What: 2915-2943 Bloor Street West Developments Limited has submitted an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal to permit the redevelopment of 2915-2943 Bloor Street West for a 29-storey mixed-use building

Details about the video conference are available through this link.

Documents submitted by the developer are available here.

An article from CondoTrend about the proposal and site history is here.

The Ontario Land Tribunal will conduct a Case Management Conference by video conference for this matter.

When: The event will be held at 10:00 AM on April 28, 2026

Where: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541

Access code: 638-422-541

The Tribunal has set aside 0.5 Day for this matter

In December, many of you wrote to City Council about the Avenues policy — and it worked. Council voted to exclude all school lands from mid-rise development, protecting schools, playgrounds, and community space across the city as the Avenues framework is rolled out.

But now, Toronto’s school boards have filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal to overturn this decision. The Catholic Church is also appealing to have church lands included, which City staff had originally excluded. There is a CMC virtual meeting at the OLT for Parties, Participants and the public on April 8, 2026. (See details here). 

What we need you to do now

Please sign the petition saying NO to development on school lands and share it widely. We are also asking you to write to the Province requesting that the appeal be withdrawn. Details on who to contact and what to say are included at the end of this email.

Why this matters

If the appeal succeeds, hundreds of active school properties along major streets — including buildings, playgrounds, and parking lots — could be redesignated to allow mid-rise development (6–14 storeys).

I strongly oppose the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal against City Council’s decision to exclude school lands from the Avenues rezoning. Please ensure the City Solicitor is directed to fully and vigorously defend Council’s decision. School properties must remain protected public assets for students and neighbourhood communities.

At the same time, school boards are now under provincial control rather than locally elected trustees, reducing local accountability. Short-term decisions risk permanent consequences — schools could close based on current projections, only for demographics to shift again, leaving communities without the schools they need.

School lands are essential community infrastructure — not just for students, but for the surrounding neighbourhoods that rely on them for open space, recreation, and gathering. Once these lands are lost, they are almost impossible to replace.

Who to write to & key message

• Premier Doug Ford – premier@ontario.ca

• Education Minister Paul Calandra – minister.edu@ontario.ca

• Copy Councillor Amber Morley councillor_morley@toronto.ca

• MPP Lee Fairclough: lfairclough.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

  • ask your MPP to urge the Province to have the boards withdraw the appeal. Both boards are currently under provincial supervision.

Sample message (Mayor & Councillor)::

I strongly oppose the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal against City Council’s decision to exclude school lands from the Avenues rezoning. Please ensure the City Solicitor is directed to fully and vigorously defend Council’s decision. School properties must remain protected public assets for students and neighbourhood communities.

Sample message (MPP):

I am writing to express concern about the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board appeal of City Council’s decision to exclude school lands from the Avenues rezoning.Given that both boards are currently under provincial supervision, I urge the Province to direct the boards to withdraw this appeal. School properties are long-term public infrastructure and should not be positioned for intensified redevelopment without local consultation.

Thank you again — your voices made a real difference in December, and they matter again now.

You own these land assets as a taxpayer. Don't let them be sold off to private interests for their personal profit.

Suggested Wording to Councillor

As a resident in the neighboring districts of Sunnylea and The Kingsway, I present this submission to formally request that the application to permit the rezoning of 69 Old Mill Terrace in order to allow a 39-storey residential building be rejected.  The proposed tower, with 371 units and 82 parking spaces, causes me many concerns.  Some of the reasons for my objection are as follows:

1.    The proposed development will lead to increased traffic on Old Mill Terrace, which is a street with no sidewalks. The increased traffic will pose a safety hazard as there are a number of residents with young children who play on the street. Without sidewalks (which are not an option given the layout of the street), pedestrians walk on the road. Old Mill Terrace has two blind corners where the crescent bends make it difficult for pedestrians and drivers to see each other.  The building is gargantuan for such a small lot, dwarfing everything around it and making no meaningful allowance for green space.

2.    The lack of any visitor parking in the proposed development will lead to increased parking on the street.  Old Mill Terrace does not allow for parking during the day (except Sunday) and no overnight parking.  Bloor Street, since the creation of bike lanes, has scarce parking spaces. 

3.     Finally, the local infrastructure will be greatly strained by such a massive increase in residential units, ie, water, sewage, schools, etc., basement floodings (which residents have suffered)  and schools in the area , already at maximum capacity.

4.  OPA 540 (approved August 2025) permits up to 20 storeys within the 200–500 metre transition zone from a transit station entrance — but only on sites that "can accommodate three or more towers." The developers site is 1,894 m² — far too small for even one proper tower with compliant setbacks, let alone three. How do they justify exceeding the 20-storey PMTSA limit when the site cannot meet the precondition for additional height?

