neubilder
Banned
It figures and Gee, what a waste of taxpayers money to please a couple individuals.
WTF is with the stupid Hulk Hogan avatar anyways?
Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte
- Thread starter SpadinaBus
- Start date
WTF is with the stupid Hulk Hogan avatar anyways?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Pardon me..whats that all about
My friend, where have you been for the past 3 years.Hahaha..from you guys in the hood..im a tower fantasizer and now my freakin avatar is no good, whats next. lol
gristle
Senior Member
It figures and Gee, what a waste of taxpayers money to please a couple individuals.
Actually AG, if you can read, you would see that several residents attended the hearing. As these events take place during the work day, and as the time for individual testimony depends on the duration of the hearing, its not easy to sit through two or three days of proceedings in order to have a say on the proposal. You don't seem to like the idea of individual citizens having a say in any of this. Your heart clearly lies exclusively with the developers.
Just so you are clear, those opposed to this proposal included city planners, many individuals living in the immediate area, the local community association and the city. The proposal was turned down by the city at Committee of Adjustments. That's more than a "couple of individuals" who oppose this thing.
If you think that the OMB is such a waste of taxpayers money, why do you support its existence so ardently?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
gristle
Senior Member
But the OMB approved it..dont mix things up here.
Local residents, the community association, city planners (along with the democratically approved Secondary Plan), the councillor and the Committee of Adjustments did not approve this proposal. It seems you slavishly bow only to the OMB.
You didn't answer my question AG. If you think that the OMB is such a waste of taxpayer money, why do you support its existence so ardently?
SpadinaBus
Active Member
There appears to be some careful digging going on within the site. Old foundations being exposed?
drum118
Superstar
May 21
Boy were they digging and not sure if they found any thing here
They found some old foundation here and very shallow below grade of all things after all these years.
Boy were they digging and not sure if they found any thing here
They found some old foundation here and very shallow below grade of all things after all these years.
SpadinaBus
Active Member
City wins review of OMB Decision by Divisional Court!
A neighbour in the know just informed me that the City has been granted a leave by the Divisional Court for the OMB Decision earlier this year for this project. Great news for the community!
The judge reviewing it, Justice Wilson at Ontario Divisional Court, supposedly wrote an unflattering 10 page analysis of OMB Member Mr. Rossi's decision regarding Thompson Residences.
I was given these juicy tidbits which is supposedly come directly from the decision (maybe someone can find it online for us):
"Item 33: Nowhere in the Board decision is there a clear analysis of the four-part statutory test as it relates to each of the proposed minor variances....Mr Paliare (lawyer for developer) suggested that the decision of the Board lacks headings...In my view the decision reveals problems far more fundamental than a mere absence of headings or a level of disorganization.
Item 42: The Board must apply the Official Plan and the Secondary Plan in accordance with the clear principles...To fail to do so is an error in law. There is good reason to doubt whether this was done in this case.
Item 43: It appears that the board relied upon the reputation of the proposed developer and the approval of its past projects as a reason for granting the requested variances.
item 44: The City has serious concerns that this analysis and these comments create an uneven playing field dependent upon a builder's reputation that may be slippery slope toward eroding the integrity, fairness, impartiality and transparency of planning decisions. This is a potentially far-reaching concern warranting consideration of the issue by the Divisional Court.
item 46: The onus is upon the appellant developer to demonstrate that the proposal is a minor variance...the onus is not upon the City to prove that the proposed design was unacceptable or contrary to the principles of good design."
What that means is that there will be a full review of the OMB decision in the fall by the full Divisional Court and if the City wins, the decision will be sent back to the OMB for yet another go around with a different OMB member at the helm early next year......essentilly a "re-do" of this year's OMB hearing in February.
S'Bus
A neighbour in the know just informed me that the City has been granted a leave by the Divisional Court for the OMB Decision earlier this year for this project. Great news for the community!
