Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 07, 2022

CASE NO(S).: PL190438

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2515496 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and No. 569-2013 – Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: RD (f15.0; d0.35)(x1247)

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of four 3-storey townhouse units

Property Address/Description: 206 Russell Hill Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No.: 18 161483 STE 22 OZ

OLT Lead Case No.: PL190438

OLT Case No.: PL190438

OLT Case Name: 2515496 Ontario 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: 2515496 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Property Address/Description: 206 Russell Hill Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Lead Case No.: PL190438

OLT Case No.: PL190439

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, as amended

Appellant: 2515496 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Appeal of the Decision of Council on an application to demolish or remove a building or structure

Property Address/Description: 206 Russell Hill Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Lead Case No.: PL190438

OLT Case No.: MM200002

Heard: July 6, 2021 via Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
2515496 Ontario Inc.	N. Macos
City of Toronto	Catherine Jung, Jason Tsang, Daniel Elmadany

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI ON JULY 6, 2021 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matters before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) are appeals filed by 2515496 Ontario Inc. (the “Appellant”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) as a result of the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the timeframes prescribed in these subsections of the Act.

2The Appellant chose to exercise their statutory rights and appeal the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) application based on Council’s failure to a decision.

3Prior to the scheduled Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the parties entered into the Minutes of Settlement.

4The CMC scheduled on July 6, 2021, took place as a Settlement Hearing.

5The Tribunal heard the uncontested land-use planning evidence of the Appellant’s Planner, Michelle Charkow, in support of the settlement regarding the ZBLA, and received the submissions of Counsel.

6The Tribunal being satisfied by the evidence provided, gave an oral decision allowing the appeals in part, and approving the ZBLA, with written decision and reasons to follow.

Subject Site

7The Tribunal heard that the subject site is located in the South Forest Hill neighbourhood, which is generally bounded by St. Clair Avenue West in the north, Avenue Road in the east, and the Sir Winston Churchill Park/Nordheimer Ravine in the west and south.

8The subject site is located on the west side of Russell Hill Road, generally south of St. Clair Avenue West and is municipally known as 206 Russell Hill Road. The subject site occupies approximately 1,110.9 square Metres (“sq m”) of land, includes a frontage of approximately 22 metres (“m”) (72 feet (“ft.”)) of frontage onto Russell Hill Road and an approximate depth between 49.7 m (163 ft.) and 52.7 m (173 ft.). The north property line is bounded by a portion of Sir Winston Churchill Park, which is comprised of a wide pathway that provides access from Russell Hill Road to the park.

9The subject site is currently occupied with a three-storey single detached residential dwelling, a driveway accessed from Russell Hill Road at the northeast corner of the subject site, and a rear detached garage. The subject site gently slopes upwards from the Russell Hill Road frontage to the rear yard in the west.

10The Tribunal was informed that the subject site was added to the City's Heritage Register by Toronto City Council on June 18, 2019 and was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act ("OHA") by By-law No. 335-2020 on April 30, 2020, as amended by By-law 930-2020. This designation was repealed by City Council on April 8, 2021 by By-law No. 252-2021.

11Located to the rear of the property is the Nordheimer Ravine. The top-of-bank of the Nordheimer Ravine is located west of the rear lot line of the subject site and was staked on November 28, 2017 with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA") and City‘s Urban Forestry.

12The Tribunal learned that under the City’s Official Plan ("City OP"), the subject site is designated Neighbourhoods and forms part of the Natural Heritage Systems in the City OP. The northwest corner of the subject site is also identified as an Environmentally Significant Area under provincial policy and as identified on Map 12A of the City OP. In addition, the majority of the subject site is subject to the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-law ("RNFPB") and is also within the screening boundary of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”).

Surrounding Area

13The Tribunal heard that the internal portion of the neighbourhood surrounding the subject site is also designated Neighbourhoods in the City OP and is predominately comprised of an eclectic mix of detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, townhouse developments, and four-storey apartment buildings. Apartment buildings with greater heights are located along the Major Streets bordering the neighbourhood, such as St. Clair Avenue West and Avenue Road. The neighbourhood includes both original stock dwellings and apartment buildings along with new replacement buildings. Due to the variety of residential dwelling types and the topography influenced by the ravine system, the lotting pattern within the neighbourhood is not uniform in size. In addition, St. Clair Avenue West and Avenue Road have experienced new redevelopment activity in the form of townhouse developments and mid- and high-rise residential apartment buildings.

14The Tribunal was informed that within the surrounding area there are notable developments:

• Immediately to the south is 200 Russell Hill Road, with an approved Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) /ZBLA to permit a four- and five-storey apartment building. The approved building is comprised of a north portion of four-storeys and a south portion of five-storeys, connected by a one-storey link. A total of 22 dwelling units are located within both combined portions of the building with a density of 1.34 times the area of the lot. The approved measured heights for the four- and five-storey portions are 28.8 m and 28.3 m, respectively, exclusive of the mechanical penthouse. The development proposal was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) (OMB File No. PL060214 Decision/Order No. 0449) in 2007. The building is currently under construction.

