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

3Dementia said:
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". 😜
Click to expand...
Haha, not so much "nope", but what legal mechanism does the City (or anyone, really) have to 'prove' that a project is "real"?
 
the provincial use it or lose it is about servicing allocations, not zoning.

Niagara Falls is trying to do it with Zoning. There isn't really anything in the Planning Act which permits them to do it, but isn't really anything prohibiting it either. We'll have to see what happens when it inevitably gets challenged at the OLT.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the provincial use it or lose it is about servicing allocations, not zoning.
Click to expand...

Yes, but.....

There is this in the statement I posted:

Proposed changes to the Planning Act and City of Toronto Act, 2006 would also allow municipalities to apply lapsing conditions on new or previous site plan application approvals.
 
Northern Light said:
Yes, but.....

There is this in the statement I posted:

Proposed changes to the Planning Act and City of Toronto Act, 2006 would also allow municipalities to apply lapsing conditions on new or previous site plan application approvals.
Click to expand...
yes. I should have added "and site plans".

Many municipalities have historically had lapsing of site plan agreements already anyway, so it's not a new thing, just more formalized in the Planning Act. There isn't exactly an epidemic of site-plan-approved sites in Ontario either that aren't building. There are some for sure, but not tonnes and tonnes of them. Zoning is usually as far as "Zone and flip" developers will go, and leave SPA for the owner who wants to actually build.


Zoning will remain a "permanent" function. That is, unless Niagara Falls can win it's argument.
 
It feels like 1837 is the canary in the coalmine for this area. I reckon they are trying to match heights of 1840 and Glazebrook across the street.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see the other approvals in the area (eg 1779, 1840 Bayview, Glazebrook, 537 Eg, etc.) come back for a MV for a few more floors.

The avg res heights are crazy for these approvals (ie, 3.4m/11+ feet avg) - so they will either squeeze in a few floors within the same zoning envelope, or just request for additional height like Gupta did here
 
1Ć0 said:
It feels like 1837 is the canary in the coalmine for this area. I reckon they are trying to match heights of 1840 and Glazebrook across the street.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see the other approvals in the area (eg 1779, 1840 Bayview, Glazebrook, 537 Eg, etc.) come back for a MV for a few more floors.

The avg res heights are crazy for these approvals (ie, 3.4m/11+ feet avg) - so they will either squeeze in a few floors within the same zoning envelope, or just request for additional height like Gupta did here
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'd imagine Concert is looking at all this with regard to Sunnybrook...
 
ShonTron said:
Leaside residents are “shocked” that Gupta got an additional three storeys at Committee of Adjustment after supposedly coming to a deal for 22 storeys.

While it does seem sneaky for Gupta to get around the original approval at CoA – especially when the local council seat is vacant, I can’t have much sympathy for Leaside house owners.

Click to expand...

Without undue sympathy to the Leaside set, I would go further than sneaky and say 'unethical'. I'm a bit of a believer in 'a deal is a deal'.

Now, if there were a material change in circumstances.........or many years had passed, that's different.

****

I hasten to add that Gupta being a relatively poor builder who generally delivers a promise of mediocrity and then still manages to disappoint, deserves zero room to maneuver.

If this were a good quality builder I might have a more open mind.
.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Without undue sympathy to the Leaside set, I would go further than sneaky and say 'unethical'. I'm a bit believe in 'a deal is a deal'.

Now, if there were a material change in circumstances.........or many years had passed, that's different.

****

I hasten to add that Gupta being a relatively poor builder who generally delivers a promise of mediocrity and then still managed to disappoint, deserves zero room to maneuver.

If this were a good quality builder I might have a more open mind.
.
Click to expand...

All that’s fair. Sure, it’s unethical, and yeah, Gupta is garbage. I miss the early days of Easton Group.
 
Fencing is mostly up around the houses to be demolished. Sorry these are just quick snaps as I was walking by on the west side of Bayview. From north to south.
1000021774.jpg

1000021771.jpg
1000021773.jpg
 
Is he going rental here? You generally can't tear down residential until you have BP for shoring on the replacement structure (which, if condo, requires sales).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top