marsh said:
Also this developer is targeting investors. They are actively promoting "free assignments". It is this type of behavior that has encouraged the bubble market mentality.
Click to expand...

This is funny, when I went to the "VIP" I think damn near everyone there was an investor. "yes....yes...this bachelor is $300K, you can rent it out and cover your carrying costs" thats all I heard from the sales agents.... I heard so much bullshit there and people were eating it up. I think Five will steal their steam....a much nicer development IMO.
 
marsh said:
Clearly developers are using the "minor variance" strategy to circumvent the planning process. The National Post Article illustrates what a farce the planning process has become. The developer of the St. Nicholas Condos tried to sell the reporter a unit on the 33rd floor! Before the minor variance application was even heard! They just assumed it was going to be approved.
Click to expand...

It isn't a "circumvention" of the planning process. Minor variances are a "part" of the planning process. There are tests to determine what in fact is minor. Clearly the 75 St. Nicholas example is not minor in nature and would require a new application with respect to the site specific zoning. Developers and homes owners utilize minor variances all the time - ranging from issues like adding one or two floors, very minor items like the elevator mechanicals requires an extra foot of clearance or a deck extension in a backyard etc. The key feature being that the alterations are minor in nature.

Under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act there are four tests a minor variance must meet:

Is the application minor?
Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question?
Does the application conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
Does the application conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?

It is important to note that to consider any application a minor variance it must meet all four tests - I think it's pretty clear why the 75 St. Nicholas application failed to meet at least the first and third test.
 
^ Maybe the city needs to make a new category of variances. The one below is pretty comical when they call it a 'minor variance'.

minorvariance.jpg
 
^ Well, you can make the argument that the MLG conversion does indeed require only a "minor variance", since the exterior form of the building will not change. True, the intended purpose of the building will change from sports entertainment to groceries, but I am not convinced that this is any different from any of the numerous other repurposings that have happened in the past -- just to give a hockey-related example, the current Hockey Hall of Fame used to be a bank, but I do not think that a major variance was required to convert it into a museum.
 
androiduk said:
^ Maybe the city needs to make a new category of variances. The one below is pretty comical when they call it a 'minor variance'.
Click to expand...

Comical? really?

Well the MLG example is a clearly minor variance. There are no signficant (or even really minor) changes to the exterior of the building and it still conforms to the Official Plan and fits the existing CR zoning designation. Furthermore the minor changes also fits within the zoning density parameters, height, use etc

So based on the four tests:

Is the application minor? YES
Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? YES
Does the application conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? YES
Does the application conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? YES

Androiduk the example you posted is very much a minor variance, there is nothing comical about it.
 
I don't disagree that minor variance applications form a legitimate part of the planning process. But I do think some developers abuse the minor variance applications to get more floors/changes after site specific by-laws have been pased. This certainly seemed to be the concern of the Committee of Adjustments. St. Nicholas is a prime example of such abusive behaviour.
I know there are four tests to approve a minor variance but I honestly think if we didn't it oppose it, the appliction probably would have passed. I also expect the developer will be going to the OMB. Apparently they have until August 31 to appeal. So we'll see. And I agree that the Androiduk that the notice converting Maple Leaf Gardens into a grocery store iis pretty comical. At least it gave me a good laugh.
 
Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 15 ST MARY ST
TORONTO ON M4Y 2R5

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 10 261320 SHO 00 PP Accepted Date: Sep 20, 2010

Project: Apartment Building Partial Permit - Shoring

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 29 sty condo with 5 levels of below grade parking. 255 units. New Address - 75 St Nicholas St.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 15 ST MARY ST
TORONTO ON M4Y 2R5

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 10 261320 FND 00 PP Accepted Date: Sep 20, 2010

Project: Apartment Building Partial Permit - Foundation

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 29 sty condo with 5 levels of below grade parking. 255 units. New Address - 75 St Nicholas St.
 
from insidetoronto.com.......

Nov 24, 2010 - 8:19 AM

Save St. Nick heads to the OMB

Residents fighting developer over way they are doing business
The battle for St. Nicholas Street is headed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

The developer of a planned condo at the corner of St. Nicholas and St. Mary streets in downtown Toronto has appealed the city's committee of adjustment's decision not to allow six additional storeys on top of the 29 storeys approved at council in October 2009.

The committee of adjustment refused developer Urban Capital's appeal for six more storeys in August, stating the developer should have applied for the additional height at council rather than trying to push it through as a "minor variance."

A group of residents on the street, dubbed Save St. Nick, has opposed the application since its early days, when Urban Capital first applied for 44 storeys.