Signed: _______________________  Dated:_______________________

Address _________________________________

Postal Code:__________________

Dear Neighbours,

On behalf of the Coalition of Toronto Residents’ Associations (COTRA), thank you to every resident, volunteer, and community group who helped respond to the City’s Neighbourhood Retail proposal. This was an extraordinary, city-wide effort—and it changed the course of the proposal.

Neighbourhood associations across Toronto collaborated in new ways, sharing information, coordinating outreach, and speaking with a unified voice. Had COTRA not formed, thousands of suburban homes would likely have been rezoned without residents’ knowledge or consent. Instead, we brought attention to the proposal’s risks, prompted councillors to consult widely, and ensured residents’ views were heard.

When this began, most residents had no idea what the City was planning. Planning staff did not explain the scope, risks, or lack of safeguards, and media coverage focused narrowly on “corner stores,” despite the proposal enabling many types of commercial uses across tens of thousands of homes. It was a top-down initiative folded into EHON—meant to increase housing, not reduce it.

COTRA stepped in to fill that information gap, providing clear explanations, asking for residents’ views, and representing those views accurately at City Hall. In just two weeks, more than 3,400 people completed our survey and submitted over 3,700 written comments. Thousands more contacted councillors or shared information with neighbours. This level of civic engagement shaped the final outcome.

Council voted on November 13, and the result reflects the strength of residents’ voices. A detailed breakdown is available the COTRA website. View it with this link.

Council ultimately adopted a much more restrained version of the proposal. Neighbourhood Interiors were made an opt-in option, and only eight downtown wards chose to include them. Suburban councillors submitted a long list of Major Street segments to exclude, and those were accepted. Yet when Councillors Shan and Holyday sought to add missing Major Streets from their own wards, Council voted their motions down. It was hard not to see this as a political decision rather than a consistent application of the policy.

Councillors in Old Toronto and East York approved the proposal, allowing businesses on all Major Streets and within interior neighbourhoods, even though the Planning Committee itself had not recommended Neighbourhood Interiors, acknowledging the risks of bars and cannabis stores opening on quiet, family-oriented streets. Unfortunately, no safeguards were added for hours of operation, disruptive uses, or tenant displacement.

Planning should be rational, not political. Yet the final map introduces retail in areas that have walkable retail while leaving out  neighbourhoods that might have welcomed modest additions. A more consultative, balanced process would have produced a stronger city-wide policy.

Note on the Council debate
  
Some councillors attempted to dismiss our survey as “outdated” or misleading. We stand firmly behind our methodology. The survey described the proposal accurately as it existed, and questions about conversions and patios were separated intentionally to capture both scenarios. The high response rate and depth of comments validated the issues we raised.
  
We also stand by our analysis of eviction risk. Under the Residential Tenancy Act (Section 50(1)(b)), landlords may end a tenancy to convert a unit to non-residential use. By allowing commercial uses in residential buildings, the City has effectively created a new pathway for tenant displacement.  
  
We thank Councillors Kandavel, Shan, and Holyday for raising concerns about evictions, neighbourhood impacts, and unequal application of the proposal. Their efforts ensured residents’ perspectives were part of the debate.
  
While the outcome does not protect every neighbourhood equally, this movement demonstrated what is possible when residents work together. We achieved real change, and the conversation about neighbourhood protections has shifted for the better.
  
Thank you again for your commitment and vigilance.

With appreciation,
COTRA — Coalition of Toronto Residents’ Associations
https://cot-ra.org

Permalink

]]>Councillor Morley's LatestSteve RankineSat, 06 Sep 2025 04:44:00 +0000http://kingswayparkratepayers.com/current-topics/2025/8/23/city-planning-is-proposing-commercial-businesses-on-residential-streets-city-wide57e1d38fd482e96cd83a75b9:57e3996515d5dbede547acfc:68a945e0f214d84d9873fd35City Planning is proposing Commercial Businesses on Residential Streets, city wide.

If approved, you can expect restaurants and cafes including patios, grocery and convenience stores, cannabis/vaping shops, and other commercial businesses on residential streets. 

Think about that!

Most residents are unaware of this proposal because Planning is not conducting a city-wide virtual consultation meeting to explain it until September 15th. Instead, it is using social media, neighbourhood "Popups" and media to spread the word — not ideal, in our view, on something this important.

City Planning is scheduled to make its recommendations to the Planning and Housing Committee (PHC) in early October. The proposal will go before Council shortly after that.

CERA (through individual Residents Associations) is conducting a survey to find out what you think about what's being proposed. 

Other Residents' Associations across the city are conducting a similar survey. The objective is to give City Planning, and more importantly, City Councillors objective data with residents' (aka taxpayers) feedback on the proposal.

Please complete the CERA survey by clicking on the button.

We want a huge response to the survey — just like the Sixplex survey in May. That survey and your responses significantly influenced the outcome of the Sixplex proposal!

These are the most significant changes to residential zoning in 70 years. Stay tuned to find out more.

