Mansoorifar v. Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 122412

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 22, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL170651

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicants and Appellants: Fatemeh Mansoorifar, Arya Optical Inc. and 1673288 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request by the City of Toronto Existing Designation: Neighbourhoods Proposed Designation: Site specific to permit the continued use Purpose: To permit the continued use of a two-storey building Property Address/Description: 11 Newton Drive Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 15 140421 NNY 24 OZ OMB Case No.: PL170651 OMB File No.: PL170651 OMB Case Name: Mansoorifar v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicants and Appellants: Fatemeh Mansoorifar, Arya Optical Inc. and 1673288 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 7625 – Refusal of application by the City of Toronto Existing Zoning: One Family Detached Dwelling Sixth Density Zone (R6) Proposed Designation: Site specific to permit the continued use Purpose: To permit the continued use of a two-storey building Property Address/Description: 11 Newton Drive Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 15 140421 NNY 24 OZ OMB Case No.: PL170651 OMB File No.: PL170652 OMB Case Name: Mansoorifar v. Toronto (City)

Heard: August 06, 2021 via telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto	Kasia Czajkowski
1673288 Ontario Ltd.	Amber Stewart

DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This matter was convened before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT” or “Tribunal”) at the request of the Parties and was held by telephone conference call (“TCC”) on August 6, 2021.

2Previously, the Parties had a hearing before the Tribunal on October 25 and 26, 2018 (“2018 Hearing”) before the former Local Planning Appeals Tribunal which resulted in a Decision and certain Orders of Member Duncan issued on July 23, 2019 (“2019 Decision” and “2019 Orders”).

3Subsequent to the Decision and Orders, the Parties requested a TCC to discuss possible minor changes to the Orders, which was held on September 10, 2020. However, at that time, the Parties had not yet completed their discussions and negotiations with respect to these proposed changes.

4At the August 6, 2021 TCC, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a consensus on the changes required to be made to the Orders. They agreed to file supporting evidence with respect to those changes subsequent to the TCC. That evidence, in the form of the affidavit of Janice Robertson sworn October 15, 2021 was finally delivered to the Tribunal on the same date.

5Ms. Robertson is a professional planner with 40 years’ experience garnered with various municipalities and in private practice. She was also part of the planning team who acted for the Appellants at the 2018 Hearing.

6In her affidavit Ms. Robertson indicated that her colleague Michael Goldberg who testified at the 2018 Hearing and was qualified to provide expert evidence on land use planning matters had expressed an opinion that the draft official plan amendment (“OPA”) and zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) required further internal review by the City of Toronto (“City”) staff. Both Mr. Goldberg and counsel for both Parties requested that the Tribunal therefore withhold its final Orders approving the OPA and ZBA until the City’s final review was completed.

7However, the Tribunal in its 2019 Decision and Orders did not withhold its final Order on the OPA and the ZBA, and upon the City’s internal review, some minor changes to both were required. At the September 10, 2020 TCC the Parties had not yet completed their discussions about the final form and content of these instruments.

8The sworn affidavit of Ms. Robertson, filed with the Tribunal on consent of both Parties, establishes that:

1. The Appellant sought at the 2018 Hearing permission for the continued use of a two-storey residential building located at 11 Newton Drive (“Subject Property”) as a commercial medical building;
2. The proposed implementing documents appended to this Decision as Attachment 1 (Final Draft Official Plan Amendment), Attachment 2 (Final Draft Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 569-2013) and Attachment 3 (Final Draft Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 7625) are appropriate, represent good land use planning, and implement the Tribunal’s 2019 Decision;
3. Many of the proposed revisions to Attachments 1, 2 and 3 are technical or stylistic in nature, and do not substantively amend the documents previously filed with the Tribunal at the 2018 Hearing;
4. Other revisions have been determined to be necessary by the City’s Building Department following the 2018 Hearing to ensure that all amendments to the parent Zoning By-laws that are necessary to implement the approved plans/applications have been incorporated;
5. With the exception of the gross floor area, all of those site-specific provisions described in this paragraph [8] 1., 2., 3. and 4. above are consistent with the plans submitted to the Tribunal for approval at the 2018 Hearing;
6. With respect to the modifications to limit the permitted gross floor area to 585 squared metres, Attachments 1, 2 and 3 serve to implement the Tribunal’s finding in its 2019 Decision that the proposed gross floor area that could be used for medical office space should be limited solely to the above-grade floor area in the building; and
7. Consistent with the opinion given by Mr. Goldberg and Ms. Robertson at the 2018 Hearing, the proposed OPA and ZBAs in final form as set out in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 hereto are consistent with or conform with provincial policy, and conform with the Official Plan. They are appropriate implementing documents to facilitate the development of the proposal in accordance with the Tribunal’s 2019 Decision to approve the Appellants applications concerning the Subject Property.

9This Tribunal is satisfied that the unchallenged evidence of Ms. Robertson described in paragraph [8] above, as submitted by counsel for both Parties on consent, establishes that the revised instruments reflected in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 appended hereto represent minor changes to the OPA and ZBA’s approved by Member Duncan in the 2019 Orders and are required to properly implement the 2019 Decision and the 2019 Orders. The Tribunal is also of the view that these minor changes respect principles of good planning and are in accordance with Rule 24 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure.

