649995911448.png


The detailed elevations:

1649996111822.png

1649996132485.png

1649996145729.png

1649996158441.png


All images taken from the AIC documents.
 
Was the requested MZO ever issued on this? I think not which presumably means that no Friends of Doug are involved. It will provide much needed supportive housing and really needs to start getting underway! The City seems to be fully on board.
 
DSC said:
Was the requested MZO ever issued on this? I think not which presumably means that no Friends of Doug are involved. It will provide much needed supportive housing and really needs to start getting underway! The City seems to be fully on board.
Click to expand...

Do you not think I'm busy enough? LOL Cause now you made me look it up................

First, the MZO was issued on January 28th, 2022.

I find this site handy for tracking these:

Minister’s Zoning Order Map – Yours To Protect

yourstoprotect.ca yourstoprotect.ca

New Site Plan documents were submitted on this June 23, 2022 and are 'under review'

The comment matrix/detailed revision list is long and somewhat technical, I will spare people the back and forth between the City and proponent here, but it's actually worth a read.
Some is invariably pedantic stuff (show your calculation, or clarify this or that etc.)

But some, while comparatively small, matters...........the initial drawings apparently had the streetlight in the middle of the sidewalk and Transportation caught that and ordered it changed.

I'm not sure why anyone thought that was acceptable...........sigh.......I just wish Transportation would consistently block such nonsense.

Not sure that the render has changed much, but since it was included, here we go:

1659807699872.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top