Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte

Does this mean they will build 12 stories on king st, or will this pave way for the revised 15 stories they requested?
 
The crazy thing about all this is that Freed already has a rezoning applcation in for the 15 stories which technically has nothing to do with all previous applications, including the OMB hearing and court battles. City council will likely not approve it and it will again go to the OMB. He starts all over again from scratch.

The point of all this is that Peter Freed is acting like a schoolyard bully in this development and everyone involved will certainly remember it if he ever wants to build anything again in King West.
 
There isnt really anymore property available in King West to build on so I am not surprised by his bullying at the end. He can take his crying towel elsewhere and hold other potential residents hostage with his average 5 year wait time for new builds.
 
Last edited:
400WellingtonGuy said:
The crazy thing about all this is that Freed already has a rezoning applcation in for the 15 stories which technically has nothing to do with all previous applications, including the OMB hearing and court battles. City council will likely not approve it and it will again go to the OMB. He starts all over again from scratch.

The point of all this is that Peter Freed is acting like a schoolyard bully in this development and everyone involved will certainly remember it if he ever wants to build anything again in King West.
Click to expand...

he's heading east to King East/Church
 
He does still have the Bathurst and Front site with Minto that is going through the process now. While I think Minto may be heading up the development of that site, Freed's involvement may put a sour on their ability to negotiate what is already heating up to be a contentious battle. To me it's a short term business move, that may have negative longer term repercussions. A risk I'm not sure I would have made. But that said, he's a smart developer and I'm sure thought out this decision at length. Sometimes it's hard to really understand the subtle nuances of ones strategy unless you are at the table yourself. Especially when it comes local politics.

Either way, will be very interesting to watch this one play out.
 
Mike in TO said:
That is not exactly true - although the media plays that role up quite often. Most other provinces have municipal appeal boards with somewhat differing powers then the OMB as do many states. Many other states do not have appeal boards that specialize in land - use planning and those appeals get tied up in the courts, so be careful what you wish for as that would be a far messier process. In some states local elected politicians have no role whatsoever in the planning process ( I.e. Massachusetts removed most authority from the Boston city council and turned it over to two appointed bodies). The OMB provides tension in the planning system to ensure planning decisions are made based on public policy and on evidence rather then local politics - more emphasis is placed on evidence brought forward by city planners and other planning consultants, architects, engineers etc (expert witnesses with professional designations and experience) than whatever the local councillor happens to think or whatever local political pressures exist to influence councillor decisions (i'm not suggesting that was a factor in this specific case - i'm speaking in the broader sense).

all decisions made by the board must be consistent with provincial policy (and to some extent, municipal policy - however municipal policy OPs and zoning are also supposed to be consitent with provincial policy, yet much of toronto's zoning hasn't been updated in 40 years) obviously any specific decision can be heavily debated, but broadly speaking the OMB exists because all citizens have the right to a fair and equitable appeal process on land use decisions and for better or for worse municipal councils don't always have the best track record in terms of evidence supported and policy supported land use decisions.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I did suggest that that a city councillor can stop a proposal from going forward. Nowhere did I suggest that a lone councillor should. You have misinterpreted my statement. But as councillors are democratically elected by residents of this city, one could hope that that collectively, their opinion would have more weight than one lone OMB member who may not actually live in the city, and who's decisions are final (points of law can sometimes be appealed through the courts).

The scope of the OMB is unique. It deals with Official Plans, zoning by-laws, subdivision plans, consents and minor variances, land compensation, development charges, ward boundaries, aggregate resources and a wide range of other matters. I highly doubt you can find another example of an appeals board that a similar kind of reach.

As for providing "tension," The OMB has a rather undemocratic ability to overrule elected municipal councils and to substitute its own decisions for municipal ones. An OMB adjudicator is most often not a trained planner, which alone should raise questions about the quality of those appointed to the Board with respect to specific planning issues. Then there is the problem inaccessibility. Community groups and any individual wishing to participate as an active party can have great difficulties due to the financial resources and legal and technical advice and expertise that is necessary in order to appear. The OMB is loosely modeled on a court, but without the trained judges or a basis in Common Law in terms of procedure. It operates by way of an adversarial form of interrogation such as examination, cross-examination. All participants are required to be sworn in as if providing testimony (even when providing a personal opinion). The 1996 Planning Act allows developers to initiate appeals to the OMB within 90 days of a rejection of a proposal, which severely limits the ability of municipal governments and their planning divisions to do real planning.

In short, the entire process is a profoundly poor excuse for carrying out city planning. Frankly, I'd much prefer to take the risk and see the development of an alternative.
 
Samtheman said:
Looks like Freed put in another application for a 13 and 11 storey building for 329 residential units on Nov 22nd. Really not sure what is going to end up happening at this site!
Click to expand...

Indeed, it looks like the have split this into two structures.

CONDOMINIUM BUILDING
Proj: 9113347-5
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
NEGOTIATED/PLANNING
Thompson Residences Condo, 621 King St W, M5V 1M5
$50,000,000 est
Note:
Preliminary design is ongoing. Sales and marketing are underway. Owner will release a detailed scope of work when working drawings begin. Schedules for working drawings, tender and construction will be determined based on occupancy. Further update summer 2012.
Project:
proposed construction of a condominium development consisting of both a 13-storey and an 11-storey apartment buildings with a total 329 residential units.
Scope:
200,000 square feet; 13 storeys; 2 storeys below grade; 2 structures; 329 units; 2 acres
Development:..New
Category:...Apartment bldgs
http://dcnonl.com/cgi-bin/top10.pl?...e5a2545abff7&projectid=9113347&region=ontario

Building Application Status
Application: Partial Permit Status: Under Review
Location: 621 KING ST W
TORONTO ON M5V 1M5
Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina
Application#: 11 311255 FND 00 PP Accepted Date: Nov 22, 2011
Project: Mixed Use/Res w Non Res Partial Permit - Foundation
Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 13 sty and 11 storey condo with commercial at grade, below grade paring, and 329 residential units. Note - see active Shoring permit.
http://app.toronto.ca/ApplicationStatus/details.do?folderRsn=3028246
 
The rezoning application is for a 15 storey building with a total height of over 50 metres for the King building.
 
gristle said:
The rezoning application is for a 15 storey building with a total height of over 50 metres for the King building.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, the city refused this rezoning application at their recent meeting:

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.TE12.11

Committee Recommendations

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1. City Council refuse the Zoning By-law Amendment application for 621 King Street West for the reasons set out in the report dated December 12, 2011, from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, including:

a. the proposal represents an over-development of the property;

b. the proposed height, massing and profile are inappropriate for the development of the lands and creates shadows on the north side of King Street West and exports negative impacts in terms of privacy and overlook on adjacent properties;

c. the proposal departs from Council's approved planning framework for the area;

d. the proposal is inconsistent with the King-Spadina Urban Design Guidelines; and

e. the height and massing of the proposal, if approved, has the potential to set a negative precedent for other applications within the West Precinct of the King-Spadina area. Such a precedent could undermine the goals of reinforcing the historic built form and preserving the mid-rise character within the West Precinct of the King-Spadina area.
 
And with that, the developer, his lawyer and fawning friends will be stamping their feet and taking their tantrum to their buddies at the OMB.
 
Freed's proposal of 15 storeys on King is obnoxious. This needs to be flatly rejected. If the OMB passes this one we will have proof that it's a corrupt institution.
 
neubilder said:
Freed's proposal of 15 storeys on King is obnoxious. This needs to be flatly rejected. If the OMB passes this one we will have proof that it's a corrupt institution.
Click to expand...

So, if you happen to disagree tribunal decision to resolve a particular dispute, within the applicable legislative planning framework here in Ontario that somehow means all of the Environmental and Lands Tribunals of Ontario are somehow corrupt - that is a pretty bold statement in a country with such strong goverance and oversight as we have here in Canada.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top