• Immediately to the east is Russell Hill Road and Clarendon Avenue, which runs east/west from Avenue Road and terminates at Russell Hill Road. The southeast corner of Russell Hill Road and Clarendon Avenue is comprised of a five-storey rental apartment building (77 Clarendon Avenue). This property was subject to an OPA/ZBLA application, which was approved to permit the construction of a new five-storey apartment building with an overall building height of 22.1 m (top of mechanical).

15The Tribunal heard the subject site is located within an eclectic neighbourhood where a variety of residential building types and a variety of lot sizes, configurations, and orientations currently exist and co-exist amongst each other. In particular, the intersection of Russell Hill Road and Clarendon Avenue and immediately south of the subject site is predominately occupied by existing and/or approved low-rise apartment buildings.

16The subject site is also located in a unique location in the Neighbourhood given its direct adjacency at the northern boundary along the entrance to Sir Winston Churchill Park and along the western boundary of the site of the natural heritage system. This is distinct from the pattern of development and character of existing building, streetscapes and open spaces of the north of Clarendon Avenue along Russell Hill Road.

Settlement and Description of the Revised Proposal

17The Tribunal was informed that on May 5, 2021, City Council endorsed a settlement proposal from the Applicant, which included architectural plans dated February 11, 2021 (the "Revised Proposal"). The Revised Proposal incorporated revisions based on refinements to the design following extensive communication with City staff regarding comments from the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection ("RNFP") and City Planning.

18The Revised Proposal was conceived following a detailed consideration of the area context, the policy guidance contained by the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “Growth Plan”), the City OP, City guideline documents, and design principles used for similar development forms.

19Ms. Charkow opined that the Revised Proposal, represents a well-designed development on the subject site that is an appropriate height and density.

20The proposal is to demolish the existing three-storey residential building and detached garage on site and replace these with a three-storey townhouse building containing four townhouse units. The total gross floor area is 1,663.59 sq m with a total floor space index of 1.5.

21The Tribunal heard of the following changes that the Revised Proposal has incorporated:

• Driveway width reduced from 6.0 m to 5.39 m with the retaining wall along the north side of the driveway being shifted south, away from the mature tree and 42% of the driveway surface to be constructed with permeable turfstone pavers;

• The tree protection zone (“TPZ”) for the mature tree has been extended south to include the whole area between the north side of the driveway retaining wall, the west face of Unit 1, and the north edge of the east/west walkway;

• Unit 1 entry stairs, porch and walkway have been relocated to the north side of the unit with the former porch now being a balcony that is cantilevered;

• Corrugated sheet pile shoring is to be used along the east face to around the north corner of Unit 1 to ensure no excavation for the garage east foundation walls will be required in order to leave the root system for the mature tree undisturbed;

• Exit stair from garage on south/west end of subject site is revised to not exceed the west face of Unit 4 to maintain the full extent of rear yard landscaping; and,

• The walkway from the garage exit stair has been relocated adjacent to the west wall of Unit 4 and to be constructed with permeable pavers as well.

22The Tribunal further heard the proposed redevelopment is organized to orient the shared below grade parking garage to the Russell Hill Road frontage and have all four units to face the north side yard, which abuts a pathway to Sir Winston Churchill Park. The eastern most townhouse unit was originally oriented to face Russell Hill Road but was revised to the north side yard in order to provide for additional tree protection for a mature tree in the existing front yard.

23Each unit will have direct access from the outside. A pathway from Russell Hill Road is proposed along the north landscaped area, providing access to the front entrance for all four townhouse units. This is an appropriate arrangement given the location and orientation of the subject site. Lawn, garden areas, and tree plantings are proposed to occupy the front, side (north and south), and rear yards.

24The proposed maximum height of the dwellings is three-storeys with a height range between 10.91 m (35.8 ft.) in the eastern end of the subject site to 13.695 m (45 ft.) in the west, measured from an established grade. However, due to the grade change on the subject site, the eastern end unit is approximately one-storey lower than the three remaining units located west of the end unit. The proposed height fits within the range of existing and approved heights in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. In addition, the roof has been designed as a mansard roof so the third floor is sloped and recessed into the roof with dormer windows. This provides massing relief from the public realm and an attractive façade treatment.

25The eastern end unit will be setback a minimum of 6.0 m from Russell Hill Road. This setback enables green space, the preservation of the mature tree in the front yard, and a variety of hard and soft landscaping between the front of the end unit and the sidewalk, within the public boulevard. The other three units will be setback approximately 6.3 m from the north side lot line. This space will comfortably accommodate the linked pathway along with additional soft landscaping.

