Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 15, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200215
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Collecdev Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and No. 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Residential
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit construction of a 44 storey, 398-unit residential building
Property Address/Description: 40-44 Broadway Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 19 194902 NNY 15 OZ
LPAT Case No.: PL200215
LPAT File No.: PL200215
LPAT Case Name: Collecdev Inc. v. Toronto (City.)
Heard: June 10, 2021 via video conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Collecdev Inc.
Joe Hoffman
City of Toronto
M. Piel
Shall-May Holdings Limited and Frastell Developments Inc. (“Frastell & Shall-May”)
I. Kagan (Julie Kagan – Absent)
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. for the Diocese of Toronto
David Tang (Calvin Weekes – Absent)
DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON JUNE 10, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Tribunal held a settlement hearing with consent and notification by the parties. In a letter to the Tribunal on May 18, 2021 the Toronto District School informed the Tribunal that all their issues have been addressed and they no longer will participate in the proceedings except to monitor that agreed aspects are maintained.
2The subject site, municipally known as 40-44 Broadway Avenue, is located on the north side of Broadway Avenue, approximately mid-block between Yonge Street to the west and Redpath Avenue to the east, in the northeast quadrant of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue. The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel that occupies approximately 4,266 square meters (1.05 acres) (0.42 hectares) of land and has a frontage of 45.74 metres (150 feet) on Broadway Avenue.
3The Applicant proposes to redevelop the subject site by demolishing the existing church building and constructing a new church at the front of the subject site, along with a 39-storey residential tower in the rear. The church and the new residential tower will be attached and will share a two-level underground parking garage. The new church will be located behind a new public park along the Broadway Avenue frontage while the residential tower will be further north and in the rear of the new church. The proposal includes a new driveway along the west side yard. The driveway will provide access to church pick-up/drop-off area, to the residential lobby, to the loading/servicing area, and to the shared underground parking garage.
4In order to develop the property, the Applicant sought a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to both the former City of Toronto By-law No. 438-86 and the City wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 to implement the redevelopment proposal. Zoning standards related to permitted residential building type, setbacks, maximum density (GFA), parking rates, building projections, and building height will be needed to permit the proposed development.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
5The Applicant called Michael S. Goldberg, a registered professional planner to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. The sworn affidavit of Mr. Goldberg is on file. Mr. Goldberg presented common expert opinion evidence in support of the settlement between all the parties with the consent of all the parties.
6In order for the Tribunal to accept the settlement and approve the ZBA, the proposal must meet the following statutory tests:
a. has regard for the Provincial interest;
b. is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”);
c. Conforms with the Growth Plan the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (the “Growth Plan”); and
d. conforms to the City Official Plan and applicable secondary plan.
7Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposal has regard for the provincial interest as it has considered the direction for appropriate consistency and conformity tests set in the Act as well as provincial policies and plans.
8Mr. Goldberg reviewed the PPS 2020 in detail. He identified the applicable sections of the policies which include sections 4.6, 1.3.4, 1.4, and 1.7.1. Mr. Goldberg opined that these require the prime consideration of the City’s Official Plan for consideration and conformity. Mr. Goldberg added that the proposal advances the PPS 2020 policy direction to optimize the use of the land, resources, and the existing and planned infrastructure. It mixes and consolidates a church and residential use on the same site. Mr. Goldberg concluded that as such, the revised proposal is consistent with the policy direction of intensification, optimization of long-term use of land, resources and infrastructure as stipulated in PPS 2020.
9Mr. Goldberg reviewed the appropriate direction in the Growth Plan. He cited sections 1.2.1; 2; and 5.2.5.1. Mr. Goldberg described that these sections direct “Where and How to Grow” leading to greater detailed policies that achieve intensification with identified intensification targets, transit supportive developments and growth directed to settlement areas. Mr. Goldberg based on his analysis and presentation to the Tribunal concluded that the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan.
10Mr. Goldberg reviewed the City of Toronto Official Plan (the “City OP”). He showed that the subject site is in Apartment Neighbourhoods designation. In this City OP review he focussed on policies in sections 2.2(2); 4.2; 3.1.2; 3.1.3 and 3.2.1. He opined that the proposal provides for appropriate development type and built forms, provides for greater housing choices for a variety of household types.
11Mr. Goldberg also reviewed the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (“YESP”); OPA 289; and OPA 405. He stated the revised proposal satisfies the policies of the City OP and the policies from OPA 289 and OPA 405. When taken together, the use and design of the proposal advances the use and design policies and principles of the City OP, including OPA 289 and OPA 405. He opined that that the proposed redevelopment is in conformity with the City OP, including OPA 405 and OPA 289.
12Mr. Goldberg also reviewed the City’s tall building guidelines and opined that the proposed building has been designed to generally satisfy this City guideline document.
13Mr. Goldberg opined that except for the requested specific amendments, the ZBA maintains the intent purpose of the ZBL. Mr. Goldberg concluded that in overall consideration, the ZBA represents good land use planning and is appropriate and desirable for the redevelopment of the lands.
14The Tribunal, having considered all the evidence before it, including the sworn affidavit of Mr. Goldberg and his uncontroverted expert opinion evidence, finds that the requested ZBA meets all the statutory tests including regard for provincial interest, consistency with PPS 2020, conformity with the Growth Plan, conformity with City OP and appropriate secondary plan and is thus appropriate.
15The Tribunal was requested on consent by the parties to withhold the final order pending the fulfillment of conditions as agreed to between the City and the parties.
INTERIM ORDER
16The appeal is allowed, in part, and the zoning by-law amendments to permit the redevelopment of 40 - 44 Broadway Avenue, in the City of Toronto, are approved in principle,
with the Tribunal’s final Order withheld for six months pending confirmation by the City of Toronto that the conditions in Attachment 1 to this order have been met.
17The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issues arise in satisfying these conditions or implementing this order.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.