Sincerely CERA

Coalition of Etobicoke Residents' Associations 

This CBC News article, published on September 23, 2024, covers the Lake Bonavista residents' initiative to use restrictive covenants as a means to prevent multi-family developments in their neighborhood, following Calgary's approval of blanket rezoning policies. The article, shown below, discusses the legal nature of restrictive covenants, their attachment to land titles, and the community's goals in implementing them.

Text of Article

Another Calgary community turns to restrictive covenants with blanket rezoning in effect

The day Calgary city council approved its contentious blanket rezoning policy — which allows for different housing types, like duplexes and row houses to be built in all residential areas — Lake Bonavista residents began planning ahead.

That spring day, a group of homeowners in southeast Calgary held their first meeting about protecting their homes and community through restrictive covenants. They are legal contracts between homeowners that can prevent the construction of certain types of buildings. The covenants are attached to land titles, meaning they stay in place even when the property owners change.

They're also known to be challenging to remove.

What the heck are 'restrictive covenants' and how do they affect Calgary's housing situation? In Lake Bonavista, the goal is to legally prevent developers from tearing down single-family homes for multi-family developments, though residents have agreed to allow secondary suites in basements and garages.

"I think a lot of people are very uneasy about what's happening in the community," said Karen Robinson, a volunteer for the committee running the Lake Bonavista restrictive covenant initiative.

"I think it's going to be very disruptive to the fabric of the community and just not give people that comfort and peace of mind about knowing what their street is going to look like."

Robinson says she hopes at least 60 per cent of the community signs on so they can prevent "land assemblies" — where developers purchase multiple lots side-by-side to build larger developments — and remain a single-family community with wide streets, mature trees and large yards.

It isn't just happening in Lake Bonavista. Many Calgary communities have historic restrictive covenants in place, and a number of other Calgary communities are turning to the idea now that Calgary's blanket rezoning bylaw is in effect.

Curtis Marble, the lawyer representing Lake Bonavista residents, said 15 to 20 per cent of the community has agreed to get the restrictive covenant registered to their land titles.

According to the initiative's website, it costs $500 per household to get the covenant registered. Marble's team is getting those covenants finalized in batches, with roughly 70 households officially registered, he said. He said restrictive covenants are more common in Calgary than people think — but often people don't realize it's on their land title because, in most cases, there wasn't any reason to enforce them in court until recently.

"Given that the city's zoning laws were, until recently, in many of those neighbourhoods [consistent] with what the restrictive covenant was saying, it simply wasn't necessary to go to court," said Marble, a partner with Carbert Waite LLP.

That's changing, and so too is the nature of Marble's work. He's been litigating restrictive covenants for roughly five years. But now, his team is also working to draft new restrictive covenants for communities like Lake Bonavista.

"We were not doing that work prior to the city proposing and then passing the new bylaw," he said.

Marble is also working with Chinook Park, Kelvin Grove and Eagle Ridge on their restrictive covenant initiative, among other communities in the city. He predicts the covenants are going to become more common as time goes on. Residents in Rideau-Roxboro can attest to that. Many properties in that community have had restrictive covenants in place for decades, but now there's a new push to get the remaining homes on board.

"In our initiative to talk to our neighbours to see if they're interested in having restrictive covenants placed on their property to both benefit themselves and to help their neighbours regarding future development of the community, the uptake has actually been very strong," said Tony Morris, a resident helping to lead the initiative. He said it's interesting to see more communities turn to restrictive covenants as a solution — especially in neighbourhoods that are further out from inner-city Calgary. For his community, it's all about certainty over the future of their streets, "without having the developer community really kind of drive that agenda."

Eliot Tretter, an associate professor in geography at the University of Calgary, said he finds the movement fascinating. He specializes in the history of restrictive covenants. Tretter said he doesn't see this movement having a big impact on the ability to build more housing supply in Calgary, since adding a restrictive covenant is a costly and complex process that most people likely wouldn't want to go through. But for him, there are bigger concerns at hand.

"There's no form of private restriction that is inclusionary.... Why don't we want inclusive communities? What is driving that?""That is something that is maybe more troubling and has longer impacts on the way in which we deal with housing … and how people get housed and how we build our neighbourhoods," said Tretter.

In a statement, the City of Calgary says it doesn't enforce or determine the validity of restrictive covenants. Instead, they're private civil matters that are to be dealt with between the landowners subject to the agreement.

Marble said to get a restrictive covenant removed, all parties who have signed the agreement would have to agree to do so. Or someone could file a court application, arguing that the covenant is no longer enforceable "because people have stopped following it, people have stopped complying with it or it's somehow contrary to the public interest." CBC Sept 23

The City of Toronto is reviewing the business licensing and zoning rules for pet establishments that work with and/or keep live animals on their premises (for example, businesses that offer grooming, training, daycare, or the overnight boarding of animals).  

