2915 Bloor St. West Application [EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW]

Posted in Development, Updates, Ward 5

 

 

 

MORE DOCUMENTS IN BLUE LINKS AT BOTTOM OF PAGE

 

[MAY 4 UPDATE]

It is critical to appreciate a Section of the Planning Report which may be reviewed here.
 
That states:

Where the Mid-Rise Guidelines do not apply, they continue to represent good principles of urban design and can be used to augment local guidelines, particularly to address aspects of new development that were not addressed in previously developed local guidelines.

————-

[MAY 2018 eNEWSLETTER UPDATE]

2915 Bloor Street Development, Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in 4 weeks

Councillor Di Ciano is pleased to confirm, as he promised from Day 1, City Legal and Planning will be at the full hearing to defend the Bloor Kingsway Bylaw and oppose the requested 9 storeys!

  To clarify in response to emails our office has received. The City Of Toronto does not make the final approval decision on this application. The Provincial Body, LAPT under the old OMB rules will be responsible that binding decision.  The City received a revised proposal at 8 storeys, this is NOT supported by City Staff or Councillor Di CianoDetails on our website here.

As seen in our May eNewsletter

———————

[APRIL 25 UPDATE]

Ontario Municipal Board – Rules of Practice and Procedure

Made under section 91 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act and section 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Issued: August 11, 2008, amended
November 2, 2009, September 3, 2013 and
January 1, 2017

[READ] Rules of Practice and Procedure

————————-

[APRIL 23 UPDATE]

As quoted from Goodmans Barristers & Solicitors letter addressed to LPAT (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal):

“Based on feedback received from City staff and other stakeholders, our client has decided to modify its development proposal from its previous 9-storey submission to an 8-storey building.”

City Staff do NOT support this proposal. Councillor Di Ciano supports 6 storeys!

[READ] Goodmans Barristers & Solicitors letter addressed to LPAT (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) 

[READ] Re-submission Plans 

———–

[MARCH 2018 UPDATE]

There is no change to the status of this file. The appeal will be heard at the full Hearing in June 2018.  Councillor Justin Di Ciano remains committed as always to fighting againstanything over 6 storeys. Period.

Notes from Our Office:
It is important to appreciate that at this time there is “time gap” in updated Reports etc. with regard to issues such as sewer capacity. This is because once you are at The OMB the Applicant is not obligated to provide anything further until such a time as the Witness Statements are required as per the rules.

 

No boulevard / center median on Bloor Street would be lost. “Construction staging” is another process and any blvd. or median would be replaced/improved at the cost of the Applicant.

As there is no practical room for a park on Bloor St.,  Section 42 will be applied, Cash in Lieu (as/if applicable).

Any Section 37  (as/ if applicable) would be determined by Planning and Real-estate  in terms of dollar amounts and would be deliberated at the  OMB Hearing. Any Section 37 awarded would be allocated within Kingsway/Sunnylea and not be allocated to Six Points which is out of the geographic area permitted. 

Councillor Di Ciano acknowledges that applications are coming in around 8 storeys, 27/28 m in height. However, it is not anticipated that a 14 storey application would be submitted for the north west corner of Bloor St. W. and Prince Edward Drive North.
Information is overwhelming for residents, this is why Councillor Di Ciano is supporting you and has professional representation for you at the Hearing in June, 2018.

As seen in our March eNewsletter

———-

[JAN 2018 UPDATE]

Fighting The Mid Rise Guidelines –  City Council adopted MidRise Building Performance Standards in 2010

 

Defending The Bloor Avenue Study 

Councillor Justin Di Ciano was pleased that his Motion passed at Etobicoke Community Council ( MAY 2017 )  confirming his opposition and the position of his constituents to oppose this application at The Ontario Municipal Board with City resources ( The City Solicitor and Planning Experts).

Justin ensured that he had the support of his council colleagues not only at Community Council but also at Toronto City Council where the public are not permitted to depute.

Clarification:
A concern over the date of the Hearing coinciding with the Provincial election was raised. The Provincial election is June 7th, 2018, the Hearing for 2915 Bloor West is not scheduled for that day.

Clarification:
A request was put forward to the OMB for a set time on the procedural order for participants. The OMB declined. As such Participants will have to attend on the first day of the Hearing where the Board member will be able to decide when he/she wants to hear from them. This is quite standard.

