Publicly comment on any post by clicking "comments"
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to be added or removed from the e-mail distribution list for 51 Lake Shore Drive
Click on month or arrow to see previous posts
- ► 2010 (30)
- CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTED STAFF REPORT THIS MORNING
- STAFF REPORT FINALLY POSTED - RECOMMENDATIONS FAVO...
- MAYOR MILLER SUPPORTS CITY SOLICITOR REPRESENTATIO...
- LETTERS ARE BEING CIRCULATED ..
- CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 30TH - AGENDA POSTE...
- DUNPAR LAWYER'S LETTER - 1
- DUNPAR LAWYER'S LETTER - 2
- DUNPAR LAWYER'S LETTER - 3
- ANOTHER LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL....
- GO FIGURE!
- PLEASE NOTE!
- INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LOCAL RESIDENT ...
- STAFF REPORT NEEDS TO GO TO COMMUNITY COUNCIL BEFO...
- TRCA REJECTS NEW PROPOSAL
- OMB HEARING NOVEMBER 23RD
- ▼ September (15)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
PLAY VIDEO TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED
This morning, City Council passed a motion made by Councillor Grimes that the three recommendations made by Planning Staff in their report posted yesterday be adopted (see previous blog post). It passed by a large majority, without any discussion, in a subsequent vote .
This now paves the way for the City to defend its/our position (a refusal of the application) at the upcoming OMB hearing using the City Solicitor, planning staff and consultants.
The Staff report is extensive and fleshes out with technical details and appropriate references all the objections that have been raised by the community over the last two years. The OMB hearing will present a perfect opportunity for the City and its citizens to stand together against Dunpar's outrageous challenge to our shared values and their attempt to shut us out by going directly to the province.
The last paragraph on page 12 of the planners' report confirms what many of us have always asserted - that the developer, to conform with existing regulations, has the right to build on the site no more than "two single detached dwellings facing Lakeshore Drive " .
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
- City Council refuse the applications to amend the Official Plan and former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit one single detached dwelling and six semidetached dwellings at 51 Lake Shore Drive as the proposed residential development does not conform to the Official Plan and is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
- City Council direct the City Solicitor, City staff and any necessary consultants to attend a future Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to oppose the applications as represented by the revised proposal outlined in this report.
- In the event the OMB is inclined to approve a development of the lands, the City Solicitor request the Board to impose necessary conditions of site plan approval as determined by staff.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thanks again for writing,
"There are several reports submitted by various community members that are being provided to each councillor including:
from C. Freeman, and submitting a list of residents and owners
from Janina Wadon
Saturday, September 26, 2009
51 Lakeshore Drive item (has links to background documents)
At this time, there seems to be no recently written staff report with a planning decision available to the public for this meeting next week. Staff are supposed to have that report ready for Council to consider next Wednesday. Reports are generally posted on the above site three or four days before meetings.
On the meeting agenda and under the item EY28.49 there are listings of submissions made by residents and other interested parties.
Friday, September 25, 2009
It is posted here for everyone to see. (Double click on the thumbnails to view or print - it is posted in three parts)
A neighbour noted that the developer and his lawyer are so in touch with the neighbourhood that throughout the documents we are referred to as Fourth Avenue...news to us!
On Schedule B, note how the spaces between the semis and single are tiny. This "revised proposal" is exactly the same as the townhouse application, uses the same footprint, has the same floor space, has no setbacks, is way too high, buildings shoehorned in to the max, no garden space, with the developer now proposing structures that he hopes he can sneak by under allowable building types in areas designated Neighbourhoods.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
I am writing to you regarding the development of the property at 51 Lakeshore Drive.
My family has lived across the road at 12 Fourth Street for almost 35 years. We have raised our children here, sent them to school locally, supported community initiatives and have maintained a loyalty to the community that is the Lakeshore. We have also been aware over the years that the prime real estate at 51 Lakeshore Drive would be subject to change. Thus we have participated at community meetings, sent our opinions to our councillor Mark Grimes and had informal discussions with many users of the waterfront trail. It is my understanding that Councillor Grimes is opposed to the developer's application. I am writing to request that you please support Councillor Grimes in his request to take the City Solicitor to the OMB hearing regarding 51 Lakeshore Drive in November. The developer has the right to take this to the OMB due to a misunderstanding of communication from the developer. A revised proposal has not included any public component. The community has not had access to a detailed site plan or right to speak at Community Council. Proper process has failed. I believe this property should remain zoned for R2; that keeping with the original footprint would be in keeping with the street scape and neighbourhood. We need to support our city's official plan in regard to neighbourhoods, the public's accessibility to the waterfront, and maintaining the vistas for everyone to enjoy, not just a privileged few. The stewardship of our waterfront is part of the city's heritage and a responsibility for the future. Thank you,
Fourth Street Resident
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Here is a reply to a local resident who wrote about the same matter from Sheila Paxton, Mark Grimes' Executive Assistant ....