While the group is not pleased with the 29-storey compromise, they were resigned to that fate until the developer made the appeal for more height.

Save St. Nick will be at the Ontario Municipal Board to once again argue their side of the debate.

Local resident Ian Flett said he feels the residents' case is strong.

"We're convinced our message, our evidence and our arguments are compelling," he said.

One key issue for residents lies in the height of the building - locals have long contended the building will tower over the historic two-storey townhouses that line St. Nicholas Street.

"We've got studies that show there will be a shadow impact on a local daycare in the summer and I don't think you can deny that something that tall will have an impact in general," he said.

Flett added traffic along the small street and parking will also be issues, as will the impact the building will have on what is currently one of the few low-density neighbourhoods with historic charm left in the downtown area.

He echoed the committee of adjustment's stance the developer should have asked for the six added storeys as a minor variance at council.

"They went in saying it was a minor variance, but obviously there are very differing definitions of what that entails," he said. "Now the developer is using an unelected board to undermine what city council agreed to."

Flett said he hopes a large contingent of local residents comes out to show their opposition at the OMB hearing, but noted that may be difficult since the meetings take place during normal working hours for most.

"We already have three lawyers, one planner and five witnesses coming out and I expect there will be more," he said.

He added he has heard from the Federation of North Toronto Residents' Associations, who will also send representatives despite the fact the application is not in their jurisdiction.

"We're starting to see developers across the city using what they call minor variances to make major changes," he said. "We don't want this to set an example where that's all right."

Residents are looking to raise $10,000 to cover lawyers' fees for the meeting through donations to the Bay Cloverhill Community Association.

Urban Capital could not be reached for comment as of press time Tuesday.

The OMB will hear the case Thursday, Dec. 2 and Friday, Dec. 3.

.
 
Last edited:
from insidetoronto.com, via urbanation's twitter feed.....the deal is settled, the developer gets an additional 6 storeys.....

JUSTIN SKINNER
Dec 07, 2010 - 2:18 PM

Condo battle settled with a handshake

Developer to contribute $750,000 to community
The battle to save St. Nick ended not with a bang, but with a handshake.

After council approved an application for 29 storeys on the low-rise downtown street, developer Nicholas Mary Property Inc. appealed to the Committee of Adjustment seeking six storeys more. That request was turned down, and the developer was looking to take the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board on Dec. 2 and 3.

While local residents were set to fight to limit the height, they managed to broker an agreement with the developer at the 11th hour.

Rather than leave the decision in the hands of the OMB, the two sides managed a compromise by which the developer would receive the six storeys in exchange for $750,000, which will be used for community benefits.

Speaking on behalf of the residents, Ian Flett said the agreement helped mitigate the potential of the developer getting the additional height in exchange for nothing.

He added the group also looked at what could happen to other developments had the case been settled at the OMB and the board sided with Nicholas Mary Property.

"One of the risks was that, if we lost, it could set a precedent for developers to allow them to make major changes as minor variances," he said.

Flett added that, if the case had gone beyond the OMB to divisional court, two of the residents opposing the amendment could have been on the hook for thousands of dollars in additional costs.

Flett acknowledged that the decision to settle was less than ideal, given that people opposed not only the call for six additional storeys but the fact that the developer attempted to secure the additional height by calling it a "minor variance" at the Committee of Adjustment.

"There are people who were very committed to the legal point that we feel should have been made," he said. "(The settlement) was bittersweet because we still feel very strongly in that point."

The risk of going to the OMB, however, was deemed too great for the residents once Nicholas Mary Property offered the $750,000 and agreed to cover costs incurred by the residents leading up to the OMB case.

"Our group had to ask itself what our ultimate interests were, and those were what's best for the community," Flett said.

He added the developer, who was not available for comment as of Mirror deadline, was keen to settle with residents to deflate some of the animosity that had surfaced throughout the development process.

.
 
I've seen this before in condo politics: raising a legal matter and settling in exchange for money, not resolution of the legal issue itself. Legal challenges are sometimes a sophisticated form of forcing unfair or unearned cash payments, and while I'm not a developer or linked to this industry, I regret seeing it play out like that. Money paid to the city itself to enhance local parks or artwork is laudable, because there are known rules regarding this percentage of capital expenditure, and the business entering into the project doesn't have to face unforeseen expenses.
 
Last edited:
They are advertising the height increase in the new Condo Guide (Jan 8-29)...page 63 "New Year, New Heights"...."due to unprecedented demand, 6 new floors," etc., etc....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top