 Currently, the only pet-related businesses licensed by the City are pet shops. They are considering extending similar rules, and implementing new ones, for other pet-related businesses, many of which may operate in your neighbourhood. This would help establish clear standards for the care of animals, reduce nuisance issues such as noise and odour, and ensure consumer protection. 

 This may be of interest to residents in your area, and there are upcoming opportunities to participate in an online survey and virtual consultations regarding businesses that work with and keep live animals on their premises.  

 Your input is essential to help shape these potential rule changes. 

 Public Consultation Opportunities 

 Online Survey: Share feedback through an online survey until February 28 

 Virtual Public Consultations: Two virtual consultations will be held to gather more detailed input: 

  - February 11 (10 a.m. – 12 p.m.) 

  - February 13 (5:30 – 7:30 p.m.) 

 They encourage you and your community members to participate in these consultations, as your involvement will help ensure well-informed changes, and reflect the needs of both residents and businesses in Toronto. 

 They look forward to hearing from you and appreciate your engagement in this important process.  

 For more information, to access the online survey, and to register for the virtual consultations, please visit  Pet Establishment Licensing Review – City of Toronto 

Communicated to KPRI by,   

 Pet Establishment Review Team 

City of Toronto

How to read a Toronto Zoning Bylaw. Still relevant information from elevature, July 30, 2012

So you want to follow a city council meeting, but you don't know all the rules and procedures? We have you covered. From Torontoist, Nov 2, 2015

Developers to play advisory role in group overseeing Doug Ford’s new conservation authority rules January 14, 2021 A month after the province brought in controversial changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, it has put together a working group to implement the new rules, giving developers a key advisory role.

Paris agrees to turn Champs-Élysées into 'extraordinary garden' , Jan 10, 2021 Mayor Anne Hidalgo said the planned work, unveiled in 2019 by local community leaders and businesses, would turn the 1.9 km (1.2 mile) stretch of central Paris into “an extraordinary garden”.

The City’s Bill 108 website is now live here
When Bill 108 and associated regulations come into force, it will affect the planning and financial tools to support new development in communities across Toronto that the City uses to provide:

• parks

• recreation centres

• childcare centres

• libraries

• subsidized housing

• paramedic services and

• other community infrastructure.

The Toronto Star, May 11, 2019 Ford government housing Bill 108 could leave developers paying less, Toronto communities with fewer benefits

Globe and Mail, March 11, 2019 Density does not have to equal towers, and according to new research by Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Research and Land Development all the growth in housing construction the province needs to support both population growth and affordability goals could be met by rezoning areas near transit to support “gentle density,” missing-middle projects.

Globe and Mail, October 19, 2018 There was a time when Toronto worked as an exemplar of city building and municipal governance. Toronto was looked to as a model of metropolitan government and urban planning. But now a shortsighted, buck-a-beer outlook has replaced its breadth of vision.

spacing Toronto, August 20, 2018  Premier Doug Ford’s pledge to upload the subway system will become the Brexit of Toronto politics: a promise balanced on the most dubious of mandates, barely scrutinized during the election and certain to deliver administrative chaos, political conflict and planning gridlock for years to come.

NOW, August 2, 2018  Former mayor David Miller calls out Doug Ford's assault on Toronto council:  "The reason Ford has so dramatically interfered with the city's municipal election is crass politics – he wants to get rid of people he doesn’t like"

National Post, July 31, 2018   Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s plan to cut Toronto’s city council from 47 to 25 wards, and to cancel regional elections outside of Toronto, has attracted strong opposition. It threatens to create what critics call a state of “civic chaos” because, if passed, The Better Local Government Act would take effect before the upcoming municipal election this October.

Toronto Storeys, March 14, 2018    Young families have built up a once-neglected neighbourhood.  They somewhat gentrified it.  They beautified it.  They increased its value. Now they believe their efforts — and neighbourhood — are about to be thwarted by a meat-packing plant.   Other articles are other link1,  and other link2,

The Toronto Star, March 12, 2018     If the city continues on its current financial course, it will face a massive $1.42 billion budget gap in just five years, warns a new report from the city’s top bureaucrat.

The Toronto Star, March 5, 2018     Waterfront Toronto’s eagerness to sign a deal with a Google sister company has alarmed experts who warn cities are easy prey for Big Tech and its unquenchable thirst for data.

Canadian & Consulting Engineer, October 2, 2017    Great Gulf acquiring Mirvish Gehry towers project in Toronto.  The development will comprise two towers of 82 and 92 storeys anchored by a multi-level podium.

CBCNews Calgary, September 30, 2017     Flexible zoning is being contemplated in Calgary.  Rules around what goes where could boost residential living in the core and bring more business to communities.

