Architectural:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Architectural Plans
- From the Rear (West) the 45-degree Angular Plane intersects several of the top floors.
- No 45-degree Angular Plane shown from the southerly Neighborhood properties.
- No step-backs provided above the Streetwall (along Bathurst Street).
- Required minimum setback violation from the Rear (West) – Section 10.80.40.70 (2) City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013
- From the Rear (West): Neighborhood properties are at a 2-meter lower grade which makes the Architectural plan violate Performance Standard #5, particularly with respect to building envelope height.
- “The north side yard setback at its narrowest point ranges from 0.42 meter to 1.11 meters to a Neighbourhoods designated property. The south side yard setback at its narrowest point ranges from 0.7 meters to 1.38 meters to a Neighbourhoods designated property. Where adjacent sites have walls with windows, new buildings must ensure a minimum 5.5 meters from the existing building wall”
Page 7, Senior City Planner, Preliminary Report (https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-163478.pdf)
Avenue Segment Review Study:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Avenue Segment Review Study
- Page 15, “The 4 nearest parks and open spaces identified within proximity of the proposed development site are as follows: Ellerslie Park, 499 Ellerslie Ave: 180m; Carscadden Greenbelt: 220m”.
Factually Incorrect: distance to Ellerslie Park is 80m, the distance to Carscadden Greenbelt is less than 100m. Different environmental impact due to this closer proximity. - Page 25, Figure 15 (Angular Plane) doesn’t match Architectural Plan (Page 6).
- Page 29, Performance Standard #12 omitted as it is not met for rear balconies.
Transportation Impact Study:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Transportation Impact Study
- Page 4, “The proposed development is expected to generate:… It should be noted that since the proposed development generates less than 100 total trips, based on the City of Toronto Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, a full Traffic Impact Study is not required”.
This conclusion of “less than 100 total trips” is highly questionable. - Page 13, Section 3.0 “Based on Nextrans comprehensive review of the study area, it is evident that there is a wide range of different types of land uses currently exist in this area within 2 to 10 minutes walking distance such as medical offices, pharmacies, employment, banks, restaurant and retail/ commercial.”
Factually Incorrect: This “2 to 10 minute” conclusion is factually incorrect as this is a residential area and the closest major intersections (Bathurst/Finch and/or Bathurst/Sheppard) are at least 15-20 minutes walking away (both intersections are over 1.2 km away). These major intersections are the closest places that contain these amenities. - A new traffic study is required during rush hour times (post-COVID) to evaluate the true impacts of additional traffic on Bathurst Street.
Sun Shadow Study:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Sun/Shadow Study
- The Carscadden Dr. properties (#9 – #25) are on a lower grade (~2 meters lower) than the lot terrain, which means cumulative shadowing lasts more than reported. This report does not take into account this gradient and for that reason its results are not valid. The impacts need to be re-evaluated with this lower gradient in mind. The shadow impacts due to this gradient are severe and unacceptable.
- No Summer and Winter solstices results provided as required.
- Unacceptable shadowing results in key times of the day for the adjacent West properties (morning hours), North properties (morning/mid-day) and for the townhouse complex at Flook Lane (late afternoon hours).
Arborist Report:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Arborist Report
- Page 3 “A total of 19 trees have been tagged and inventoried situated on private property and beyond 6m”.
In fact, there are at least 30 other existing trees (over 25 mature) not inventoried in this report – either on the property line or within a 6-meter zone. At least 10 missing trees alone (including rare shrubs) are in the property of 23 Carscadden Dr. - Random untagged/unlabeled photographs attached to this report and it is indeterminate whether these random photographs are supposed to be representative of the area.
- There is no diagram showing the locations of the inventoried trees.
- Page 4, Tree Tag # 1013 (Siberian Elm) DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) is 64 cm, not 54 cm. Therefore TPZ (Tree Protection Zone) should be 4.2 m – not 3.6 m (this correction should be reflected in “Landscape and Lighting Plans” and all other plans where TPZ is shown).
Noise Impact Study:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Noise Impact Study
- No data on level of noise and the noise impact of the proposed project on the surroundings.
Geotechnical Study:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
Supporting Documentation -> Geotechnical Study
- The soil and geotechnical are using outdated 2017-2018 plans for a 1-level underground garage and 3.5-storey townhouse complex. The new application calls for a 2-level underground garage and as such this will significantly change the nature of the soil and land profile. The impacts and recommendations need to be re-evaluated with this deeper garage and larger building in mind.
- Page 5, “is understood that the existing building will be demolished for the construction of residential townhouse blocks, with one level underground parking spanning across the entire property. The townhouse blocks will be provided with municipal service and paved driveways”.
- Page 29, Diagram shows plans for a 3.5 story building as is assumed throughout the whole report. This is a significantly smaller building than what is applied for. Bore holes, amongst several other items in the report, must be re-evaluated with the knowledge that the building will be much bigger with a deeper garage.
Community Services and Utilities Report; Sanitary Capacity Analysis; Storm Water Management Report; Avenue Segment Review Study; Transportation Impact Study:
http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=j82uoVYs804nLtve8MVz2g%3D%3D
All of these reports/studies suffer from a critical flaw. The new condominium development at 4926 Bathurst St. (high-rise, 26-storeys, at the South/West corner of Bathurst St. and Finch Ave) is not taken into account.
This 4926 Bathurst St development, will be a larger condominium in close proximity to this site and it will significantly impact the community services and utilities, as well the traffic load on Bathurst St. Being in the same Tributary zone and sharing the same sewer/water supply systems – all of these studies and engineering calculations need to be re-done.
