1090 Kipling Avenue: two 3-storey fourplexes designed by Vincent J. Santamaura Architect for Grand Communities Corporation on the west side of Kipling Avenue, south of Burnhamthorpe Road in Toronto's Islington area.
Toronto 1090 Kipling Avenue | 10.6m | 3s | Grand Communities Corporation | VJS Architects
- Thread starter UT Admin
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
That's gonna be a no, dawg: https://www.thestar.com/real-estate...cle_b0a0ceee-18d6-4714-9d0a-d307fe89473c.html
rdaner
Senior Member
The NIMBYs are going to be so mad when the developer either sells for assembly or proposes a 6-10s with retail! 
Northern Light
Superstar
Turned down first by Etobicoke-York CofA, then by TLAB.
From the above:
****
This is the TLAB/AIC page:
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
I wanted to see what the variances were that were at issue:
***
Reading from the decision at TLAB I gather the following.
They basically held this up over height.
The arguments made with respect to GFA and Side Yard setbacks were accepted more or less.
But the deemed ruling that that the 10M height limit was fresh, intentional, and there was no reason to vary it.
This is the key text:
*background note, Mr. Layton is a professional planner for Goldberg, who was the proponent's witness here.
***
Comments:
I think many aspects of this decision are more encouraging than the outcome would suggest.
Notwithstanding that I have a concern about the text of the decision in paragraphs 66 and 67. Where as Kipling is a major street and six storeys is as-of-right, how does one reconcile the height issue on that
basis? Put another way....... how would the reasoning here apply to a proposal for an otherwise as-of-right, six storey building?
I actually agree w/the context inference, insofar as we're applying it to an interior site, where intensification is expected to be lesser in nature, over a greater period of time. I get the argument about something sticking out like a sore thumb.
But this is on the main road, an arterial, with a bus route, close to a subway station. In that context, is it reasonable to believe there will be any SFH left here in 15 years with which this proposal can be compared?
****
Still.........I note that they appear to be been ready to let this one slide on zero parking, and a variety of other criteria, so its not as bad as it first appears, even if it is deeply frustrating for the proponent.
****
Also....I do have to say, the City created an as-of-right here.............and the applicant then chose to seek 7 variances (3 were height related), and its those three that got him in trouble.
While I disagree with the height issue, simply because this fronted Kipling and the context is evolving.......
I'm also sympathetic to the idea that the proponent was overly aggressive in asking to vary the newly loosened rule even further.
I'd need to look at the design docs in more detail, but suspect they could drop the first level to grade, and give the basement level window wells and come awfully close to making this work.
Last edited:
Grand Communities
New Member
What you don't know is that the City requested the lowering of the structure and was done so with their blessing such that the City did not oppose the application at the Committee of Adjustment. As you know, if the building department had any issues, they would oppose the application. The final proposed structures absolutely maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.Turned down first by Etobicoke-York CofA, then by TLAB.
From the above:
View attachment 649091
****
View attachment 649092
This is the TLAB/AIC page:
Application Details
I wanted to see what the variances were that were at issue:
View attachment 649093
View attachment 649097
***
Reading from the decision at TLAB I gather the following.
They basically held this up over height.
The arguments made with respect to GFA and Side Yard setbacks were accepted more or less.
But the deemed ruling that that the 10M height limit was fresh, intentional, and there was no reason to vary it.
This is the key text:
View attachment 649098
*background note, Mr. Layton is a professional planner for Goldberg, who was the proponent's witness here.
***
Comments:
I think many aspects of this decision are more encouraging than the outcome would suggest.
Notwithstanding that I have a concern about the text of the decision in paragraphs 66 and 67. Where as Kipling is a major street and six storeys is as-of-right, how does one reconcile the height issue on that
basis? Put another way....... how would the reasoning here apply to a proposal for an otherwise as-of-right, six storey building?
I actually agree w/the context inference, insofar as we're apply it to an interior site, where intensification is expected to be lesser in nature, over a greater period of time. I get the argument about something sticking out like a sore thumb.
But this is on the main road, an arterial, with a bus route, close to a subway station. In that context, is it reasonable to believe there will be any SFH left here in 15 years with which this proposal can be compared?
****
Still.........I note that they appear to be been ready to let this one slide on zero parking, and a variety of other criteria, so its not as bad as it first appears, even if it is deeply frustrating for the proponent.
****
Also....I do have to say, the City created an as-of-right here.............and the applicant then chose to seek 7 variances (3 were height related), and its those three that got him in trouble.
While I disagree with the height issue, simply because this fronted Kipling and the context is evolving.......
I'm also sympathetic to the idea that the proponent was overly aggressive in asking to vary the newly loosened rule even further.
I'd need to look at the design docs in more detail, but suspect they could drop the first level to grade, and give the basement level window wells and come awfully close to making this work.
Northern Light
Superstar
rdaner
Senior Member
If zoning changes in front of council pass will any of this matter?!