Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 12, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL170893 PL171231
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Hullmark (474 Wellington) LP
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86
- Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Mixed-Use - Non-residential
Proposed Zoning: Mixed-Use - Non-residential
Purpose: To permit the development of a 15-storey office building with retail space at grade
Property Address/Description: 470, 472 & 474 Wellington Street West
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 16 261191 STE 20 OZ
OLT Case No.: PL170893
OLT File No.: PL170893
OLT Case Name: Hullmark (474 Wellington) LP 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: Doubledown Holdings Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 – Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Reinvestment Area (RA)
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit a 16 storey office building with accessory retail and service commercial uses on the Subject Site
Property Address/Description: 488 Wellington Street West
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 16 270154 STE 20 OZ
OLT Case No.: PL171231
OLT File No.: PL171231
OLT Case Name: Doubledown Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: October 27, 2021 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Doubledown Holdings Inc. Aaron Platt
Hullmark (474 Wellington) LP Max Laskin
City of Toronto Sarah O’Connor and Alexander J. Suriano
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON OCTOBER 27, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a settlement hearing in respect of appeals relating to two neighbouring properties. Hullmark (474 Wellington) LP (“Hullmark”) owns the property located at 470-474 Wellington Street and Doubledown Holdings Inc. (“Doubledown”) owns the property located at 482-488 Wellington Street West. Together, these properties are hereinafter referred to as the subject site.
2In 2016, Hullmark and Doubledown submitted separate applications to rezone their respective properties to permit the redevelopment thereof. Hullmark proposed to develop a 15-storey office building with retail space at grade and Doubledown proposed to develop a 16-storey office building with accessory retail and service commercial uses. The City of Toronto (“City”) failed to make decisions on these applications within the statutory timeframe and subsequently, Hullmark and Doubledown appealed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act 1 (“Act”).
3To address feedback from City staff, Hullmark and Doubledown agreed to work together on a combined proposal for the redevelopment of the subject site. Following a series of proposal revisions and resubmissions over a number of years, the proposed built form was scaled down in height in response to neighbourhood feedback. The articulation in terms of step-backs and setbacks was refined and the parties agreed upon a list of conditions of approval, ultimately resulting in the settlement and presently before the Tribunal, supported by all parties and endorsed by City Council.
SUBJECT SITE AND AREA CONTEXT
4The subject site is in the King-Spadina area of Downtown Toronto and is located on the north side of Wellington Street West. The part of the subject site owned by Hullmark is located on the eastern portion thereof and is approximately 2,993 square metres (“sq m”) having roughly 47 metres (“m”) of frontage on Wellington Street West. This property is currently occupied by two office buildings.
5The portion of the subject site owned by Doubledown is located on the western portion of the site and is approximately 1,793 m in size, having roughly 28 m of frontage on Wellington Street West. This property is currently occupied by two five-storey buildings listed on the City’s heritage register, which are connected by a modern structure.
6There are two laneways on the subject site, one is an independent laneway serving the combined properties located on the westerly portion and the other, which is subject to an easement providing shared access with the property at 468 Wellington Street West, is located on the easterly portion of the site. Neither laneway extends all the way to King Street West.
7The section of Wellington Street West onto, which the subject site fronts, is between Clarence Square Park and Victoria Square Memorial Park. The street is quite wide, with a 45 m right-of-way, a 16 m boulevard and a generous sidewalk. The area boasts a mix of uses including residential, office and entertainment with convenient access to a variety of transit services. In the immediate area of the subject site, there are existing low- to mid-rise buildings as well as some taller buildings and sites currently undergoing redevelopment, including one on the south side of Wellington Street West known as “The Well”, which includes a 36-storey office building and residential towers ranging from 22-46 storeys.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
8Lindsay Dale-Harris, a Registered Professional Planner and a fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. Her Affidavit is Exhibit 1 to this proceeding.
9Ms. Dale-Harris provided a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the settlement. She opined that overall, the proposed zoning by-law amendment (“ZBLA”) to facilitate the proposed development is appropriate and desirable in land use planning terms and is worthy of approval.
10She described the proposal’s regard for matters of Provincial interest; consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”); conformity with A Place To Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) as well as conformity with the policy direction of the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”), the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. In addition, she provided a comprehensive review of the agreed upon conditions of approval (Exhibit 2), opining them to be appropriate for this development.
11In general, Ms. Dale-Harris described the King-Spadina area as one with a flexible planning policy context in terms of uses and densities, which has led to significant intensification and positive development between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street since approximately 1996. She described an evolving area character with built forms of differing heights, styles and uses.
12As previously mentioned, there were initially two separate rezoning applications to permit 15- and 16-storey office buildings. With reference to architectural renderings provided in the visual evidence appended to her Affidavit, Ms. Dale-Harris took the Tribunal through the current combined proposal, noting key modifications achieved over the years through a series of revisions.
13The current proposal contemplates a 13-storey office building incorporating at-grade retail units. There are to be three distinct five-storey volumes, which include the two listed heritage buildings on the Doubledown-owned portion of the subject site. Ms. Dale-Harris pointed out that the original proposals envisioned significantly higher towers and higher densities. She described substantial changes in the current proposal, not only in respect of the height and massing but a significant 23-25% reduction in proposed density, as well. In addition, she described changes, providing setbacks from adjacent properties, and a deliberate and sensitive arrangement of the development, where the tower portion thereof is significantly setback above the proposed five-storey volumes, achieving a clear distinction between the tower and the two heritage buildings.
14Ms. Dale-Harris provided an evaluation of the proposal against the relevant policy framework. With reference to paragraph 49 of her Affidavit, she described consistency with the PPS policies including the efficient use of land and infrastructure, the promotion of economic competitiveness and the conservation of heritage resources.
