modernizt
Senior Member
Ontario Building Code
Toronto 422 Wellington West | 14.33m | 2s | Allied | ERA Architects
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Generally the minimums in the Code and the ZBL match up. With fenestration, it's 5.5m from a property line (creating 11m across 2 properties) and 11m for faces on the same property. Depending on your zone, it's 3m or 0m (in CR) without.
ilikemilk
New Member
There is a limiting distance calculation done in the code that will tell you what % of unprotected openings you can have in a face of the building depending on separation distance to your property line (or centre of the street) The way to an additional % of windows is to provide window sprinklers. Window sprinklers are a pain in the ass. There is also the separate case of separation distances between buildings. This is a planning issue and is more related to privacy and shadows + an overall better aesthetic.
PMT
Senior Member
Preliminary Report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-97832.pdf
ADRM
Senior Member
ProjectEnd
Superstar
They truly are gluttons for punishment...
ADRM
Senior Member
From Cressy at committee today, who's on a real anti-development binge at the moment; using Jennifer Pagliaro's transcript published on her Twitter feed:
"I'm going to editorialize briefly. This is on Wellington St. It is 23 storeys. It involves relocating an existing heritage building. This is a Brad Lamb special. There was no pre-application meeting. In fact, when they met with staff after putting in an application, they said to our city staff, 'Take it or leave it. We're going to the board.' When they went to meet with residents just yesterday, they said to the residents, 'Take it or leave it, we'll see you at the board.'"
Pagliaro also noted that, at committee, Cressy noted his ward now has 25 appeals accounting for more than 1,000 storeys at the OMB, which he took the liberty of comparing to more than 5.5 CN Towers...
"I'm going to editorialize briefly. This is on Wellington St. It is 23 storeys. It involves relocating an existing heritage building. This is a Brad Lamb special. There was no pre-application meeting. In fact, when they met with staff after putting in an application, they said to our city staff, 'Take it or leave it. We're going to the board.' When they went to meet with residents just yesterday, they said to the residents, 'Take it or leave it, we'll see you at the board.'"
Pagliaro also noted that, at committee, Cressy noted his ward now has 25 appeals accounting for more than 1,000 storeys at the OMB, which he took the liberty of comparing to more than 5.5 CN Towers...
I understand Brad Lamb's exasperation with the consultative process, but I don't think that makes thumbing his nose at it acceptable.
I understand Joe Cressy's exasperation with a developer not wanting to listen to the community at all, but I don't think the 25 other appeals have bearing on this application, nor do I think that "5.5 CN Towers" has any meaning at all.
The OMB Review consultation will be interesting at the Metro Convention Centre this evening… only if there's more than simple knee-jerk NIMBYism expressed at it.
42
I understand Joe Cressy's exasperation with a developer not wanting to listen to the community at all, but I don't think the 25 other appeals have bearing on this application, nor do I think that "5.5 CN Towers" has any meaning at all.
The OMB Review consultation will be interesting at the Metro Convention Centre this evening… only if there's more than simple knee-jerk NIMBYism expressed at it.
42
argus
Active Member
The local neighbourhood association is hardly a pack of NIMBY's by any stretch. It's probably one of the most well-informed and astute groups around. Many of them have worked with developers in the area to bring positive results to a rapidly growing and changing part of the city. Many of them were deeply involved with The Well and formed a solid relationship with the developers that will result in an excellent addition to the community. The Front and Bathurst project was also altered from two bland point towers to a much more interesting project courtesy of that type of interaction. Lamb's response apparently is to give the middle finger and to tell everyone he'll do whatever he wants. And it's not like he's had a horrible time in dealing with that area.
It goes without saying that public consultations can bring out silly complaints from some corners, but given the immense amount of development in the area, those of us who live around here would like to see developers acknowledging concerns rather than simply brushing them off as mere NIMBYism. After all, once the developer sells and builds their building, they generally walk. They don't have to deal with any errors or the negative effects of a potentially poorly executed building. The people in the neighbourhood have to do that.
It goes without saying that public consultations can bring out silly complaints from some corners, but given the immense amount of development in the area, those of us who live around here would like to see developers acknowledging concerns rather than simply brushing them off as mere NIMBYism. After all, once the developer sells and builds their building, they generally walk. They don't have to deal with any errors or the negative effects of a potentially poorly executed building. The people in the neighbourhood have to do that.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Let's not assume this is a truthful accounting of Brad Lamb's words. Is there any reason why Lamb might act this way? Is the City acting unreasonable? I'd like more info before I take a side. (Although this is the internet, so perhaps I should just take a side and get angry...)
innsertnamehere
Superstar
probably has a lot to do with such a strong preliminary report - Lamb sees he doesn't stand much of a chance at the city so he is going to the board. Doesn't mean he has to be so arrogant about it though.
Lamb's problem is that this proposal isn't really any good from a planning perspective. When you propose something like this you either expect major concessions or a board hearing.
Lamb's problem is that this proposal isn't really any good from a planning perspective. When you propose something like this you either expect major concessions or a board hearing.
The OMB Review consultation tonight is not about this project, and my comment regarding it was not directed at the local neighbourhood association. The consultation is drawing people from across the city to talk about the way the OMB operates as a whole. I expect that it will be run as table discussion, so I assume that it won't be coopted by just one group. I am hoping, because of its set-up, that it will be a mostly informed discussion, but I am afraid, nevertheless, that there will be a lot of knee-jerk NIMBYism on display. I don't think that kind of thing helps the cause of others who oppose the current set-up, but who want a more measured response than "dump the OMB!"
42
ADRM
Senior Member
Many people have opinions about Lamb, and it's no secret where Cressy stands, though my personal opinion is that projects should be judged on their merits rather than on the perceived character of any particular developer.
At the same time, to interchange42's point, developers can sometimes make their lives easier or harder based on their chosen approach to the development process.
Though, even to that, they're sometimes damned if they do and damned if they don't, so who really knows?
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
I think it's been discussed somewhere, but if the City were to zone certain districts ahead of time, could it not make everything more efficient? It would mean developers don't go through Planning, but just get permits. Many OMB appeals would be unnecessary, and some not allowed. They could go lot by lot in some parts of town. Everything would go so fast that you might even get developers to support it.
They should be rezoning the whole city, and they have already made one stab at it post-Places To Grow Act—a proposal which was turned back by Toronto City Councillors—but there have been some successful recent secondary area plans to be enacted that cover particular areas. (That's sort of what you're advocating, I think.)
The city is huge though, so piecemeal rezoning is likely to take forever, while rezoning the whole city in one go is incredibly complex, and Councillors bristled last time because of the broad strokes approach that came with the upzoning. (They were particularly concerned that the upzoning would lead to their downvoting by constituents in the next municipal election.)
So, good luck to us all in getting it sorted out sometime soon.
In the meantime, this meeting (writing this from the OMB consultation now) is highly organized and will not result in any screaming tonight: it looks to me to have been organized to solicit information from as any people as possible, and that should make the time quite constructive.
42
The city is huge though, so piecemeal rezoning is likely to take forever, while rezoning the whole city in one go is incredibly complex, and Councillors bristled last time because of the broad strokes approach that came with the upzoning. (They were particularly concerned that the upzoning would lead to their downvoting by constituents in the next municipal election.)
So, good luck to us all in getting it sorted out sometime soon.
In the meantime, this meeting (writing this from the OMB consultation now) is highly organized and will not result in any screaming tonight: it looks to me to have been organized to solicit information from as any people as possible, and that should make the time quite constructive.
42