Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210092
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Phantom Developments Teagarden Limited
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Mixed Use
Proposed Designated: Unchanged
Purpose: To permit a density increase from an FSI of 3.99 to 4.63
Property Address/Description: 2, 4 & 6 Teagarden Court
Municipality: City of Toronto
Approval Authority File No.: 20 192585 NNY 18 OZ
LPAT Case No.: PL210092
LPAT File No.: PL210092
LPAT Case Name: Phantom Developments Teagarden Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Phantom Developments Teagarden Limited
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. By-law No. 7625 - Neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: RM6(251)
Proposed Zoning: To permit a 3 storey increase in height to the permitted 11-storey residential building currently under construction together with a commensurate density increase from an FSI of 3.99 to 4.6
Purpose: To permit a fourteen-storey residential building
Property Address/Description: 2, 4 & 6 Teagarden Court
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 20 192585 NNY 18 OZ
LPAT Case No.: PL210092
LPAT File No.: PL210093
Heard: October 21, 2021 via video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
City of Toronto
S. Amini
Phantom Developments Teagarden Limited
A. Platt and G. O’Brien
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. COOKE AND C. HARDY ON OCTOBER 21, 2021
1Phantom Developments Teagarden Limited (“Appellant”) is currently constructing an approved 11-storey residential building (“Project”) at 2, 4, and 6 Teagarden Court (“Subject Property”). The Appellant filed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications (“Application”) to increase the height of the Project to 14-storeys and to increase the Floor Space Index (“FSI”) from 3.99 to 4.6 (“Applications”). The City of Toronto (“City”) failed to make a decision on the Application within the statutory time frame and the Appellant appealed pursuant to s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).
BACKGROUND
2The Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Teagarden Court and Bayview Avenue in the City. In December 2011 the Appellant filed OPA and ZBA applications (“Previous Applications”) which were appealed to the former Ontario Municipal Board, then continued as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”). The Previous Applications were resolved through a settlement hearing in February 2018 permitting an 11-storey residential building comprised of 112 dwelling units with a density of 3.99 times the lot area. In August 2018 a final Order was issued by LPAT bringing the resulting zoning by-law into force. The Appellant commenced construction of the Project.
3The Appellant filed the Application being sought in this appeal to permit an increase in height and density as described in paragraph [1] above.
4The City Official Plan, 2020 (“OP”) designates the Subject Property as Mixed Use Area and permits a maximum density of 3.99 times the area of the lot. The OPA supports this designation as it relates to residential uses but proposes to add the site-specific policy permitting a density of 4.63 times the lot area.
5The Subject Property is zoned RM6(251), being Multiple Family Sixth Density and subject to Site Specific Exception 251 which permits residential apartment dwellings up to a maximum of 11-storeys with site-specific development regulations. The Site Specific Exception 251 is the result of the 2018 approval of the Previous Applications. The ZBLA seeks to further amend the in-force zoning by-law to permit additional height up to a maximum of 14-storeys, additional permitted floor area and other site-specific regulations.
6The Tribunal was informed that the parties had reached an agreement to resolve the appeals. Accordingly, the hearing on the merits was converted to a one-day settlement hearing.
7In support of the settlement, the parties jointly requested that the Tribunal approve in principle the ZBLA and OPA and withhold its final Order pending notification from the City that the agreed upon conditions have been met.
8The OPA was taken into evidence as Exhibit 5 and is attached as Schedule “A”. The ZBLA was taken into evidence as Exhibit 4 and is attached as Schedule “B”.
9The surrounding built form is a mix of mid-rise to high-rise buildings with some single detached dwellings on Teagarden Court to the west. The Subject Property is located approximately 120 metres from Bayview Subway Station (“Subway”), which has subway entrances on both the east and west sides of Bayview Avenue.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
10Planning evidence and opinion to support the OPA and ZBLA was provided by Ryan Guetter. Mr. Guetter is a Registered Professional Planner and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning evidence.
11Mr. Guetter provided detailed contextual and land use planning evidence and rationale to support the proposed settlement. Mr. Guetter reviewed the OPA and ZBLA and in his professional opinion, the OPA attached as Schedule “A” and the ZBLA attached as Schedule “B” constitute good planning and conform to all applicable planning policies.
12Mr. Guetter opined that the OPA and ZBLA before the Tribunal satisfy all legislative tests under the Act as they have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as per s. 2, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”) and the policy intents of both the OP and the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) and have regard for the Clairtrell Area Context Plan, 2005 (“Context Plan”).
13In support of his overall conclusions, Mr. Guetter noted that the Subject Property is in an ideal location for intensification. The Application has regard for matters of Provincial interest under the Act as the Project will contribute to a mix of housing options. The proposed additional storeys will add 16 three-bedroom units to the Project where only one-bedroom and two-bedroom units existed previously.
14Mr. Guetter pointed out that a key principle in the City OP is to allow for growth and change in areas that can accommodate same. The Project incorporates a high level of urban design and building step-backs to mitigate shadow impacts.
15Mr. Guetter opined that the Subject Property is within a Settlement Area under the PPS and the Growth Plan. The Project will contribute to a range and mix of housing types and densities through intensification while optimizing transit investment.
16The Subject Property is located approximately 120 metres from Bayview Subway Station (“Subway”), which is considered to be within a major transit station area. Mr. Guetter’s testimony emphasized a coordinated a strategic approach to the planning of growth along with public transit infrastructure in the Growth Plan.
17The Project conforms to the objectives of the Secondary Plan by incorporating a high-quality family unit dwelling development that supports and takes advantage of the large public investment in rapid transit.
18In addressing the Participants concerns regarding the shadow impact of the additional built height, Mr. Guetter gave his opinion that with the additional floor setbacks the shadow impact would be considered a minimal increase from the original shadow impact study for the existing approved development.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
19In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided Mr. Guetter. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement and major transit station area, that contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular, with the increase in three-bedroom dwelling units as desired by the City.
20The Tribunal has considered the concerns raised by the Participant but was not persuaded that the concerns they have raised are either sustainable given the evidence offered in support of the planned development.
21The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the GP, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.
ORDER
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the Official Plan Amendment as set out in Schedule “A” and the Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Schedule “B” to the Order are hereby approved, but will withhold its Order pending notification from the City that the following conditions have been fulfilled:
a. the form and content of the OPA and ZBLA are finalized to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; and
b. community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured in a s. 37 Agreement executed by the Appellant and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.
So Orders the Tribunal.
“S. Cooke”
S. COOKE
MEMBER
“C. Hardy”
c. hardy
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.