Toronto 1837 Bayview Avenue | 90.7m | 25s | Gupta | Arcadis

This one is the subject of a Residential Demolition Application going to the next meeting of NYCC:


The long and short is that Building was requested to allow Demo, but as per their default position, that was denied, as there is no application for a 'New Building' permit filed.

Gupta contends they must carry out full demo of the site to investigate the possibility of doing geothermal here.

They have a provider who is attesting that they require a level, flat, cleared site for their rigs.

Gupta has said if the permits are denied they will proceed with conventional heating/cooling tech.
 
ProjectEnd said:
If you're listening to NYCC right now, you'll have just heard him conclude a deranged screed about how the OLT is "basically the Kremlin"...
Click to expand...

He's clearly softening in his old age to say something so nice about them.
 
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Minor Variance application with the following proposed changes:
  • Storeys increased from 22 to 27
  • Height increased from 85.55 to 100.6m
  • Total residential units increased from 259 to 314
  • Total vehicular parking increased from 46 to 55
  • Total bicycle parking increased from 306 to 316
Updated renderings:
PLN-CA Plans - Arch - 1837_1845 Bayview Avenue - April 2024-70.jpg

PLN-CA Plans - Arch - 1837_1845 Bayview Avenue - April 2024-69.jpg


Additionally, the demolition permits for the detached dwellings at 1837 through 1845 Bayview Ave have all been issued:
1715200830219.png
 
Question to the planning/legal folks: we are seeing more of these minor variances adding height/density (not always so minor) to a number of projects almost exclusively to improve the pro forma economics of a development. Once a developer secures the minor variance, can they simply sit on the project for a period of time and then go back for a further minor variance? I'm thinking in this case they are asking for an additional 5 storeys. If they secure this variance, can they just ask for another 5 storeys in 6 months, then another 5 storeys 6 months after that?
 
Midtown Hank said:
Once a developer secures the minor variance, can they simply sit on the project for a period of time and then go back for a further minor variance?
Click to expand...

Yes. The zoning change is permanent with the property until replaced by another zoning change. There is a cost to making the application, but they can make as many as they want. Approval is not guaranteed, even if the change is minor. As a bonus, you don't need to be the landowner to make a zoning application.

There are regions in the USA with time limits on their approvals to encourage moving to construction quickly but I don't think any Canadian jurisdiction works that way.
 
Last edited:
Midtown Hank said:
Question to the planning/legal folks: we are seeing more of these minor variances adding height/density (not always so minor) to a number of projects almost exclusively to improve the pro forma economics of a development. Once a developer secures the minor variance, can they simply sit on the project for a period of time and then go back for a further minor variance? I'm thinking in this case they are asking for an additional 5 storeys. If they secure this variance, can they just ask for another 5 storeys in 6 months, then another 5 storeys 6 months after that?
Click to expand...
Nothing in the Planning Act says you can't do that. However, CoA members may feel decide that two kicks at the proverbial can no longer meets the 4 tests. It's a bit of a crap shoot, but nothing would prevent it from a policy perspective.
 
rbt said:
Yes. The zoning change is permanent with the property until replaced by another zoning change. There is a cost to making the application, but they can make as many as they want. As a bonus, you don't need to be the landowner to make a zoning application.

There are regions in the USA with time limits on their approvals to encourage moving to construction quickly but I don't think any Canadian jurisdiction works that way.
Click to expand...
Niagara Falls is trying it right now actually (putting expiry dates on Zoning amendments). I suspect it won't last at a court challenge, but they haven't gotten to that point yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
@rbt and @ProjectEnd

How do you see the above playing out in the context of use it or lose it......proposed in the latest planning reforms:

1715262014710.png

from: https://www.stikeman.com/en-ca/kh/r...-changes-to-land-use-planning-and-development

Here's what I'm getting at............if you have an underlying approval that would lapse after 3 years, but get a minor variance after...........does that re-start the clock? Or could you be eating away at precious time before your existing approvals lapse?
 
I get your point NL.... but expiry dates on new zoning.... interesting.

Maybe hit 'em where it hurts: I'd love to see something (that would survive a court challenge) to deter up-zoning properties just for flipping purposes ... in favour of real projects that aren't clogging the bloated development pipeline.

Maybe a bi-annual levy on proponent's cob-webbed/flipping/no buyer projects. Funnel the cash to parks, street improvements etc. Might free up some staff time too.

This is where PE replies "nope". 😜
 
Northern Light said:
@rbt and @ProjectEnd

How do you see the above playing out in the context of use it or lose it......proposed in the latest planning reforms:

View attachment 562673
from: https://www.stikeman.com/en-ca/kh/r...-changes-to-land-use-planning-and-development

Here's what I'm getting at............if you have an underlying approval that would lapse after 3 years, but get a minor variance after...........does that re-start the clock? Or could you be eating away at precious time before your existing approvals lapse?
Click to expand...

I'm not certain this will survive as a zoning retraction but an approved minor variance would need to restart the clock.

Variable development fees, however, seem like fair game since by definition they're to pay for required new city infrastructure to service the development. Move first (before other developers in the area) and get a credit for using preexisting water infrastructure where if you move late you might get the full cost as there is no more excess. Of course, this runs into the new provincial development fee cap.

Either way, its a very interesting shakeup.

EDIT: If the city is worried about staffing costs for speculative zoning requests then they need to triple the fees BUT they could include credit toward other permits (site-plan, demolition, excavation, etc.) if used within a specific time period.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top