Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL171103
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 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal 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: Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
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 59-storey mixed-use building
Property Address/Description: 100 and 130 Simcoe Street, 99 Pearl Street, and 203 and 211 Adelaide Street West
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 16 192792 STE 20 OZ
LPAT Case No.: PL171103
LPAT File No.: PL171103
LPAT Case Name: Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Toronto (City)
Heard: June 3, 2021 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
P. Devine
M. Cook
City of Toronto
M. Longo
217 Adelaide Holdings Ltd.
C. Lantz
Ed Mirvish Enterprises Ltd.
M. Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D.S. COLBOURNE AND G. BURTON ON JUNE 3, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Tribunal conducted a settlement hearing with respect to an appeal of City of Toronto (“City”) Council’s refusal to amend the zoning by-law to allow redevelopment of properties located at the south-west corner of Simcoe and Adelaide Streets. The site is composed of several properties, 90 and 100 Simcoe Street, 130 Pearl Street and 203-211 Adelaide Street. The site is a regularly shaped double-corner site, and has three frontages, 56.86 metres (“m”) on Simcoe Street, 51.52 m on Adelaide Street West and 51.37 m on Pearl Street. The area is a total of 2,930 square metres (“sq m”).
2Currently, the south-west corner at 100 Simcoe Street, is improved with a five-and-a-half-storey office building and further west, 211 Adelaide Street West is a six-storey commercial parking garage. The corner property is the subject of a heritage designation.
3The application for rezoning was made July 12, 2016, with a notice of complete application being received November 8, 2016. The appeal was filed October 13, 2017, in part as a precautionary response to the (then) uncertainty with respect to Bill 139’s transition provisions.
4Paul Stagl, a well-known Land Use Planner, was retained by the owners in November 2015. In the interim, he has coordinated and assessed all related planning matters, including:
attendance at pre-consultation meetings with City staff;
preparation of an independent Planning Assessment and Rationale Report as well as an Addendum Report;
attendance at application review meetings with staff;
review/assessment of revisions requested by City staff;
review of the related appeal; and,
the City’s Request for Directions Staff Report; and,
review/assessment of the City Council Decision on this Report.
He also participated in the recent without prejudice settlement discussions with staff that resulted in the positive May 6, 2021 Council decision.
5The original application proposed demolition of the office building and parking structure, to provide for the redevelopment of the site with a 59-storey mixed-use retail/service/office residential project, comprised of a 50-storey tower atop a nine-storey podium. There would be 524 residential units and 17,171 sq m of office space. Access to on-site parking, loading and servicing would be from Pearl Street.
6As a result of a request for directions on July 30, 2018, Council authorized staff to continue discussions with the Owner on a revised proposal that addressed issues set out in the Directions Staff Report. These would in part include heritage conservation (100 Simcoe Street), height, transportation and servicing, and improved compliance with the approved planning policies and design guidelines. These include the then evolving policies of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, later adopted as Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (“OPA 486”), and the then evolving and now approved (as modified by the Minister) Downtown Secondary Plan, OPA 406.
7Mr. Stagl participated in staff discussions in an effort to narrow and/or remove issues in advance of the LPAT hearing. Those discussions during and through to 2021 resulted in a number of revisions to the original application.
8The result was a settlement proposal, approved by City Council on May 6, 2021. It included features/revisions as described on pages 7-9 of his affidavit, and illustrated in the architectural plans dated March 19, 2021 (Exhibit F).
9Mr. Stagl’s evidence is that in understanding the existing and planned context, the area referred to as the King-Spadina East Precinct (located between Simcoe Street and Spadina Avenue) has and continues to be the subject of significant development activity. In his affidavit, on pages four through six, he has listed the immediate existing, planned and approved context.
10As Mr. Stagl describes it, the lands are located within a setting of existing buildings that range in heights from three- to six-storeys, (the former low-rise context), but project approvals for new high-rises range from 20 to 58 storeys, including the nearby Mirvish-Gehry project, an 85-92 storey site-specific OPA approval.
11Mr. Stagl reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement of 2014 (“PPS”), applicable at the time of application, and the updated PPS 2020, which now applies, and stated that the proposed revisions are consistent with the entirety of the 2014 and the 2020 PPS, and the project represents good planning, for the following reasons:
It is well located and ensures the utilization of major rapid transit infrastructure, including surface and supporting infrastructure, as the City has been encouraging.
It is well located within an identified and designated “ Regeneration area”, which is one of the two priority “King” Regeneration Areas within the Downtown area.
It is located on a site capable and suitable for the level of density, with minimal or no impact on adjacent uses and/or land objectives.
It reflects a proposed form that is a contemplated and consistent form for the area.
It ensures the creation of a sense of place and defining character through the conservation of built heritage resources.
12Finally, it implements the provincial interest principles reflected in the approved Official Plan (”OP”) and Secondary Plans, the Downtown Plan (OPA 406), and King-Spadina (OPA 486) in respect of conservation, infrastructure and built form.
13As already set out with respect to the OP and Secondary Plan policies, he is of the opinion that the proposed development is appropriate and conforms to the policies of the approved Toronto OP and the Secondary Plans, and represents good planning, and is in the public interest, for all the reasons set out in paragraphs 33, 34, 35 and 36.
14Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe policies (2017) (“Growth Plan”) applicable at the time of application, provided growth management policy considerations and directions to which planning authorities “shall conform”. Revisions to the Growth Plan 2019, now in effect as of May 2019, essentially continues earlier policies, but adds policies related to intensification and density targets and major transit station areas. All of these are present for the application in its setting.
15Mr. Stagl is of the opinion that the revised proposal conforms to both the 2017 and 2019 Growth Plans, and represents good planning within the approved City OP and the King-Spadina Secondary Plan policy context.
16Mr. Stagl is of the opinion that the proposed development is appropriate, and reflects the intent of the non-statutory 2004 and 2006 King-Spadina Urban Design Guidelines, as well as the 2013 City-Wide Tall Building Design Guidelines. The design respects and reinforces the built form character established by the historic frontages within the district. It reinforces the character and scale of the street. The tower element steps back from the base, and so achieves adequate conditions of light, privacy and views and reflects an urban scale project within an urban context.
17The proposed By-law is consistent in form and structure with the City’s practices and standards, reflecting appropriate alternative or reduced standards as encouraged by the Growth Plan and by the Downtown Secondary Plan (OPA 406). The final details are to be confirmed by the City in line with Condition No. 3 (a) to (i) in the Council Resolution (Exhibit F). All those conditions are appropriate and are related implementation considerations, and will coordinate By-law terms of settlement, site plan and building permit approvals. Thus he recommends that the Tribunal’s Final Order be withheld until those conditions are satisfied.
18The Tribunal is also to be provided with Minutes of Settlement between Sun Life Assurances Company of Canada and Ed Mirvish Enterprises Ltd.
19The Tribunal orally granted the appeal, in part, and approved the settlement Proposal and the Revised Zoning by-laws in principle.
20The Tribunal will withhold its Final Order until such time as the Conditions No. 3 (a) to (i) are addressed.
“D.S. Colbourne”
D.S. COLBOURNE
VICE-CHAIR
“G. Burton”
G. BurTon
VICE-CHAIR
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.