ORDERS

10This Tribunal Orders that the Decision and Order of the Tribunal dated July 23, 2019, in Case No. PL170651 is hereby amended as follows:

• Paragraph 35(a) is amended to provide that the Official Plan Amendment in the form attached hereto as Attachment 1 is approved;
• Paragraph 35(b) is amended to provide that the Zoning By-laws are amended in accordance with Attachments 2 and 3 hereto;
• Paragraph 35(c) is amended to provide that the City Clerk may assign numbers to Attachments 1, 2, and 3 to accord with municipal record keeping.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON 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

Authority: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Decision/Order issued on July 23, 2019, with respect to Tribunal Case No. PL170651

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. ~-2020 (LPAT)

To adopt Amendment No. 481 to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2019 as 11 Newton Drive.

Whereas authority is given to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, to approve this By-law;

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto, as amended, is further amended by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, as follows:

1. The attached Amendment No. 481 to the Official Plan is hereby approved pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended.

Pursuant to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Decision/Order issued on July 23, 2019 with respect to Tribunal Case No. PL170651

AMENDMENT NO. 481 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2019 AS 11 NEWTON DRIVE

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows:

1. Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policies, is amended by adding Site and Area Specific Policy No. 578 for lands known municipally in 2019 as 11 Newton Drive, as follows:

2. 11 Newton Drive

A building that contains a professional medical office use is a permitted use, provided the building does not exceed a maximum lot coverage of 30% and a gross floor area of 585 square metres with the remainder used for storage purposes.

2. Map 27, Site and Area Specific Policies, is revised to add the lands known municipally in 2019 as 11 Newton Drive shown on the map above as Site and Area Specific Policy No. 578.

ATTACHMENT 2

Authority: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Decision/Order issued on July 23, 2019 with respect to Tribunal Case No. PL170651

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. ~-2020 (LPAT)

To amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands known municipally in the year 2019 as 11 Newton Drive

Whereas the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, by its Decision and Order issued on July 23, 2019 with respect to Tribunal Case No. PL170651, approved amendments to Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands; and

Whereas the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and

Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act; and

Therefore, pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in Tribunal Case No. PL170651 issued on July 23, 2019, Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended so that it reads:

1. The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
2. The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.
3. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law, to the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10, and applying the zone label "RD(f12.0; a370)(x671)", as shown on Diagram 2; and
4. Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.3.10 Exception Number 671 so that it reads:

Exception RD (671)

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) In addition to the uses listed in Clause 10.20.20.10, a medical office is a permitted use.

(B) The permitted maximum gross floor area is 585 square metres.

(C) Regulation 10.5.40.70(1) with respect to front yard setback averaging does not apply.

(D) Despite Clause 10.20.40.70, the required minimum setbacks are: i. 5.12 metres for the front yard setback; ii. 15.58 metres for the rear yard setback; iii. 6.09 metres for the west side yard setback; and iv. 1.73 metres for the east side yard setback.

(E) Regulation 10.5.50.10(3) with respect to rear yard soft landscaping does not apply.

(F) A lot with a building containing a medical office may have an ancillary outdoor area used for parking in the rear yard.

(G) Regulation 10.5.80.1(2) with respect to ancillary outdoor area for parking, does not apply.

(H) Despite Table 200.5.10.1, a minimum of 10 parking spaces must be provided and maintained on the lot.

(I) Despite Clause 220.5.10.1, a minimum of one Type "C' loading space is required.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: (None Apply)

PURSUANT TO THE DECISION/ORDER OF THE LOCAL PLANNING APPEAL TRIBUNAL ISSUED ON JULY 23, 2019 WITH RESPECT TO TRIBUNAL CASE NO. PL170651.

ATTACHMENT 3

Authority: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Decision/Order issued on July 23, 2019 with respect to Case No. PL170651

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. ~-2020 (LPAT)

To amend former North York Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, with respect to the lands known municipally in the year 2019 as 11 Newton Drive

WHEREAS the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, by its Decision and Order issued on July 23, 2019 with respect to Tribunal Case No. PL170651, approved amendments to Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, with respect to the lands; and

WHEREAS the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hereby amends Zoning By-law No. 7625 as follows:

1. Schedules “B” and “C” of By-law No. 7625 of the former City of North York are amended in accordance with Schedule “1” of this By-law.

2. Section 64.14-A of By-law No. 7625 of the former City of North York is amended by adding the following subsection:

64.14-A (26) R6 (26)

DEFINITIONS

(a) For the purpose of this exception, "Type C Loading Space" shall mean a loading space that has a minimum length of 6.0 metres, a minimum width of 3.5 metres, and a minimum vertical clearance of 4.0 metres.

PERMITTED USES

(b) Notwithstanding the uses permitted within the R6 Zone, the following use is permitted subject to the Exception Regulations below: i. Professional medical office.

EXCEPTION REGULATIONS

(c) Gross Floor Area i. The maximum gross floor area permitted shall not exceed 585 square metres with the remainder used for storage purposes.

(d) Yard Setbacks i. The minimum front yard setback shall be 5.12 metres. ii. The minimum rear yard setback shall be 15.58 metres. iii. The minimum west side yard setback shall be 6.09 metres and the minimum east side yard setback shall be 1.73 metres.

(e) Building Height i. The maximum permitted building height is 10.0 metres and 2 storeys.

(f) Parking and Loading i. An accessory parking area is permitted to be located in the rear yard. ii. A minimum of ten (10) vehicle parking spaces shall be required. iii. A minimum of one Type C loading space is required.

OTHER REGULATIONS

(a) Notwithstanding any conveyance, severance, partition, or division of the lot, as shown on Schedule 1, the provisions of this by-law shall apply to the whole of the lot as if no conveyance, severance, partition or division occurred.

PURSUANT TO THE DECISION/ORDER OF THE LOCAL PLANNING APPEAL TRIBUNAL ISSUED ON JULY 23, 2019 WITH RESPECT TO TRIBUNAL CASE NO. PL170651.