Infill Development Discussion

[TooBizzy]

It's so frustrating! And to read accounts like Bruce Graham's in the Herald today is irritating for how misinforming it is, though well-intentioned. In Graham's case, the properties in question were not part of blanket rezoning, but were instead rezoned R-CG with a city council hearing. This is not sufficiently clear in the article, which seems to overwhelmingly be in opposition to the allowances of that particular type of zoning.

Then, to make matters worse, the Herald illustrated it with a photo of an apartment building that falls under an entirely different type of zoning while implying it is part of the question of blanket rezoning. Again, it isn't — this was built by going through normal council channels to receive rezoning.

Were you able to find the parcels under discussion? I found a 34 unit + 17 suite development across 4 mid-block parcels, but it's an M-CG that went to Council in 2020, two Councils ago.

 

[lemongrab]

This is a pathetic NIMBY council. Which is obvious with the repealing, but also extending to piss poor governance on the small matters, too. For some reason the video for yesterday's council meeting wasn't uploaded, so instead I tuned into today's public hearing near the end.

I only caught the end of the item, but a proposal in Mayland Heights was voted down, seemingly because there is no LAP (or equivalent for this semi-industrial area) for the area yet.

The next item was to go to MU-1 (up to 6 storey) for 3 lots on the corner of 19th St and 50 Ave (where the burnouts at Central used to go off property to smoke...maybe they still do). Great location.

It was made clear repeatedly by the applicant and administration that it fully complied with the brand new West Elbow LAP (passed in Sep 2025 IIRC). And yet it got voted down 8-7. (Farkas, Yule, Pantazopolous, Tyers and the southern 4 in opposition; Chabot, Wynness, Dhaliwal, and the progressives in favour). Piss poor arguments for voting against that all strayed into the DP phase (which they're not supposed to do for land-use).

No plan? vote it down! Full compliance with totally current plan? vote it down!

To be fair, North Glenmore Park is bursting at the seams:

This really exemplifies the issue with the Land-use vs DP process. No idea how to improve it, but this is a really bad sign when repealing means a lot more land-use amendments decided by this council.

 

[nickheer]

Were you able to find the parcels under discussion? I found a 34 unit + 17 suite development across 4 mid-block parcels, but it's an M-CG that went to Council in 2020, two Councils ago.

I’m pretty sure I did, but I don't know what the rules are in posting it since it would effectively doxx Bruce Graham.