More community consultation for controversial High Park Condo

The controversial development application - which proposes a 14-storey, 378-residential-unit, mixed-use building directly across from High Park on Bloor Street West - drew the ire of a standing-room-only crowd at Etobicoke York Community Council (EYCC) Tuesday night.

"Like (my neighbours), I chose this area for my residence because of its peaceful, park-like setting," said Anya Poesiat, one of close to 20 local residents who spoke out against the development at the Etobicoke Civic Centre. "We therefore abhor the idea of a huge, monolithic structure to the south of us - I might say almost on top of us - and towering over High Park."

If approved, the proposed Daniels Corporation development is slated to be constructed on a large swath of land at 1844-1854 Bloor St. W., as well as portions of 18 Oakmount Rd, and 35 and 37 Pacific Ave. The U-shaped development proposes two eight-storey wings that will project forward to Bloor Street West along Oakmount Road and Pacific avenues, while a front yard setback of 25 metres will accommodate a courtyard facing Bloor, stepping back to the 14-storey portion of the building at the rear of the property.

The proposal also sets aside $1.55 million in Section 37 benefits to be paid by the developer to the city and to be allocated in Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park for local parks and streetscapes and local, non-profit childcare facilities.

Nevertheless, at issue for many local residents neighbouring the development - more than 700 of whom signed a petition against its construction - is the proposal's height (which, at 52 metres, is more than twice as high as the maximum height allowed under the current zoning provisions), architecture and design (much of the building is to be fronted in 'ugly', energy inefficient glass), its spacing relative to existing buildings, its 'deficient' parking (274 parking spaces for 378 residential units), the resultant increase in traffic the building will likely bring with it and the precedent approving such an application will have on future development in the area.

"This project is simply out of scale. It's out of scale with the surrounding environment and neighbourhood and it's going to set a dangerous precedent for future development," said Mark Senderowitz, a local resident who requested the building's scope be scaled back to nine storeys at most.

"This is not a decision about an encroachment agreement, this is a decision that is going to redefine a neighbourhood. If this building is allowed to go up, it's going to set the tone and standard for this neighbourhood for years and years to come and you won't be able to change it."

After an hour of similar deputations and visibly taken off guard by the long grocery list of complaints presented by her constituents, local Councillor Sarah Doucette admitted to having a change of heart - reversing her decision to approve the development in favour of seeking more time for consultation between the developer and the community.

"I came here tonight prepared to accept this application...but a lot of people have spoken here tonight about issues, which, to be honest, I hadn't been contacted at my office about, so it's been leaving me blind," she said, before conferring with city staff to write up a last-minute motion to refer the application back to planning staff.

In the meantime, York West Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti drew up a motion of his own, calling on the developer and city staff to start from scratch.

"There is a feel to Bloor Street that has existed forever and by doing this with this one site...we set a precedent that we'll all regret," he said, suggesting an avenue study be completing before the approval of any such game-changing developments.

"Let's go back to drawing board...This is High Park. You can't take a concept that works somewhere else and put it in High Park and think everybody's going to love it. It's like putting a gorilla in a fishbowl. It just doesn't look right, it doesn't feel right and we need to go back."

What conspired from that point was widespread confusion over Doucette and Mammoliti's competing referral motions, resulting in a two-minute shouting match between EYCC Chair Mark Grimes (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) and Mammoliti, during which time Grimes repeatedly demanded Mammoliti either accept his ruling to deal with his motion as an amendment to Doucette's, or to challenge the chair.

In the end, Grimes split the pair of motions into three parts, with councillors voting separately on each. One part from each of the councillors' motions ultimately got the green light.

The amended (and approved) motion reads as such: That EYCC refer the application back to the director of community planning for Etobicoke York District with the request that he undertake further community consultation with respect to the design of the development and with respect to building massing and consideration of appropriate materials that are sympathetic to the existing community and that staff report back on any resulting revisions.