Toronto 40 Moccasin Trail & 50 Greenbelt Drive | 28.65m | 8s | Hampton Metrics | GSA Studio

M

Midtown Urbanist

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
10,621
Location
Where the density is
This is a bit of a strange one, for its high density at an awkward (if you ask me) location:

5.png


Proposal to demolish existing rental residential buildings and replace them with three residential buildings of 10, 4 and 4 storeys with 324 residential units (263 condominium units and 61 rental replacement units) with a density of 2.96 FSI.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-61996.pdf

1.png
 
The applicant and the City reached a settlement and the appeal was approved in principle at the OMB: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl151208-Jun-22-2017.pdf

Since the filing of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, the proposed development has undergone various revisions. The currently proposed project is an eight-storey residential apartment building on Green Belt Drive and a four storey residential apartment building on Moccasin Trail. The project would replace existing rental apartment housing.

[...]

ORDER
[22] The Board orders that:

1. the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Official Plan Amendment appeals are allowed in part and the draft Zoning By-law Amendments set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Decision and the draft Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 3 to this Decision are approved in principle;

2. the Board’s order respecting the Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment appeals and its approval of the draft Zoning By-law Amendments and Official Plan Amendment are withheld pending the satisfaction of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Decision;

3. as soon as possible after the satisfaction of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Decision, the parties will file the final draft Zoning By-law Amendments and Official Plan Amendment with the Board and indicate to the Board what, if any, changes have been made from the drafts set out in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 to this Decision;

4. the Board retains jurisdiction over determining the final form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendments and Official Plan Amendments;

5. a status update telephone conference call will be held on Friday, November 17, 2017 at 9 a.m. at which time the parties will update the Board on progress made and address the issue of whether a final deadline is required for the satisfaction of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Decision. The Board case coordinator will forward call-in details for the call to the parties;

6. pursuant to Rule 107 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Decision is effective as of May 30, 2017.
Click to expand...
 
The Don Mills Residents Inc. newsletter says these are approved, but no details. I am not sure where I look for this info.
 
donoreo said:
The Don Mills Residents Inc. newsletter says these are approved, but no details. I am not sure where I look for this info.
Click to expand...

Just above your post, in post #3, @PMT posted the (then) OMB's approval and order.

***

It would appear only the zoning was approved at the OMB as the City still has live Site Plan Approval Applications which were last updated in 2021:

app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

Look under the 'supporting documents tab for various files such as Architecture Plans)

They may actually be approved and not just closed off given the time involved (SPA files don't go to Council for Approval), you'd have to phone the planner.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Just above your post, in post #3, @PMT posted the (then) OMB's approval and order.

***

It would appear only the zoning was approved at the OMB as the City still has live Site Plan Approval Applications which were last updated in 2021:

app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

Look under the 'supporting documents tab for various files such as Architecture Plans)

They may actually be approved and not just closed off given the time involved (SPA files don't go to Council for Approval), you'd have to phone the planner.
Click to expand...
I saw the "approved in principal" a long time ago. The Toronto link seems to be borked, not loading.
 
donoreo said:
I saw the "approved in principal" a long time ago. The Toronto link seems to be borked, not loading.
Click to expand...

Link is fine, LOL, the AIC is completely down at the moment, however.
 
Project is in receivership.

storeys.com

Toronto Rental Project Compromised As Receivership Granted Over $25M Debt

As Toronto continues to flounder in its housing crisis, every housing unit that can be cranked out counts. So it’s no less than bad news that yet another development has become mixed up in receivership proceedings as the lender on the project alleges a $25M debt default. The Ontario courts...
storeys.com storeys.com

@Paclo may wish to make note.
 
One of the original buildings still have a few tennants in them, however the TFS was there today spraying down the balconies. I did not see any fire.
 
@donoreo

Did you make note of this piece on Medium from last October, about this property?


As at the last update, in that piece, certainly things required by the OLT were never forwarded to Planning and so the OPA/ZBA has never been ratified. No activity on the SPA front since. No building or demolition permits applied for, No work orders issued.

So this got me looking to see what happened here:

This is a link to the receivership information.

40 Moccasin Trail & 50 - 60 Greenbelt Drive, Toronto, Ontario - TDB Advisory

tdbadvisory.ca tdbadvisory.ca

The receiver here was discharged in July '25.

This is the discharge order, which gives how we got to that point.


So, from that, we learn they tried to market the property to 38 developers............3 signed confidentiality agreements to have a look behind the scenes. Two submitted bids, both of which were deemed unacceptable due to conditionality.

Subsequently a third bid came in, but didn't work out either.

Thereafter the creditor asked the receiver to terminate the process in favour of private action by the creditor.

As to what's happened since.........hmmmm ???

You may wish to let the author of the piece know about the above. She might be willing to dig further.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top