The judge reviewing it, Justice Wilson at Ontario Divisional Court, supposedly wrote an unflattering 10 page analysis of OMB Member Mr. Rossi's decision regarding Thompson Residences.
I was given these juicy tidbits which is supposedly come directly from the decision (maybe someone can find it online for us):
"Item 33: Nowhere in the Board decision is there a clear analysis of the four-part statutory test as it relates to each of the proposed minor variances....Mr Paliare (lawyer for developer) suggested that the decision of the Board lacks headings...In my view the decision reveals problems far more fundamental than a mere absence of headings or a level of disorganization.
Item 42: The Board must apply the Official Plan and the Secondary Plan in accordance with the clear principles...To fail to do so is an error in law. There is good reason to doubt whether this was done in this case.
Item 43: It appears that the board relied upon the reputation of the proposed developer and the approval of its past projects as a reason for granting the requested variances.
item 44: The City has serious concerns that this analysis and these comments create an uneven playing field dependent upon a builder's reputation that may be slippery slope toward eroding the integrity, fairness, impartiality and transparency of planning decisions. This is a potentially far-reaching concern warranting consideration of the issue by the Divisional Court.
item 46: The onus is upon the appellant developer to demonstrate that the proposal is a minor variance...the onus is not upon the City to prove that the proposed design was unacceptable or contrary to the principles of good design."
What that means is that there will be a full review of the OMB decision in the fall by the full Divisional Court and if the City wins, the decision will be sent back to the OMB for yet another go around with a different OMB member at the helm early next year......essentilly a "re-do" of this year's OMB hearing in February.
S'Bus
gristle
Senior Member
That assessment is totally on target.
Red Mars
Senior Member
Pic taken June 27, 2011
Some sort of debris/concrete crusher on the premises.
Some sort of debris/concrete crusher on the premises.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
No specific height on this one yet..
621 KING ST W
OPA / Rezoning 11 242716 STE 20 OZ Ward 20
- Tor & E.York Jul 21, 2011 --- --- --- ---
Rezoning application for new mixed use building containing retail on ground floor with residential above - 404 residential units - 296 parking spaces below grade - residential 130 - retail / visitor 166 - 2 loading spaces - 278 bicycle parking spaces. 5 levels below grade parking.
621 KING ST W
OPA / Rezoning 11 242716 STE 20 OZ Ward 20
- Tor & E.York Jul 21, 2011 --- --- --- ---
Rezoning application for new mixed use building containing retail on ground floor with residential above - 404 residential units - 296 parking spaces below grade - residential 130 - retail / visitor 166 - 2 loading spaces - 278 bicycle parking spaces. 5 levels below grade parking.
Huh? Up to 404 residential units from earlier reports of 310 or 314, all while this is going through the courts because it was too big? What gives?!
42
42
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Too big as in height or too big as in density?
drum118
Superstar
Going by the height proposed, that about 30 units per floor based on current numbers. Those will be real small units.
If units are to be lager with less per floor, looking at a 20 story building here.
As for parking spaces, to high for visitors.
metroTO
Active Member
the visitor parking spaces will probably be a public pay garage, just like at 75 Portland.
The current design is 28 units per floor for the King Street building and 8-10 units per floor for the Stewart Street building, so I think the 404 units includes both buildings which seems to add up to their original 12 stories (the PH units are 2-stories).
Looks like Freed has redesigned the penthouse level with much more smaller units. There are just 4 PH units now that have their own private pool patios.
The units generally are very small in this development. All of the units facing King Street are all between 383-480 sq.ft. each, however the Freed gives an option of combining two units together.
The current design is 28 units per floor for the King Street building and 8-10 units per floor for the Stewart Street building, so I think the 404 units includes both buildings which seems to add up to their original 12 stories (the PH units are 2-stories).
Looks like Freed has redesigned the penthouse level with much more smaller units. There are just 4 PH units now that have their own private pool patios.
The units generally are very small in this development. All of the units facing King Street are all between 383-480 sq.ft. each, however the Freed gives an option of combining two units together.