Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2021
CASE NO(S).: OLT 21-001137
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Churchill Three Develco Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: Site-specific Zoning By-law No. 976-2020(OMB)
Property Address/Description: 75 Canterbury Place
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipal File No.: 2021-A-21
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001137
OLT File No.: OLT-21-001137
OLT Case Name: Churchill Three Develco Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114 (15) ) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Referred by: Churchill Three Develco Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Property Address/Description: 75 Canterbury Place
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001137
OLT File No.: OLT-21-001140
Heard: October 1, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Churchill Three Develco Inc.
J. Park O. Rasekhi
City of Toronto
J. Braun
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON OCTOBER 1, 2021 AND THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal was a settlement hearing for a site plan application and minor variance for the property municipally known as 75 Canterbury Place (“Subject Site”) in the City of Toronto (“City”).
2The proposed changes by Churchill Three Develco Inc. (“Applicant”), for the site plan application deal generally with revisions to the landscape plan to ensure compliance with the Ontario Building Code, the addition of below-grade locker rooms, and the addition of new bike racks.
3The Subject Site is located to a block west of Yonge Street and approximately 700 metres (“m”) south of the Finch TTC Subway Station. The Subject Site is considered under the Official Plan (“OP”) to be located within the North York Centre and is subject to the North York Centre Secondary Plan (“NYCSP”).
PLANNING EVIDENCE
4Michael Romero is an Assistant Planner with the City’s, North York District, Planning Division. Mr. Romero was qualified by the Tribunal to give expert land use planning evidence and opinion.
MINOR VARIANCES
5Mr. Romero informed the Tribunal that the Subject Site is currently under construction. The purpose of the application for minor variance was to convert space that is not being used in the underground parking into additional residential storage lockers. Storage lockers are considered to be part of the Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) even if they are below grade. The existing by-law allows for a maximum GFA of 24,224.5 square metres (“sq m”). The Applicant has proposed 24,593.07 sq m.
6Mr. Romero testified that in his opinion the proposed variance is minor and meets the general intent and purpose of the OP and Zoning By-law.
7The Subject Site is subject to the policies of the NYCSP to help control density limits within the North York Centre. Mr. Romero described the purpose of the density limits to help ensure that development occurs in an appropriate manner that would not exceed the capacity of the existing municipal infrastructure.
8The NYCSP states under s. 3.2 c):
“The area devoted to storage lockers constitutes gross floor area and will be included in calculations pertaining to the density limits set out in Section 3.2(a)."
9Mr. Romero stated that as the requested GFA to accommodate the storage lockers is contained within existing constructed below grade parking, the increase of GFA would not alter the building size or make a negative impact to the abutting stable residential neighbourhood.
10It is the opinion of Mr. Romero that the application does not undermine the policies of the NYCSP while ensuring the principles of the GFA policy continues to be respected.
11Mr. Romero stated that in his opinion the proposed increase of the storage lockers in the underutilized underground parking spaces is a desirable amenity use for the residents. As it is within the existing internal structure the proposed minor variance should be considered minor in nature.
12In addition, Mr. Romero informed the Tribunal that the variance regarding the bicycle racks is technical in nature. The Applicant proposes to reduce the width of the spaces by 15 centimetres. Based on the review of the application by City transportation staff that had no concerns, it is the opinion of Mr. Romero that the bicycle rack variance is considered minor. By providing the opportunities of bicycle racks on the premises the application supports the goals and objectives that are desirable to support active transportation as encouraged in the Growth Plan, and meets the general intent of the OP.
13As part of the minor variance application the NYCSP provides a formula for payments for density. Based on the GFA increase and the appraised land value the application would be subject to a monetary contribution of $561,000.00. As the storage lockers are below grade, and within the existing structure of the unused parking garage, the Parties have agreed to a re-appraised monetary contribution of $52,000.00.
SITE PLAN CONTROL
14On March 4, 2021, the Applicant submitted a Site Plan Control (“SPC”) application. The request in the application was to address the following:
Addition of two more exit gates on the landscape plan, to ensure compliance with Ontario Building Code requirements, as well as consequent adjustments to planters and landscaping;
Addition of below-grade locker rooms on the parking floors;
Addition of bike stackers in ground floor bike room, consistent with the minor variance application for the Subject Site recently submitted by Bousfields Inc.;
Adjustment of suite layouts;
Adjustment of materials on elevations due to constructability issues; and
Updated statistics reflecting the above changes.
15Mr. Romero indicated that after the staff review of the SPC application there were no issues raised. The SPC application would simply facilitate the ability to secure the location of the storage lockers in the underground parking garage.
16A Notice of Approval Conditions (“NOAC”) has been prepared by Staff. With the NOAC in place Mr. Romero recommends that the SPC application be approved in principle.
FINDINGS AND ANALISYS
17In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided by Mr. Romero. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the request for the minor variances meets the four tests that are prescribed under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.
18The Tribunal is satisfied that the NOAC for the SPC application to accommodate the additional storage locker units is in order.
19The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, and is considered to have the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed, and the variances to By-law 7625 set out in Attachment 1 to this Order are authorized subject to the condition that a monetary contribution of $52,000.00 be secured in a s. 45(9) Agreement.
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS on an interim basis that the replacement site plans and drawings prepared by Scott Shields Architects Inc and by Ferris + Associates Inc. identified and listed in Attachment 2 to this Decision and Interim Order, are provisionally approved in principle
22The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order to approve the replacement plans and drawings until the City Solicitor confirms that the Applicant has executed an amending Site Plan Agreement.
23The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the issuance of the Final Order.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF MINOR VARIANCES (as revised) 75 Canterbury Place, Toronto OLT Case No. OLT-21-001137
- Section 64.20-A, Subsection RM6 (175), Subsection (c), By-law 7625
As amended by site-specific zoning by-law 976-2020(OMB)) outlines a bicycle parking space as having a minimum vertical clearance of 1.9m and minimum horizontal dimensions of 0.6m by 1.8m. The proposed development would include bicycle parking spaces and stacked bicycle parking spaces having a minimum of vertical clearance of 1.9m and minimum horizontal dimensions of 0.45m by 1.8m.
- Section 64.20-A (175), Subsection RM6 (175), By-law 7625
Under North York Zoning By-law 7625, as amended by By-law 976-2020(OMB), a maximum gross floor area of 24,227.5 square metres is permitted. The proposed gross floor area is 24,593.07 square metres.