Toronto 1111 Kingston Road | 29.21m | 8s | Feeley | RAW Design

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
32,321
Reaction score
91,024
Location
Toronto/EY
We learn the above site is already in pre-application meetings with the City via a Residential Demolition Application.


From the above, we get some information on what's contemplated and somewhat novel reasons for the demolition although, the usual 'eyesore' is mentioned as well.

1696602377509.png


The site is being developed by East Beach, but we can get some idea what the seller was pushing before East Beach picked it up here:


Kingston Road frontage:

1696602516046.png


Blantyre frontage:

1696602558009.png
 
Appears like the Feeley Groups' first foray into the midrise condo market. Their portfolio features mainly single family homes up until now:

www.feeleygroup.com

Communities — Feeley Group

Being actively involved in every phase of development, we prioritize purpose, quality and longevity to build communities that last.
www.feeleygroup.com www.feeleygroup.com
 
From Bousfields Cover Letter:
"Please note that the subject site was formerly addressed as “1111-1119 Kingston
Road & 196-198 Blantyre Avenue”; however a Municipal Numbering application was
recently submitted and accepted by Engineering & Construction Services, Land &
Property Surveys to change the address of the subject site to 1103-1111 Kingston
Road. As such, the site will hereafter be referred to as the above-noted address."

I'm not sure who to shout out to change the title & database?
 
UT article summary:

urbantoronto.ca

Mid-Rise with Geothermal Energy Proposed in Scarborough | UrbanToronto

Stretching across the whole southern edge of Scarborough, Kingston Road has become a corridor of growth. Among the developments, many with rectangular built forms and terraced designs, is a proposal at 1111 Kingston Road with geothermal energy, located in the Fallingbrook neighbourhood.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
@Paclo this one had some supplementary materials submitted in February '24.

These are the result of a Notice of Incomplete Application previously. No substantive changes.

***

I'm going to pull @allengeorge out of the zoning thread for a moment to show a linked issue.

In the back and forth with this applicant and the City, we find this:

1715015419221.png


Recall, that 30 unit limit in the EHON Major Streets proposal.....?

It was based on an old requirement for a Type G loading space when a building exceeded 30 units.

The applicant here is noting that the standard is now 60 units.

This is the most overt example of a disconnect between the EHON proposal here at the actual reasons numbers are chosen.


***

Let me add, I still disagree with an arbitrary 60 unit limit, as I would simply say, if the applicant has to provide a Type G loading space, that's on them, its as-of-right, if they can, and its not, if they can't.
 
Northern Light said:
Recall, that 30 unit limit in the EHON Major Streets proposal.....?

It was based on an old requirement for a Type G loading space when a building exceeded 30 units.

The applicant here is noting that the standard is now 60 units.
Click to expand...

If I were the applicant I would be incredibly upset about this. Time is money, and if the city has overlapping, incompatible rules it’s on the city to rationalize them - not me.

My naive understanding is that there are lots of incongruities like this that waste staff time and slow down developments. It should be the key focus of someone in Planning to keep track of these and champion rationalizing/removing them.

I am still upset about the EHON recommendations…
 
allengeorge said:
If I were the applicant I would be incredibly upset about this. Time is money, and if the city has overlapping, incompatible rules it’s on the city to rationalize them - not me.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, the rule such as it is, has already changed, the applicant knows this, but the staff dealing with the application do not seem to.

I'm not clear on why that is.....

allengeorge said:
My naive understanding is that there are lots of incongruities like this that waste staff time and slow down developments. It should be the key focus of someone in Planning to keep track of these and champion rationalizing/removing them.
Click to expand...

Again, here, the rule itself isn't slowing anything down in this particular case, its the staff have sent back comments based on the old rule, not the new one.

allengeorge said:
I am still upset about the EHON recommendations…
Click to expand...

There's still a chance to change them at Committee or Council.
 
Northern Light said:
Again, here, the rule itself isn't slowing anything down in this particular case, its the staff have sent back comments based on the old rule, not the new one.
Click to expand...
Oh! My misunderstanding. Clearly my reading comprehension is poor this morning. Sorry about that.

If I were the applicant I would be doubly annoyed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top