Thank you for your comments
Councillor Grimes does not support the current proposal, as he has
indicated in each meeting he has attended on this issue.
The developer withdrew the application for town homes, but then
proposed to amend it to semis. As the footprint for the semis was not
substantially different then the original application for town homes
it was considered an amendment .
In speaking to the City Planning Department I have learned that once
an appeal is launched to the Ontario Municipal Board ,as it has in
this case, the matter is no longer an issue that its heard at Community
Council. The Council is no longer voting on approving or not
approving the plan, as this point is now mute as approval is in the hands of the OMB. Once it become a legal hearing, rather than a local issue Community Council has no authority in the matter.
The issue is no longer whether Council approves the plan or not, but rather whether it wants to fight the appeal.
Planning must prepare its recommendation on whether there is
sufficient grounds to oppose the approval at the OMB hearing, and this
has to be heard by Toronto City Council, who then give direction to
the City Solicitor on whether to fight the appeal or not. You may want to
write a position paper and send it to members of council and or attend
the OMB hearing to depute.
The appeal is scheduled at the OMB at the end of November .
Date: 9/23/2009 9:24 AM
From: New Toronto Resident
To: Toronto City Council, All Councillors
I support Councillor Grimes' request that the City Solicitor go to the OMB to oppose the Dunpar application for 51 Lakeshore Drive.
Dunpar is not a community-friendly developer.
They are motivated by greed.
New Toronto Resident
To: New Toronto Resident
On 23-Sep-09, at 11:18 AM
Councillor Mike Del Grande wrote:
Greed has nothing to do with it. (emotional)
It is based on good planning. (factual)
That is the basis of opposition.
From: New Toronto Resident
To: Councillor Mike Del Grande <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: 51 lake Shore Dr.
Has the councillor ever visited the Lakeshore?
Dunpar recently erected a set of 4 storey row houses in front of my home cutting off my view of the lake. When I protested the development they threatened to erect a 13 storey apartment building. That is not being community-friendly. That is intimidation. The row houses are gated and Dunpar walled up the Waterfront Trail walkway to a waterfront parkette contrary to their agreement. They were forced to remove the wall when residents complained. Dunpar also installed overly bright lighting outside the gated row houses and were forced to take those out when residents protested. They were supposed to upgrade the parkette beside the row houses as part of their agreement but never did that.
People live in neighbourhoods and people have emotions. Since there are more people opposing this development than are for it, Toronto councillors should honour the wishes of people who voted them in.
John Zanini has a huge interest in this company and has been systematically buying up waterfront properties for his own gain. If he were sensitive to the needs of others he would plan buildings on the waterfront that do not act as monoliths, shutting everyone else out. That is not proper planning.
Bye for now,
New Toronto Resident
Friday, September 11, 2009
As it stands now, there is officially no staff report prepared yet. The Planning Department was asked to present the report directly to City Council on September 30th, postponed from July because of the municipal strike. If it goes straight to City Council, there would no opportunity for the community to speak to its contents and the staff decision that would be included in it. By requesting that the report go before Community Council before going to City Council (the normal process), it would allow area Councilors and the public to discuss it on October 13th before it went to full City Council on October 23rd, a month before the OMB hearing on November 23rd.
Please support this initiative by calling Councillor Grimes' office (416 397 9273) or, better still, by getting yourself on the speakers' list next Tuesday.
To participate in that meeting, Glenda Jagai, Committee Administrator at the City Clerk’s office must be contacted at 416 394 8101 or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
Speakers will be given only five minutes to present their views. A speaker's card will have to be filled out prior to speaking so that your presentation becomes part of the public record. You can declare yourself as a speaker in the council chamber right up the moment the item is dealt with
On June 16th, 2009, Greg Garcia-Hobson, the City Planner assigned to this application, received this letter from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). To view, double click on the thumbnails.
It states that the “TRCA staff cannot support the approval of the revised applications …. (because) the proposed development is partially located within the natural hazard limit and entirely located within the 10 meter structural setback”.
TRCA have restated what they said about the original proposal; the revised proposal has virtually the same footprint as the first and is therefore subject to the same restrictions. The City, when it decided not to approve the former proposal based partly on the TRCA ruling, is again obligated to reject this one for the same reasons.