There have been references to the OMB case at 4187 Dundas Street West against the original 10 storey application which was clearly too high!  At ten storeys the City and The Kingsway Park Ratepayers, KRAPP, all agreed it was too high and unacceptable. The residents group then known as KRAPP and the City fought against the revised ( by the applicant ) 8 storey proposal at The Ontario Municipal Board, requesting a 6 storey height limit. Both the residents group ‘KRAPP’ and the City lost that appeal. The applicant was awarded 7 storeys ( at a height limit )  by the OMB. Subsequently, the applicant was then approved for 8 storeys at The Committee of Adjustment at the same overall height.  

 

Both decisions may be reviewed on our website here. If you would like to read all background information, it is organized on our website here.

 

The Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc.  advise that they stay apprised of all developments and post updates and historical material  at  www.kingswayparkratepayers.com  for perusal.  You can sign up for their new E-Newsletter at any time, and address any issues or comments by email to the board.

 

As this file moves forward Councillor Justin Di Ciano is pleased to commit ( again ) to seeing this through ” ’til the end ”  in June, 2018 at The Ontario Municipal Board. 

 

Please note:

The Board has been advised that the parties have reached an agreement regarding the procedural order and issues list for this matter. 
 

SECTION 37
The revised application at 2915-2917 Bloor St West is now over 10,000 sq.m. in size, after the increase in storeys. This means that Section 37 would apply to the proposed building based on the revised submission (the previous, 8 storey application was just under 10,000 sq.m., so S.37 policies did not apply).  Section 37 amounts only apply to the “size” above what is permitted ( 6 storeys ). Suggestions on allocation are always welcomed if indeed they are awarded by the OMB.

We will not know ( we can guesstimate ) the Section 37 dollar amount for 2915 Boor Street West until such a time as Planning is in agreement with the proposal and / or the OMB makes its Ruling. Should the City ” WIN” and the OMB decision respect the 6 storey height there would be no Section 37 dollars.

Additional Background Material
In order to help out the participants to the case and the residents group we would like to offer some background materials for their arguments at the OMB,  they should confirm this with their legal representative and planner.

 

The Montgomery  building is 20m + 5m mechanical:

Click here for more details
 
(ii) the maximum building height shall be 20.0 m, measured from the
finished grade elevation to the top of the roof slab, excluding the
parapet, mechanical penthouse, stair enclosures, and roof-top
conservatory, provided that such uses do not exceed a height of 5 m;
 (Considered 7 storeys.)

 

Bloor and Royal York – The Regency

……
 details may be read on our website, excerpt:

b) notwithstanding Section 320-93 of the Zoning Code, the maximum

building height shall be 20.7 m, measured from the finished grade

elevation to the top of the roof slab, excluding the parapet, mechanical

equipment and the conical architectural feature;

The application by Fieldgate as submitted to the OMB is at 29m plus 5m mechanical. Too high!

We continue to answer questions and or address comments on an ongoing basis in order to help residents.

Having already hosted two well attended community meetings above and beyond the City’s Community meeting and the public meeting (evening session as per Councillor Di Ciano’s request so that the residents could attend) at Etobicoke Community Council, Councillor Justin Di Ciano will also host another, third, community meeting in the Spring 2018!

As seen in our January 2018 eNews

——————

[DEC 22 UPDATE]

The OMB has been advised that the parties have reached an agreement regarding the procedural order and issues list for this matter.  As a result, the prehearing conference currently scheduled for January 5, 2018 is cancelled.

 

[DEC 13 UPDATE]

 

3009 Bloor St W (935 Royal York) Zoning Bylaw

  1. b) notwithstanding Section 320-93 of the Zoning Code, the maximum building height shall be 20.7 m, measured from the finished grade elevation to the top of the roof slab, excluding the parapet

 

City of Toronto BYLAW No. 1997-16

————-

The Montgomery Condominium Background –

Please note: 

  1. (b) (ii) the maximum building height shall be 20.0 m, measured from the

finished grade elevation to the top of the roof slab, excluding the

parapet, mechanical penthouse, stair enclosures, and roof-top

conservatory, provided that such uses do not exceed a height of 5 m;

City of Toronto BY-LAW No. 646-1999 

———————

[DEC UPDATE]

Additional background material:

The decision on 4187 Dundas and the fight against the Applicant by the residents group KRAPP (no longer a working group) is sited by many at this time in relation to the present day fight against 2915 Bloor Street West.

