Toronto 36 Birch | 17.37m | 4s | North Drive | Richard Wengle
- Thread starter Marcanadian
- Start date
PMT
Senior Member
ProjectEnd
Superstar
This was up for sale last year: http://www.cbre.ca/AssetLibrary/LSG_Birch.pdf
mikejb
Active Member
Tim1234
Active Member
great location and good developer
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Sneaky place for some infill. Looks good!
Marcanadian
Moderator
Application for Consent is in:
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=4481442
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=4481442
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Pardon my ignorance, but what is an application for consent? Consent to what? The application in full?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
consent is a fancy term for splitting a lot into multiple lots. In this case, likely into 7 lots for the 7 units proposed here.
Marcanadian
Moderator
sparrow20
New Member
Love the brick color and dentils.
RonThom
Active Member
I like the project.
I am extremely skeptical that the City will support the rear facing units proposed for this location. Facing into other people's backyards. For the record I think this is fine, but you know how the City is about the yellowbelt (Neighbourhoods land use designation). This is really an apartment building, not towns. See for example this ground floor plan.
The rear/north facing principal windows of the rear/north units are only 7.55m from the adjacent property line. EDIT: The Planning Rationale states "The second level projects over the ground level and provides a setback of 5.2m from the rear property line". Hmmmm.
Interestingly there are also gates proposed back there, one for each unit? Where do these go? I cannot see a City lane or anything between this and the adjacent north properties, so these gates are into/out of private property?
Here is a snip of the context map from the Planning Rationale (Goldberg Group):
Not sure I would have gone straight into SPA without doing a zoning round first. May end up being quite expensive if significant redesign is required. As I suspect it will be.
Here is the rear vie. These are principal windows.
I understand the proposed layout of the development site. It makes a lot of sense actually. I am just not sure it will get legs with City Planning due to the rear condition. The site is Designated Neighbourhoods and zoned R (d1.0) (x745).
EDIT: Planning Rationale states "In order to implement the proposal, amendments to both former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 and the new City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 are required. An Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is not required as the low-rise four storey apartment building type is recognized as a permitted use in the Neighbourhoods lands [sic] use designation of the City OP and within the existing Zoning By-laws governing the subject site."
Very curious to see what happens with this.
I am extremely skeptical that the City will support the rear facing units proposed for this location. Facing into other people's backyards. For the record I think this is fine, but you know how the City is about the yellowbelt (Neighbourhoods land use designation). This is really an apartment building, not towns. See for example this ground floor plan.
The rear/north facing principal windows of the rear/north units are only 7.55m from the adjacent property line. EDIT: The Planning Rationale states "The second level projects over the ground level and provides a setback of 5.2m from the rear property line". Hmmmm.
Interestingly there are also gates proposed back there, one for each unit? Where do these go? I cannot see a City lane or anything between this and the adjacent north properties, so these gates are into/out of private property?
Here is a snip of the context map from the Planning Rationale (Goldberg Group):
Not sure I would have gone straight into SPA without doing a zoning round first. May end up being quite expensive if significant redesign is required. As I suspect it will be.
Here is the rear vie. These are principal windows.
I understand the proposed layout of the development site. It makes a lot of sense actually. I am just not sure it will get legs with City Planning due to the rear condition. The site is Designated Neighbourhoods and zoned R (d1.0) (x745).
EDIT: Planning Rationale states "In order to implement the proposal, amendments to both former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 and the new City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 are required. An Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is not required as the low-rise four storey apartment building type is recognized as a permitted use in the Neighbourhoods lands [sic] use designation of the City OP and within the existing Zoning By-laws governing the subject site."
Very curious to see what happens with this.
Last edited:
RonThom
Active Member
The proposal is for a 27-unit, four-storey apartment building. The consent is not for lot splitting in this case. See excerpt from cover letter from Consent Application. (Takes one click to look at this instead of guessing incorrectly!)
My guess is that some or all neighbours had informal / habitual access to and through the previous property, and want to preserve that as a condition of supporting or perhaps not opposing development.
Msleylar
Active Member
Very interesting.
Auraz
Active Member
I'm hearing $3 Million a Townhome.