Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
0
(11-20-2014, 12:36 AM)Owen Wrote: (11-20-2014, 12:10 AM)mbender123 Wrote: If you win, they will not cover your cost since you took them to the board. However if you lose since you took them to the board the omb can have you cover momentums legal fees if "The party being asked to pay apealed incorectly or acted improperly" . I think that this could be the case . You will be presenting to the board with 0 evidence for a hypothetical developments on an entire block you do not even own. As well it took me, someone with no legal or planning background 2 seconds to google the info about recovering legal cost and apparently your lawyers and planners found nothing... in all do respect you my be best saving your money and allowing your property value to increase because of momentum. its a great development and great for the downtown!
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/stellent/groups...082179.pdf
It is a great development - no disagreement there! I trust my guys know what they are doing so not worried - they're 100x more qualified than you and I combined - we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out!
I wish you the best of luck. If i had money to pay legal teams and planners id use the money for something else but hey thats me anyways just a question..new to planning world but how come you are using a toronto planning company and not a local firm that is familiar with the area ?
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
0
(11-20-2014, 12:43 AM)Owen Wrote: Correct. The issue is allowing for tower separation (not tower setback from all property lines.) Rear momentum tower is also very close to property lines - no issue here because the lands to the rear are much more expansive - no constraints forcing a tower to be positioned close to the property line. To the right of arthur place is a historic building that has already been redeveloped into offices - it is not reasonably going to be replaced with a tower any time soon so allowing for tower separation on this property line is not necessary.
How can you make the call that is it not going to be replace by a tower any time soon. its the exact same grounds you are basing your case on...just saying got to look at this thing from every angle right...i guess im playing the devils advocate here because i really like this development and i dont want to see any more delays for no reason. i trust our council and think they made the right decision.
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
0
(11-20-2014, 12:45 AM)Owen Wrote: (11-20-2014, 12:38 AM)mbender123 Wrote: I wish you the best of luck. If i had money to pay legal teams and planners id use the money for something else but hey thats me anyways just a question..new to planning world but how come you are using a toronto planning company and not a local firm that is familiar with the area ?
None of the local guys would take me for fear of losing business from bad reputation of fighting a development.
That or they agree with the development and agree its good planning ? and perhaps this toronto company is taking your money. win or lose your paying them correct ? did the other local firms (no names needed of course) give you any advise off the record if they agree with your case?
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
0
(11-20-2014, 12:53 AM)Owen Wrote: (11-20-2014, 12:47 AM)mbender123 Wrote: How can you make the call that is it not going to be replace by a tower any time soon. its the exact same grounds you are basing your case on...just saying got to look at this thing from every angle right...i guess im playing the devils advocate here because i really like this development and i dont want to see any more delays for no reason. i trust our council and think they made the right decision.
That's the peer group building - it won awards - it would be like demo'ing the Kaufman lofts to build a tower. Arthur Place is intended for redevelopment (in writing from planning staff as per the official plan)
aahhh makes sense didnt realize that was their building...does the report from planning say they want to see a high rise redevelopment or that it is intended for redevelopment within the permit OP and zoning which could really be a low-mid rise which may be more fitting and ultimately everyone wins!
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
13
Honestly the much more interesting land assembly question to me is about the empty parking lot expanse behind 72 Victoria Street South. With a parking garage perhaps at Victoria and Joseph, that space can be repurposed and perhaps redeveloped in conjunction with some part of Arthur Pl.
That said, I'm kind of rooting for some of townhouses on Arthur Pl to exist indefinitely.
Posts: 4,927
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
127
(11-20-2014, 01:24 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Honestly the much more interesting land assembly question to me is about the empty parking lot expanse behind 72 Victoria Street South. With a parking garage perhaps at Victoria and Joseph, that space can be repurposed and perhaps redeveloped in conjunction with some part of Arthur Pl.
That said, I'm kind of rooting for some of townhouses on Arthur Pl to exist indefinitely.
I'd much rather see a parking garage on that lot behind 72 Victoria Street rather than on the corner of Victoria and Joseph. That way it's tucked out of the way. Unless we plan on building a very aesthetically pleasing mixed use garage.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
35
One Vic, does that qualify as an aesthetically pleasing garage? At least some (2-4 floors?) of the above-ground portion of the building is parking, but it is hidden behind street-facing commercial (business/residential?) units.
Posts: 485
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
21
If you're going to the OMB it might be best to not talk so freely on this board (as informative as it is). I'm sure lawyers would love to twist and use your words against you.
Posts: 6,573
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
96
11-20-2014, 10:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2014, 10:32 AM by panamaniac.)
I tend to agree. As much as I appreciate Owen's participation, I find the conversation a bit too up in his business. Better to let matters unfold, imho.
By the way, there is work taking place behind the Peer building, past the parking lots. Soil remediation and expanded parking lot?
Posts: 4,927
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
127
(11-20-2014, 09:53 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: One Vic, does that qualify as an aesthetically pleasing garage? At least some (2-4 floors?) of the above-ground portion of the building is parking, but it is hidden behind street-facing commercial (business/residential?) units.
Yes of course. I guess I was thinking he meant a parking garage as a parking garage, not offering parking for a condo. But I guess if you chopped the tower off of One Victoria, that's what it'd be.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
35
Crepes and froyo are the smallest step in that direction in Kitchener, but it's better than not having anything at Benton/Charles. Granted, our blocks are likely too small for this, but the less street frontage that can be given to parking structures - either by having them mid-block, or even central to a block with only lanes in and out visible from the street - the better.
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
13
11-20-2014, 11:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2014, 11:49 PM by mpd618.)
(11-20-2014, 02:59 PM)Spokes Wrote: Yes of course. I guess I was thinking he meant a parking garage as a parking garage, not offering parking for a condo. But I guess if you chopped the tower off of One Victoria, that's what it'd be.
I meant a parking structure of some kind, and of course a street like Victoria needs active use at street level. At the same time, I think the Tannery, 72 Victoria St S, and the UW Pharmacy campus all desperately need a parking structure first so that the endless surrounding parking lots can be developed.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(11-14-2014, 02:24 AM)519 Wrote: The promotional sign for this development at the One Victoria Site says that its 65% sold and construction will start in 2015 (It might have said Spring but I was driving and didn't catch the entire message).
Tower one is almost all sold out, tower 2 has a ways to go.
Posts: 76
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
1
01-22-2015, 10:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2015, 10:49 AM by 519.)
I received a news letter from Momentum last week. They're still at 65%. But this number takes into account the new residential units that were added with the changes made to the plan. They also acknowledge the OMB challenge in the letter.
Posts: 4,927
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
127
Did they give any sort of timeline for the OMB hearing?
|