Both documents/decisions may be read in full on our website: www.councillordiciano.ca

Sadly the Residents Group and the City Lost and the OMB approved the application.

It is interesting to note that after being approved at 7 by the OMB the Applicant was awarded another 8th storey at the same height at Committee of Adjustment.

In summary, the Board finds, having regard to the determinate policy documents, the PPS and the Etobicoke Official Plan, the proposal is an appropriate form of residential intensification at the subject site and constitutes good planning and is in the public interest.  The site is located on an arterial road, at an intersection with a collector road.  It is in an area which is changing and evolving to reflect a need for residential intensification in appropriate urban areas, a need to locate development in proximity to public transit and a desire to improve the urban environment along Dundas St. W., while, at the same time, preserving the character of stable neighbourhoods.  As the Board notes above, having regard to the Etobicoke OP and the Avenues Study, the height and density of the proposed building is to be considered in terms of impact on the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the south.  Some neighbours believe that the proposal represents too much height, density and change. The Board, having found that there would be no negative impact in terms of shadow, privacy, overlook, traffic or demand on public infrastructure, cannot find that the proposal will have a negative impact on the neighbourhood to the south.

The appeal with respect to the zoning by-law is allowed.  The zoning by-law will be amended substantially in accordance with attachment Exhibit # 10, Attachment 1.

The holding designation is to be lifted in accordance with the agreement of the City.

The Board will withhold its final order with respect to the site plan until it is provided with a final site plan and site plan conditions.  The Board expects to receive such site plan and conditions within six weeks of the date of issuance of this Decision.

This is the Order of the Board.

File Number: A437/1 1 EYK   Thursday, August 25, 2011

Notice was given and a Public Hearing was held on Thursday, August 25, 2011, as required by the Planning Act.

PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION:

To construct an 8-storey residential condominium building with a total of 112 dwelling units.

It is the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to authorize this variance application for the following reasons. This decision is subject to the following condition(s):

  1. 8 storeys but no increase in height, i.e. the building maintains the 0MB approved height of 24.5

metres, not including rooftop mechanical rooms, rooftop amenity space (indoor and outdoor), screen walls,

railings and architectural features, and

  1. The proposed rooftop structures, including the mechanical penthouse, occupy a maximum area of 400 m2, and
  1. The cornice lines of the building project into the 45-degree angular plane above the 5’ floor or 15.11 metres on the south elevation of the building closest to the detached houses on Prince Edward Drive

Regretfully he history on this fight by KRAPP / Dean French and The City  does not provide a good precedence for success.

———————

[NOV. COMMUNITY MEETING UPDATE]

The Reason your Local Councillor is Critical in opposing this application for you by defending the Bloor Avenue Study and Fighting The Mid Rise Guidelines.


It is critical that your local Councillor, in this case, Councillor Justin Di Ciano, takes the leadership role and supports his constituents by allocating City Resources (these are your tax dollars hard at work!) to defend the neighbourhood for you.  Councillor Di Ciano has done this for you!  His motion may be read here:

Motions
Petition Filed by Councillor Justin J. Di Ciano (Carried)That Etobicoke York Community Council receive for information, the petition containing approximately 567 electronic signatures regarding The Bloor Kingsway Avenue Study.

1 – Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Justin J. Di Ciano (Carried)That Etobicoke York Community Council recommend that:

 

1.  City Council direct the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to defend The Bloor Kingsway Avenue Study and the six (6) storey height limit set out in the associated Zoning By-law (941-2003), and authorize the City Solicitor to retain any outside consultants as necessary.

 

Vote (Amend Item (Additional)) May-02-2017
Result: Carried Majority Required – EY22.1 – Di Ciano – motion 1
Yes: 8 John Campbell, Vincent Crisanti, Justin J. Di Ciano, Frank Di Giorgio, Michael Ford, Mark Grimes (Chair), Stephen Holyday, Frances Nunziata 
No: 0  
Absent: 3 Sarah Doucette, Giorgio Mammoliti, Cesar Palacio 

Motion to Adopt Item as Amended (Carried)

 

 

Councillor Di Ciano and City Solicitor clarified how this file might move forward at the community meeting held by Councillor Di Ciano November 22, 2017, attended by approximately 100 folk:

 

1. That nothing changes  ( no Settlement offer  ) and City Planning and Legal continue to the Full Hearing in June, 2018.

