AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Ramako:
The fairness question again.
Believing that this development should be approved doesn't negate the reality of these planning issues. Like I have said, it should be a political decision, not a planning one.
AoD
The applicant has consistently suggested that due to the fact the Heintzman site comprises a heritage property and has access limitations it is unlikely that it would be redeveloped in the future. Staff do not agree with this position given the many sites (including the subject site) that have been proposed and/or approved for redevelopment and
which contain heritage resource(s). In many cases development of a site containing heritage resources provides an opportunity to conserve the heritage resource(s) that might not otherwise be achievable. If redevelopment is done in a way that is compatible with the heritage Staff report for action – Final Report – 197, 197R, 199 and 201 Yonge Street 19
resource(s), then it is important that this opportunity remain available.
The fairness question again.
- The proposal does not provide appropriate separation from the adjacent site to the south as
set forth in the city wide Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Building Proposals and the
more recent Downtown Vision Guidelines. The approval of this proposal could affect the
future development potential of the adjacent landowner, serve as an inappropriate precedent
for other developments and/or could compromise quality of life for future residents; and
- The proposal could set a negative precedent which encourages a "first-to-the-post" approach
in dealing with adjacency issues.
Believing that this development should be approved doesn't negate the reality of these planning issues. Like I have said, it should be a political decision, not a planning one.
AoD
Last edited: