Vaughan 7Central | 175.4m | 55s | Graywood | Arcadis

jje1000 said:
Basically Gupta has bad faith moving forward.
Click to expand...
not really. The project failed - but at the end of the day he has a prime development site with approvals more or less lined up. That's worth a lot of money. Not like he is going to sit on the site for a decade to make the screwed over buyers happy.

Yea - selling it would be best. But Liberty doesn't seem to be doing that with their site either.

Next time either builder launches a building, I think they are going to see a lot of wary buyers. You can't cancel 1,000+ unit buildings without people taking notice.
 
Also if the Gupta Group can't prove to have solved the issue of the restrictive covenant the City should not approve anything. It's that simple.
 
narduch said:
Also if the Gupta Group can't prove to have solved the issue of the restrictive covenant the City should not approve anything. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense - zoning doesn't need a covenant to be approved. They are unrelated.

They may withhold their SPA approval or withhold their permits - but withholding zoning approvals doesn't make any sense. to do that you need a reason that falls under the four tests that the CoA looks at;
- is it minor?
- is it in line with the official plan?
- does it meet the intent of the zoning by-law?
- is it good planning?

saying "there's a covenant there" doesn't match any of those. That said, I think there is a huge case of "is it minor" to argue against, but that's not the covenant.
 
If you actually read the staff report, it was the city's suggestion for Gupta to apply for minor variances. The existing zoning is a joke given this site is part of VMC.
Here's a quote from the staff report:
Applicant has advised that they cannot comply with By-law for the following reason(s): On June 5, 2018 the City of Vaughan, Committee of the Whole recommended approval of Site Plan Application DA.17.015 which was subsequently approved by City of Vaughan Council on June 19, 2018 for 3 residential towers with a hotel and townhouse units. There is no zone within the current zoning by-law which is designed to accommodate the complexities and design elements of a modern project as proposed. The zoning by-law is simply outdated as it was written at a time which did not have benefit of foresight into today's context of the kind of development that is current and contemporary.

As a result, the variances are numerous. However, the buildings represent the type of development that is intended by the Official Plan and zoning by-law and while they are numerous, they are minor and represent good planning. This project was reviewed by the Urban Design Review Panel twice and several times by City staff and was revised several times until a final plan was achieved and supported. Council has approved the development subject to receiving approval of the variances which are supported by City Council and staff. The project is located within the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre where highest buildings with the most density are supported by the Official Plan. The committee of the Whole report of June 5, 2018 states the following:

"Minor Variances are required to permit the development. The Development Planning Department is satisfied that the proposed land uses conform to the Official Plan and that the Development is appropriate and compatible with the existing and permitted uses in the VMC."

The subject lands are zoned C9 Corporate Centre Zone with a site specific Exception 9(957). The majority of the site is identified in the zoning by-law as a "Landmark Location along the full frontage of (Regional Road 7) and up to 50m along the flankage of (Interchange Way) which has no maximum height limit and permits the proposed uses. The two towers are located within the "Landmark" area.
The south building is located outside the "Landmark" and is subject to a height limit of 25m which necessitates a variance to accommodate the proposed south tower to a height of 152.2m in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan and complimentary with the abutting north towers.
City Council has also invoked Section 37 of the Planning Act which allows an increase in height subject to the developer providing a community contribution in-lieu-of the height increase. In this case, the developer will be contributing $391,000.00 cash to be used for an off-site community benefit at the satisfaction of the City.
In conclusion, the project has undergone detailed review by City Staff and the Urban Design Review Panel. All have agreed that the development is appropriate, represents good planning and that the variances meet the intent of the zoning by-law, the Official Plan and are minor in nature.
Click to expand...
 
innsertnamehere said:
That doesn't make sense - zoning doesn't need a covenant to be approved. They are unrelated.

They may withhold their SPA approval or withhold their permits - but withholding zoning approvals doesn't make any sense. to do that you need a reason that falls under the four tests that the CoA looks at;
- is it minor?
- is it in line with the official plan?
- does it meet the intent of the zoning by-law?
- is it good planning?

saying "there's a covenant there" doesn't match any of those. That said, I think there is a huge case of "is it minor" to argue against, but that's not the covenant.
Click to expand...
With this line of thinking why would it restrict the SPA or Permit as well? Neither of those submissions are bound by that covenant either.

This is a chance for the city to tell Gupta off for screwing people over.

Vaughan is corrupt af so I'm fully expecting this to be approved
 
Last edited by a moderator:
narduch said:
With this line of thinking why would it restrict the SPA or Permit as well? Neither of those submissions are bound by that covenant either.

This is a chance for the city to tell Gupta off for screwing people over.

Vaughan is corrupt af so I'm not expecting anything to happen thought.
Click to expand...
you are suggesting the city open themselves up for a lawsuit. There are no legal grounds for the city to reject this application.
Just because you, and some sad buyers, are against this development doesn't mean the city should reject this.
Your position is no different than any other NIMBY.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
narduch said:
With this line of thinking why would it restrict the SPA or Permit as well? Neither of those submissions are bound by that covenant either.

This is a chance for the city to tell Gupta off for screwing people over.

Vaughan is corrupt af so I'm not expecting anything to happen thought.
Click to expand...

permits would get witheld if there is a covenant, yes. They are attached to that sort of thing. The city could put a condition in the NOAC for SPA too that the covenant be cleared if they wished.

I'm just saying there is no legal mechanism to refuse a minor variance based on a supposed covenant. If the CoA denied the application, the developer would appeal to the LPAT and would walk away anyway with approvals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top