CBCNews Toronto, September 22, updated October 5, 2017   A neighbourhood group in north Toronto is organizing a yard sale on Saturday hoping to raise the tens of thousands of dollars it needs to help pay for its three-year fight against a proposed rental development in the area. 

Globe and Mail Editorial, September 1, 2017.  How density makes for a successful city and why residents and developers must find a happy medium between extremes.

Alex Bozikovic, The Globe and Mail's architecture critic  August 29th.  A discussion of NIMBY-ism vs the reality of population growth in Toronto.  Contains links to other relevant articles.

UPDATE: At their meeting, starting December 17, 2024, there was a Motion to Refer this Item, moved by Councillor Stephen Holyday (Carried)

That City Council refer the item back to the Chief Planner for consultation with the public and residents’ associations accompanied with a professional communications campaign through mainstream media channels to explain the proposal and gather their opinion.

The text of this post before the update above was as follows:

The majority of this post was put together in an email by our fellow ratepayer group to the north at Humbertown (HVVRA), and is gratefully posted for you today in the hope you will take immediate action.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2024, City Planning will recommend City Council pass a new bylaw to permit wide-ranging retail and commercial activities throughout all residential neighbourhoods in Toronto.

Retail: including coffee shops, bars, small eateries with patios permitted on front and side lawns, cannabis stores, small groceries and convenience stores.

Commercial including: alterations, cleaners, medical offices, personal services i.e. physiotherapy and massage, barbers, hair salons, nail spas, home offices with up to 3 staff, and art galleries. All will be permitted, and encouraged, as of right, with no parking requirements!

How? By converting existing detached and semi-detached homes to new use, or by tearing down existing houses and rebuilding up to 4 storey buildings, with retail/commercial at street level and with housing on the top three levels.

Planning recommends this change of use for all major streets. (Think of Royal York Road) On interior residential streets, e.g. within Humber Valley Village, (think The Kingsway, Wimbleton, Lambeth), any house on a corner lot or across from a park can be converted to retail/commercial.

Planning makes these recommendations under the guise of increasing housing stock and making our communities more ‘livable’ while discouraging driving. Yet these recommendations do exactly the opposite – converting residential units to retail/commercial and diverting traffic to inner streets. Not to mention increased noise, garbage, and the impacts on housing values. How did this happen?

Residence Associations, including ours, all across the city were shocked and outraged to learn of this sweeping by-law proposal late last week. HVVRA found out when it received a hastily called Notice from Planning about a virtual consultation (2 meetings, same day, for ALL Toronto residents’ associations) with only 6 days notice and, thankfully an Urgent email from Beaconsfield Village Residents’ Association with details on what’s being quietly floated by Planning.

Is this what you want to see next door or down the street from your house? Please write to the following folks to let them know how you feel about this unholy rush to distort our neighborhoods without our permission:

Email Councillor Holyday, Mayor Chow, and Councillors on the Planning Committee.  (Email addresses are below. Write one email, c.c. the others!)

Tell them to vote against this proposed by-law amendment "Neighbourhood Retail and Services Study" on Tuesday December 17th.

Be sure to include your name and postal address in your email.

Your email must include "To the Mayor and Members of City Council, Reference: PH17.2

Email addresses: (note the correct format with an underscore after the first word of the address: Mayor_chow, Councillor_holyday, etc.)

Mayor_chow@toronto.ca

Councillor_holyday@toronto.ca

Councillor_perks@toronto.ca

Councillor_morley@toronto.ca

clerk@toronto.ca

Michael.noble@toronto.ca 

(Michael Noble is the Project Manager, please include him.)

Supporting city documents include

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/local-neighbourhood-retail-and-services/

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-250838.pdf

Despite a petition signed by over 700 residents, the KPRI and residents raising and spending $50,000 on legal/planning fees to act as a Party along with the City at the OLT, the City’s legal and planner efforts resulted in a settlement for three 14-storey towers.

Many residents find this inappropriate. 

The case highlights concerns over the Ontario Land Tribunal's favoring of developers and the need for significant financial resources to ensure community voices are heard in development disputes.

The Details

Dear Neighbour,

In 2022, a local developer appealed a 2016 non-decision by the City of Toronto for an eight-storey building at the southwest corner of Prince Edward Drive North and Dundas Street West.  

Rather than bringing the original application to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), as is common practice, the developer replaced it with an 18-storey proposal, and took that application to the OLT, which is within their rights. This is not in the interest of local residents, as it bypasses the City of Toronto planning process almost entirely.

This meant the final decision about the largest development application in our community’s history would not be made by our elected officials, but by an unelected appeal board – staffed by political appointees – which sides with development interests over 90% of the time. Source: NewmarketToday

For the past two years, KPRI poured countless hours, and nearly $50,000 in legal and land-use planning fees, into defending our community against a development proposal Ward-Three Councillor Amber Morley initially referred to as “egregious.”