15She noted that the Growth Plan identifies the subject site as being situated within an Urban Growth Center, where growth and intensification are anticipated. She opined, with reference to paragraph 50 of her Affidavit, that the proposal conforms to applicable Growth Plan policies, including those speaking to development that is accommodative of population and employment growth, designed to support the achievement of complete communities and to provide convenient access to transportation options while conserving cultural heritage resources.
16With reference to paragraphs 51-55 of her Affidavit, Ms. Dale-Harris opined the proposed development conforms with the policy direction of the OP. The subject site falls within the Downtown and Central Waterfront on Map 2 (Urban Structure), which is an area subject to policies encouraging growth and intensification (both residential and employment). It is also within a designated Regeneration Area, which encourages a wide range of development activity, including development aimed at creating new jobs and contributing to the economic growth of the area.
17Ms. Dale-Harris testified that there have been many residential developments and applications for residential development in this area, with noticeably fewer applications for employment development which, in her view, highlights the importance of the proposal presently before the Tribunal.
18In addition to the foregoing, she noted the OP contains specific policies regarding built form and heritage conservation, directing that development fits within the existing and planned context and conserves cultural heritage values, attributes and character. Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the design of the revised proposal, especially in relation to the two heritage properties on the subject site, demonstrates conformity with these policies.
19With respect to the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the proposal conforms to both the in-force version as well the general intent of a newer iteration thereof, which the City has adopted and which is currently under appeal. She also noted that City Staff and City Council decisions to support the proposed development were made following the adoption of the newer version of the plan.
20The King-Spadina area was described as a very special area of the City, warranting particular attention to the design and massing of the development proposal. It was explained that Secondary Plan policies and in particular, those encouraging the conservation, rehabilitation and retention of heritage buildings informed key revisions to the proposal in relation to the two heritage buildings on the subject site as well as the inclusion of attractive open space and public areas.
21The subject site is zoned Reinvestment Area (“RA”) by Zoning By-law No. 438-86, which permits a range of uses such as commercial, institutional, residential and limited industrial. The maximum height permitted is 23 m and there are a number of minimum setback requirements. Ms. Dale-Harris explained that, although a draft form of the ZBLA is not yet in final form and remains subject to review by City Staff, the ZBLA will increase the permitted height and establish setback and other site-specific development standards to facilitate the proposed development.
22Ms. Dale-Harris took the Tribunal through the list of conditions of approval (Exhibit 2), which include the finalization of the form of the ZBLA and an agreement pursuant to s. 37 of the Planning Act. She noted that the bulk of financial contributions in the s. 37 Agreement will be largely directed toward streetscape improvements to Wellington Street West between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street. In addition, although this is not a residential development, financial contributions will also be made toward the maintenance/provision of new affordable housing as well as to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation revolving capital fund.
23Overall, in Ms. Dale-Harris’ view, the ZBLA and the development it will permit as well as the conditions of approval, all represent good planning in the public interest.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
24The Tribunal accepts the uncontradicted planning evidence and opinions of Ms. Dale-Harris and finds the proposed ZBLA and the development of the subject properties as proposed satisfies all legislative tests, as discussed above.
25In particular, the proposed development supports local and Provincial initiatives and policy directives aimed at intensifying underutilized lands and providing development that is well-served by transit and encourages economic growth. The Tribunal is satisfied that the design and arrangement of the proposed development achieves the goal of conserving heritage resources, namely the two listed heritage properties on the subject site.
INTERIM ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, on an interim basis, that the appeals are allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment is approved in principle. The Tribunal will withhold its final Order pending completion of the items set out in Attachment 1.
27This Member remains seized and may be spoken to at a time that is mutually convenient, should difficulties arise in finalizing the items set out in Attachment 1.
“S. Braun”
S. Braun
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
PL170893 & PL171231
470-488 Wellington Street West, City of Toronto
Conditions of Approval
The Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) has been advised by the City Solicitor that the Zoning By-law Amendment(s) have been finalized in a form mutually satisfactory to the City Solicitor, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Owner, and have been provided to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly Local Planning Appeal Tribunal);
The Owner has provided a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report and any other reports or documents deemed necessary in support of the development to the City for review and acceptance by and to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
The Owner has entered into and registered a financially secured agreement for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the site servicing report, as accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that upgrades to such infrastructure are required to support the development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
The Owner has provided access, parking and loading facilities to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services;
Heritage Easement Agreement(s) with the City for the properties at 482 and 488 Wellington Street West are registered to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services and the City Solicitor;
The Owner has provided a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;
The Owner has submitted a copy of the relevant assessment report(s) to Heritage Planning in both hard copy format and as a PDF file on compact disk;
The Owner has made arrangements satisfactory to the City Solicitor to withdraw their appeal(s) of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 486), upon the issuance of an Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) Order allowing the Zoning By-law Amendment appeals in part;
The Owner has made arrangements satisfactory to the City Solicitor to withdraw their appeal(s) of Official Plan Amendment 352 and By-laws 1106-2016 and 1107-2016, with respect to 470-488 Wellington Street West, upon the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) Order allowing the Zoning By-law Amendment appeals in part;
The Owner has made arrangements satisfactory to the City Solicitor to withdraw their appeal(s) of the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District Plan, and if not an appellant, but rather a party to such appeals, the Owner shall withdraw as a party and not seek any party or participant status on the appeals;
The Owner has made arrangements satisfactory to the City Solicitor to withdraw their appeal(s) of the designation of both 482 and 488 Wellington Street West to the Conservation Review Board, upon the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) Order allowing the Zoning-law Amendment appeals in part; and
The Owner has entered into a Section 37 Agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning in accordance with section 4 of the City Council decision dated June 8, 2021, Item CC34.8.
7211172.1