2.  That the Applicant revises their application and City Planning no longer objects to the proposal (above 6 storeys, Settlement offer ).    If this “were to happen” then, as per Councillor Di Ciano’s motion where he was supported by all of his council colleagues, City Legal would be in a position to retain outside Planning Consultants as needed to defend the 6 Storey Study at the Full Hearing in June 2018

 

There will be no change of direction on this file by Councillor Justin Di Ciano. Period.

 

All Parties to an Appeal work independently. Neither the City Solicitor or Planner ( city or consultant ) would be able to provide residents with legal advice noting that they could also never take direction from residents. Clearly where there is agreement the Parties support each other.

 

City Staff represent the Will of City Council which has provided Councillor Di Ciano with the tools and power to see this through right the to the very end! Raising funds locally to duplicate the resources of the city’s Solicitor and Planner is a challenge, a worthy one!  As Councillor Di Ciano responded when asked about the duplication of city resources, “….it can’t weaken the case.”  Please support your Neighbourhood.

 

Many residents are finding it difficult to locate the various reports.

 

We have posted all links on our website via this post. Please call us if you need help. We are happy to help.

 

REAR LANEWAY (clarified):
The laneway to the rear will be widened to 6 m as per the city standard. The laneway should be widened with each application to adhere to the city standard and eventually facilitate a 2 way laneway which could be supported by Staff as per policy. However,  Councillor Di Ciano is of the opinion that a one way is more desirable and this is what he will support as/when/if other applications were to be received by the City.  

 

At the meeting we hosted on November 22 at Sunnylea School,  there was a request for other Appeal  examples.  The closest Appeals are across the river at Baby Point and Bloor West, here is a link to the website: http://www.bwvra.ca/local-development Councillor Di Ciano had offered to set up a Working Group some time ago much like The Bloor West Resident’s Association. 
COMPARISONS It’s important to remember that in the case of The Humbertown Plaza Development the City wrote a positive Final Staff Report ( IE the city supported the plan ) where the residents did not. That is not the case for 2915 Bloor Street West, where the Councillor, residents and the City Final Staff Report do NOT support the plan. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-58020.pdf

 

Excerpt from the City’s Final Staff Report Humbertown Plaza:  This report recommends approval of this application. The proposal meets the intent of the City’s Official Plan for intensification in Mixed Use Areas. The proposal is consistent with the policies and provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement and is in conformity with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan.
This should not be confused with the case on St. Steven’s Court where everyone fought together: 5.  We aren’t alone in this fight! Also opposing Elia Corp are the City of Toronto (Planning) and The Kingsway “Regent” condominium located at 30 Anglesey Blvd.
For Planning/Legal enthusiast the OMB Decision for St. Stevens may be read here: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl150676-Apr-27-2017.pdf
It is interesting to note that the City fought hard for 6 storeys where the other party was more flexible to 9:

 

The City’s witnesses were largely opposed to any additional height beyond 6-storeys, regardless of building location. In this regard, City’s position was that the existing context is comprised of buildings that are mostly less than 4-storeys.

 

…………[17] The approach taken by the Residents Association was more flexible than that of the City. The evidence of Mr. Spaziani was both persuasive and pragmatic and ………….In particular, Mr. Spaziani recommended a reduction in height for Buildings A and D to 9 storeys, with step-backs at the 4th, 6th and 9th storeys (set out in Exhibits 36A and 36B).
As shared at the Community meeting Councilor Di Ciano cannot dictate Architectural Design. Efforts were made to modify it and make it more reflective of the area. On a non contentious file there is more room for discussion over design elements than one that is being fought at The OMB level.
As advised previously the Applicant has the Right to continue negotiations with city staff. This does not mean a settlement offer would be acceptable, unless it was at 6 storeys.
There will be an Issues List.
Let’s all work together to defend The Bloor Avenue Study and fight The Mid Rise Guidelines and Provincial Policy.

As seen in our December eNews

———————-

[NOV 2, 2017 UPDATE]

2915 – 2917 Bloor St. W. Avenue Segment Study. See blue link below.

——————–

A NEW pre-hearing date has been scheduled for January 5, 2018. See blue link to notice below.

——————–

The Ontario Municipal Board has set the hearing of this case starting  Monday June 4, 2018:

June 4 – 6, 2018
 
and
 
Monday June 11-15, 2018
 
Ontario Municipal Board
655 Bay Street –  16th floor
Toronto, ON M5G 1E5