Reflecting this was a petition against the proposal signed by over 700 residents of the Kingsway-Sunnylea area.

The KPRI initially took Party status alongside the City in contesting the development at the OLT.

As time unfolded, much expensive correspondence surged back and forth. We had to retain both a lawyer and a planner to even appear before the tribunal with a voice. Eventually we were knocked out of the running, as all our $50,000 of raised funds had been spent. We then had to demote ourselves to a participant tier of involvement, which means you get to write a letter and that’s it. Both sides read it...or they don't. No power. No influence.

After all the money raised and time spent, the outcome of these proceedings was City Council approving settling with the developer on a three-tower, 14-storey building, which we believe remains highly inappropriate for this site.

Although the Ontario Land Tribunal has not, as yet, approved the settlement proposal, it appears all that’s left is a formality of final processing of the details. 

We are disappointed in our provincial and municipal governments, for several reasons.  We believe

1. the City of Toronto should have argued to send this “appeal” back to the beginning of the land use planning process, forcing the developer to consult in a more meaningful way with the community.  KPRI raised these concerns to no avail.

2. the Ford government’s Ontario Land Tribunal process is undemocratic and favours development interests.  KPRI raised these concerns with MP Christine Hogarth and were told she was powerless to make change (despite the Ford government having built the OLT and being responsible for its administration).  We believe the OLT process needs to be revised to provide more than lip service to community consultation.

3. City Council could have achieved a better deal with the developer had they advocated more firmly for the suggested 10-storey configuration submitted by KPRI’s planner.  In the words of one of KPRI’s experts: “It certainly (appears) the city has not taken a strong position to support their own policies and design guidelines specifically put in place to protect your community.”

We are dissatisfied Councillor Morley motioned to accept this settlement which, while certainly better than the original 18 storey proposal, was hardly a seismic change to the original plan.  The Councillor has some level of influence to persuade the city lawyers to be more firm with the developer, and she also has the ability to refuse the settlement offer if she feels the neighborhood is ill served. The provincial representative wrings her hands and advises she is not allowed to voice.

We believe the provincial and municipal officials failed our community on this appeal. The Ontario Land Tribunal process is inherently undemocratic.  The effort put forth by the City of Toronto was insufficient.

While the City and OLT will say this is “good planning” in it’s decision to serve a broader community, we the existing community consider it not to be good community planning and that the voice and continuing interests of our community are consistently marginalized.

The truly galling aspect is the uneasy feeling that one has to spend profligate sums of money — usually over $100,000 for these size of developments — to hire independent lawyers and planners just to be sure the neighborhood voice is heard. There's a yawning gulf here, and neighborhood trust and goodwill are disappearing into it. 

In closing, we leave you with an important word of caution. 

Our community will continue to change. Change is part of progress.  In this case, understanding the need for housing development in Toronto, KPRI supported building heights more than 50% more than zoning by-laws. 

We believe this was a reasonable accommodation, but that there should be a limit – and in our view that limit was exceeded. Existing neighborhoods deserve and are worthy of enforceable protection from dislocating and glaring overdevelopment.

If we want to have any voice in how our community evolves, we must speak up in greater numbers than we do today.  Is this work fun?  No.  It’s time-consuming, painstaking, and usually, thankless.  But it’s critical if we want to have any input in how The Kingsway evolves over time.  

Developers currently have outsized influence in Ontario – and their concern is often profit – not the impact on you or your community.

If you haven’t already, we hope you will consider joining KPRI, so we can continue our effort to advocate for responsible development in The Kingsway.

Don't think this can't happen to you.  Join the ratepayers so you at least have a fighting chance of being heard.

“That consideration of the item be deferred until the July 16, 2024 meeting of the Executive Committee to allow for further consultation and consideration regarding the Somali Centre for Culture and Recreation with the local community, Somali community and City staff”

Go here for the details of the meeting on the City website.

Email sent to Kingsway-Sunnylea Residents

Fellow Resident,

We ask that you consider signing the petition at the link below because we've just learned from the Humber Valley Village Residents Association that the City Staff of Toronto:

• is proposing paving over 3 acres (about one and a half football fields including the end zones) of Buttonwood Park green space.  Buttonwood Park is located in a residential neighbourhood by Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue

• selected Buttonwood Park in secrecy, with no public consultation

• is taking an approach that, if approved, means that any park in the City of Toronto could be ‘chopped up’ for any private interest group without prior public consultation.

What Can You Do?

The Humber Valley Village Residents Association advises that:

There are 2 simple, quick ways to let the Executive Committee know your concerns about the Buttonwood Park proposal. 

1. Sign the petition at: 
Petition · Opposition to the Proposed Long-Term Land Lease of Buttonwood Park - Toronto, Canada · Change.org

2. Send a short email (addresses below) to Executive Members asking to defer a decision until there is reasonable public consultation.

To be clear, our primary issues are:

• building on public parkland without prior community input.

