And throughout the rest: As indicated orally at the conclusion of the hearing, it is the finding of the Board that the evidence fully supports the approval of the requested minor variances in accordance with the Act. While the Board might not go so far as to say that this matter is some great distance removed from “a close call” on the evidence, as submitted by Counsel for the Applicant, the Board would indeed agree that the appeal, as it has been put before the Board, although raising some potential concerns, is not supported with sufficient, or any, planning evidence.
 When pressed on this issue of utilities affecting his building, Mr. Battista conceded that as the City Building Department and utility agencies reviewed the drawings and construction there would likely be no impact on the utilities to the Appellant’s building and when pressed, provided no evidence to support any real concern that the proposed development would, in any way, impact on the security of the Appellant’s building. The Board also cannot accept that Mr. Battista’s concerns regarding any impact the building will have on his personal residence on the back street (parallel to St. Clair Avenue West) are reasonable and there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the building will have any adverse impact on his residence, or any other property for that matter. Despite his generalized concerns the Appellant provided no planning evidence of any kind to challenge the evidence and opinions of the planners or to support any of his general concerns as noted above. The Board cannot accept any of Mr. Battista’s general concerns as legitimate or substantiated and finds that the evidence of the Applicant and the City, including the Parking Study, do not support his assertions.
 Mr. Battista’s limited evidence to the Board relating to his concerns, and as challenged in cross examination, suggest that the Appellant’s objections are, in part, related to competition and may stem from prior litigation. There was some suggestion 18 PL160462 that the opening of the Shoppers Drug Mart in the new development, and the departure of current tenants of Mr. Battista’s building, is an underlying motive for the Appellant for the appeal. The Appellant’s concerns with respect to adding another development on St. Clair West with “more” medical offices are not concerns that the Board considers relevant under the circumstances and do not represent legitimate planning concerns which alter the planning evidence provided by both planners in this hearing. As revealed in Exhibits 6 and 7, the Appellant’s issue of an easement was fully adjudicated by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Appellant’s suit against the Applicant claiming a prescriptive easement was denied. In cross-examination counsel raised the point that there is “bad blood’ between the parties. This latter circumstance is not really relevant to this proceeding and it is not necessary for the Board to make a finding in regards to the motive behind the appeal, but the Board does find that the Appellant’s objections relating to competition or issues of easement access have no merit.
It's a rumour that I've heard could happen.If the Shopper's Drug Mart proposal didn't go through, then it might open a few blocks to the east at Alberta instead: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-898-900-saint-clair-avenue-west-47m-14s-main-and-main-quadrangle.24759/
Last question (sorry to bother you.)You would only pay the premium if you were planning to build to the Site Plan Approval, but as long as you stay within the zoning, then getting a new SPA would not be too onerous. It's the Zoning ByLaw Amendment that's the more complicated, more expensive one to obtain…
But yes, it's odd to go as far as getting an SPA before selling. Selling after getting upzoned by a new ZBA is more typical.