Toronto Forêt | 139.26m | 41s | Canderel | BDP Quadrangle

John Lorinc over at Spacing has some issues w/the pace of development at this site, and uses it as a case-study for use it or lose it zoning:

spacing.ca

LORINC: The Tories' use-it-or-lose housing ruse - Spacing Toronto

On the north-east corner of Bathurst and St. Clair West sits a snazzy purpose-built condo sales office, ostensibly there to promote Foret, a giant three-tower project from Canderel Residential and Kingsett Capital, which has a portfolio worth $19 billion and an as yet untouched $180 million...
spacing.ca
 
Last edited:
New stats have been added to the database. The storey count changed from 35, 33 & 32-storey to 41, 37, 35-storey. Height changed from 127.14m, 110.25m & 109.95m to 139.26m, 130.97m, 121.67m. The unit count changed from 1112 units to 1332 units. Total parking space reduced from 712 parking to 685 parking. Finally, the total bike parking changed from 1191 to 1212 bike parking.

Stats are taken from the architectural plan via minor variance.
 
Art Tsai said:
New stats have been added to the database. The storey count changed from 35, 33 & 32-storey to 41, 37, 35-storey. Height changed from 127.14m, 110.25m & 109.95m to 139.26m, 130.97m, 121.67m. The unit count changed from 1112 units to 1332 units. Total parking space reduced from 712 parking to 685 parking. Finally, the total bike parking changed from 1191 to 1212 bike parking.

Stats are taken from the architectural plan via minor variance.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a big variance. Good for them. Still an insane amount of car parking at a subway station. Must be really killing the pro forma.
 
ProjectEnd said:
KingSett and Canderel successfully got some height here. We seem to have missed the app:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
Click to expand...

What are the odds on something slipping by you PE? I mean really. Me, sure........one out of a hundred times.......but you? Can't be more than one in a thousand.......... LOL
 
There's a Staff Report for this one........

I think @HousingNowTO will wish to make note:

1699675713687.png


*****

Applicant's Planner:

1699675903395.png


****

My comment:

For the record this is not a 'minor' variance by any reasonable measure of the term and was not, to my mind appropriately before the C of A; that is not an argument against the height increase, but rather a suggestion that it ought to go through the correct process.

An increase greater than 10% in height, where that represents multiple floors cannot reasonably be considered 'minor'. This just mocks the process, irrespective of the virtue or lack thereof in the outcome.

I mean seriously, + 220 units is 'minor'............just go away, LOL
 
...that would make it the tallest towers for that area. Nothing there really exceeds 30 stories, I thinks.
 
Yes, a new tallest for the area. Currently it's the 30 floor Heathview twins at 109m each:

Toronto Model 11-11-23 Foret.png
 
Northern Light said:
There's a Staff Report for this one........

I think @HousingNowTO will wish to make note:

View attachment 519386

*****

Applicant's Planner:

View attachment 519387

****

My comment:

For the record this is not a 'minor' variance by any reasonable measure of the term and was not, to my mind appropriately before the C of A; that is not an argument against the height increase, but rather a suggestion that it ought to go through the correct process.

An increase greater than 10% in height, where that represents multiple floors cannot reasonably be considered 'minor'. This just mocks the process, irrespective of the virtue or lack thereof in the outcome.

I mean seriously, + 220 units is 'minor'............just go away, LOL
Click to expand...
By going to C of A it is harder now for a neighbour to appeal, right -vs- going thru a full rezoning..?

+220 units (including +10 affordable rental units) is likely a 5% of additional R-GFA deal, which is in-line with what we have seen on some other sites.

Wish that the City would include a standard for reporting “years of affordable rental” in these per site deals - rather than making us go spelunking through the documents for what should be baseline information.
 
HousingNowTO said:
By going to C of A it is harder now for a neighbour to appeal, right -vs- going thru a full rezoning..?

+220 units (including +10 affordable rental units) is likely a 5% of additional R-GFA deal, which is in-line with what we have seen on some other sites.

Wish that the City would include a standard for reporting “years of affordable rental” in these per site deals - rather than making us go spelunking through the documents for what should be baseline information.
Click to expand...

Lets check in with @ProjectEnd and @innsertnamehere on that; and get their input.
 
innsertnamehere said:
third-party appeals of minor variances are no longer permitted, correct.
Click to expand...
Basically correct. Planning Act 45(12)
(12) The applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body that has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision appeal to the Tribunal against the decision of the committee by filing with the secretary-treasurer of the committee a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection accompanied by payment to the secretary-treasurer of the fee charged by the Tribunal as payable on an appeal from a committee of adjustment to the Tribunal. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 98 (3); 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 80 (5); 2022, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 13 (2).
Click to expand...
with reference to definition
“specified person” means,

(a) a corporation operating an electric utility in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,

(b) Ontario Power Generation Inc.,

(c) Hydro One Inc.,

(d) a company operating a natural gas utility in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,

(e) a company operating an oil or natural gas pipeline in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,

(f) a person required to prepare a risk and safety management plan in respect of an operation under Ontario Regulation 211/01 (Propane Storage and Handling) made under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, if any part of the distance established as the hazard distance applicable to the operation and referenced in the risk and safety management plan is within the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,

(g) a company operating a railway line any part of which is located within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, or

(h) a company operating as a telecommunication infrastructure provider in the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply; (“personne précisée”)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top