• favouring one private interest group with no opportunity for other groups to be considered. 

• lack of transparency around the choice of location for this initiative.

Executive Members and Contact Details

Paul Ainslie

councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca

416-392-4008

Alejandra Bravo

Councillor_Bravo@toronto.ca

416-392-7012

Shelley Carroll

councillor_carroll@toronto.ca

416-338-2650

Olivia Chow

mayor_chow@toronto.ca

416-397-CITY (2489)

Mike Colle

councillor_colle8@toronto.ca

416-338-2500

Paula Fletcher

councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca

416-392-4060

Ausma Malik

Councillor_Malik@toronto.ca

416-392-4044

Josh Matlow

councillor_matlow@toronto.ca

416-392-7906

Jennifer McKelvie

councillor_mckelvie@toronto.ca

416-338-3771

Amber Morley

Councillor_Morley@toronto.ca

416-397-9273

Gord Perks

councillor_perks@toronto.ca

416-392-7919

If you're deciding to take action, please do it today, as the vote to move the proposal forward is this Tuesday morning, June 18th,  with Council voting on it on June 26th.

If you need more detail in order to sign the petition or contact a councillor above then go here for previous email communications on the matter.

Thursday, April 4, 7–8pm, Virtual (WebEx)
Councillor Morley, her team, and City Staff presented a virtual webinar info session on the Bloor West Complete Street project.
 

“Why here, and why now?”

There’s been many variations on this question from residents across Etobicoke-Lakeshore since the Complete Street project installation along Bloor West began last fall.

This project is bigger than bike lanes.
In addition to cycle tracks, this project includes road safety improvements and public realm upgrades that ensure accessibility and safety for all residents, support our climate goals and active transportation initiatives, and address the evolving needs of our growing communities.

Use the link to the slides below to learn more about:

·  What’s in store for 2024 (including Phase 2 installation),

·  City-wide objectives, like Vision Zero Road Safety and TransformTO Climate Change goals, and how this project helps us meet them, and 

·  How this project will help address local needs we will face as our population continues to grow.

See slides presented here!

or have a listen of the Audio Only.

One way to hear the audio while watching the slideshow is by playing the audio on your cell phone while watching the slide presentation on your laptop, desktop or tablet. The slides captured start at the 2 min 18-sec point of the audio.

1. Pre-application consultation

2. Community consultation meetings

You can see their presentation slides here.

Answer their survey here.

• the award-winning Romance of the Humber

• early history of the Humber Valley

• Etobicoke press, 1948-1950

• Etobicoke Collegiate Institute Etobian News 1948

• historical Social Studies project from Grade 7 Islington Public School

• The Star Article September 29, 1923

• Centennial pamphlet from St. George’s Church

• how Islington got its name

View or dowload this PDF (123MB) through this link.

The Budget Committee  will review a proposed budget and hear input from Toronto residents and businesses. The Mayor will then present the Mayor’s budget by February 1 and City Council will consider that Budget within 30 days.

Your voice matters.  Use the link that follows to quickly learn about the City budget approval process and how to speak to the Budget Committee.

This is your opportunity to influence City Council decisions about your property tax, City services, programs and infrastructure that impact you and your community. Learn how to get involved!

Major Streets Study Proposals Report

Proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings city-wide, in Neighbourhoods, along Map 3 Major Streets, have now been posted to the City's website at toronto.ca/majorstreets

The amendments propose to permit townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings on all properties, along major streets, designated Neighbourhoods across the city and set out built-form criteria in policy and zoning. The proposals contribute to the 2023 Housing Action Plan goals to remove exclusionary zoning and to increase housing opportunities in a range of housing forms, including (but not limited to) townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings.

The amendments reflect nearly two years of research and public consultation, which included virtual public meetings, in-person walking tours, Twitter spaces, a Reddit ask-me-anything, and meetings with stakeholders to help answer key questions about the design and economic feasibility of townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings.

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Staff have revised the draft Official Plan Amendment presented to the Planning and Housing Committee in September 2023. The proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) would permit intensification along major streets, to permit townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings in Neighbourhoods city-wide and clarify the development criteria for this low-scale housing type.

Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment

The proposed approach to permitting townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings city-wide through zoning is adding these building types to the list of permitted building types within the RD, RS, RT, and RM zones while applying the same built form standards to ensure a consistency of scale.

Consultation

Four (4) in-person consultation events are being held as part of the EHON Major Streets study.

October 12, 2023 | 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm | Scarborough Civic Centre,150 Borough Drive

October 16, 2023 | 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm | City Hall Rotunda, 100 Queen Street W

October 17, 2023 | 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm | Etobicoke Civic Centre, 399 The West Mall

October 18, 2023 | 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm | North York Centre Atrium, 5150 Yonge Street

Webinars

The Major Streets team will also be hosting two virtual consultation events. Both events will have the same content with a staff presentation outlining the proposals and time for questions and answers. To register, please click the link below corresponding to your preferred date and time, or go to https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/city-planning-consultations/

Wednesday, October 25, from 2:30-4:30 pm

Wednesday October 25, from 6:00-8:00 pm

Overall Feedback and Comments

All of the information provided at the 4 drop-in Open Houses, or as part of the 2 Webinars, is also available on the EHON Major Streets Study webpage To submit your comments on the proposed amendments, or on any of the Major Streets Study information, e-mail them to EHON@toronto.ca or submit them via our web survey on the toronto.ca/majorstreets webpage.

Our position is that there have been many meetings addressing the matter and they have been posted on our Facebook pages starting March 23. Feedback has been that society has to ditch car dependence while others are losing their minds over the inconvenience this will cause.

The KPRI can't take an ironclad position because both sides are right.

So we want EVERYONE TO CALL THE COUNCILLOR and ensure she has a CLEAR PICTURE of what her voters feel about this and other issues. She is the ONLY PERSON who can put a stop to projects. Councillor Morley’s email is councillor_morley@toronto.ca and her phone is 416-397-9273.

See the details here:

Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Meeting 4

Monday, June 5, 2023 9:30 AM

Committee Room 2, City Hall/Video Conference

URL: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/#/committees/2566/23218

Subject:  PH3.16 - Expanding Housing Options in Neighborhoods:  Multiplex Study - Final Report - May 10 2023

Dear Member of City Council,

On May 10th, with the passing of multiplex legislation, the upcoming look of the city may change more dramatically than any time since the post war period. While I agree that Toronto needs more housing options, particularly in neighbourhoods where populations are declining and infrastructure exists,the current by-laws in front of you are for MONSTERplexes, not multiplexes and need to be sent back to staff to be corrected.

Currently, the maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) permitted is 0.35. The proposed multiplex by-law increased that to 1.62 to 2.02 FSI for the majority of lots. That is 4.5 – 6 times more building on a lot. That is not “gentle density” but the creation of Monsterplexes!

MONSTERplexes will destabilize Neighbourhoods.

MONSTERplexes will not create affordable housing options in Neighbourhoods which EHON is supposed to create.

MONSTERplexes, if approved, will be the start of massive displacement of people and families in our community as landlords evict tenants to rebuild new and larger premises.

MONSTERplexes will destroy trees and further debase the environment.There won't be a single house in any desirable neighborhood where families won't be outbid by developers.This will fuel the fastest run up in prices we have seen yet.

Major changes that need to be made to the Multiplex bylaw:

1. Floor Space Index (FSI) must be retained (to regulate the mass and size of the building on the lot) and ensure that what is created are multiplexes not MONSTERplexes.

2. Building Depth should not be more than 17m

3. Meet provincial government requirements of 3 units (NOT exceed it with 4 plus units as the City Planners are recommending)

It is VERY important to read page 8 of the June 2022 background report (see LINK below) stating clearly that to meet anticipated demand the City only needs 1 additional unit in 11% of single family homes.  EHON's 4+ units in 100% of single family homes is grotesque and totally unnecessary. The report is available here. 

We are in the midst of a mayoral race. I request that you send these by-laws back to staff to revise and come back after the election with better by-laws that do not result in MONSTERplexes in our community.

Insert Your Name

Insert Your address and postal code

Insert Your email address (optional)

Cc: clerk@toronto.ca

Councillor Amber Morley Councillor_Morley@toronto.ca

Councillor Paul Ainslie councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca

Councillor Alejandra Bravo Councillor_Bravo@toronto.ca

Councillor Jon Burnside Councillor_Burnside@toronto.ca

Councillor Shelley Carroll councillor_carroll@toronto.ca

Councillor Lily Cheng Councillor_Cheng@toronto.ca

Councillor Mike Colle councillor_colle8@toronto.ca

Councillor Gary Crawford councillor_crawford@toronto.ca

Councillor Vincent Crisanti Councillor_Crisanti@toronto.ca

Councillor Stephen Holyday councillor_holyday@toronto.ca

Councillor Nick Mantas Councillor_Mantas@toronto.ca

Councillor Josh Matlow councillor_matlow@toronto.ca

Councillor Jennifer McKelvie councillor_mckelvie@toronto.ca

Councillor Chris Moise Councillor_Moise@toronto.ca

Councillor Frances Nunziata councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca

Councillor James Pasternak councillor_pasternak@toronto.ca

Councillor Gord Perks councillor_perks@toronto.ca

Councillor Anthony Perruzza councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca

Councillor Jaye Robinson councillor_robinson@toronto.ca

Councillor Dianna Saxe Councillor_Saxe@toronto.ca

Councillor Michael Thompson councillor_thompson@toronto.ca