26The western end unit (adjacent to the Nordheimer Ravine) will be setback 7.5 m from the western rear lot line. This allows for the maintenance of an existing large white oak tree in the rear yard and provides opportunity for additional native species landscape plantings. A proposed pathway will pass through the rear yard to provide access to an exit stair immediately south of the western end unit for the proposed below grade garage. No portion of the proposed townhouse development, above or below grade, is located within the 10 m required setback from the top-of-bank, which is located further west of the subject site.

27Each townhouse unit will have a rear deck along the south side yard and will be setback 3.0 m from the south side yard.

28The proposed driveway has been jogged to provide for more area for the protection of the mature tree in the front yard. In addition, the driveway is proposed to be finished with permeable pavers.

29Parking spaces for all units are located in the below grade garage. Two residential parking spaces are proposed for each unit. These parking spaces are accessed by a common element driveway from Russell Hill Road. The below grade garage will be directly accessed from each unit via stairs and an elevator.

30The architecture at the front of the units includes front porches, large windows, dormer windows, a high quality stone and brick façade, and differing architectural features providing both vertical and horizontal texture, breaking up the building mass. The proposed building includes a mansard roof, which incorporates the 3rd storey and provides dormers for windows. All of this contributes to the fit of the proposed redevelopment with the other existing dwellings in the surrounding neighbourhood.

31Private outdoor amenity space is proposed in the form of rear decks and terraces at the rear of the main floor of each unit and the second floor of each unit. The top floor of each unit also includes a rooftop terrace along the south property line.

32Garbage and recycling storage for each unit will be located along the south wall of the below grade parking garage.

THE APPLICATION

Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”)

33The Tribunal heard that Amendments to both former City Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and the new City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 are required.

34Under Zoning By-law No. 438-86, the subject site is zoned Residential District 1 (R1 Z0.35). Under Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, the subject site is zoned Residential Detached (RD)(f15.0: d0.35)(x1247). Both zones under both by-laws only permit residential detached dwellings with a maximum permitted height of 10.0 m.

35A rezoning application was required to permit the proposed townhouse units on the subject site and other development standards such as setbacks, density, building height, and projections.

Site Plan Application

36The Tribunal heard a Site Plan application was submitted with the original rezoning application. A resubmission will be submitted at a later date to reflect the Revised Proposal.

PLANNING OPINION

Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”)

37Ms. Charkow stated the PPS 2020 replaces the PPS issued on April 30, 2014. The PPS 2020 provides an update on policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS 2020 builds upon and strengthens the policies of the PPS 2014.

38Ms. Charkow further stated the PPS provides a policy framework that promotes and encourages intensification in locations well served by municipal infrastructure and generally throughout the built-up area.

39Ms. Charkow considered in her review, the following PPS policies:

• Part IV, paragraph 5 relating to the Vision for Ontario's Land Use Planning System;

• Part V, Section 1.1.1 (a), (c), and (e) relating to healthy, livable and integrated communities;

• Part V, Section 1.1.2, relating to appropriate range and mix of land uses within settlement areas;

• Part V, Section 1.1.3.2, relating to land use patterns within settlement areas;

• Part V, Section 1.1.3.3, relating to planning authorities identifying appropriate locations and promoting opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

• Part V, Section 1.1.3.4, relating to appropriate development standards to facilitate intensification;

• Part V, Section 1.1.3.5 relating to planning authorities shall establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas;

• Part V, Section 1.1.3.6, relating to efficient development of land adjacent to built-up areas;

• Part V, Section 1.3, relating to economic development;

• Part V, Section 1.4.1(a) relating to providing an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities;

• Part V, Section 1.4.3, relating to planning authorities permitting and facilitating all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, all forms of residential intensification, directing the development of new housing toward locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available, promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed;

• Part V, Section 1.6.6.2, relating to the optimization of existing infrastructure and facilities;

• Part V, Section 1.6.7.2, relating to efficient use should be made of existing and planned infrastructure, including through the use of transportation demand management strategies;

• Part V, Section 1.6.7.4, relating to a land use pattern, density and mix of uses should be promoted that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit;

• Part V, Section 1.7.1, relating to supporting economic prosperity;

• Part V, Section 1.8.1, relating to energy conservation and promotion of compact forms and transit and reduction of greenhouse gases and climate change adaptation;

• Part V, Section 2.1.1, relating to natural features and areas being protected for the long term;

• Part V, Section 2.1.2, relating to the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features, and ground water features;

• Part V, Section 2.1.8, relating to development and site alteration not being permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions (2.1.8); and

• Part V, Section 4.6, relating to implementation and interpretation.

40Ms. Charkow opined that the Revised Proposal supports and advances the PPS policy direction to optimize the use of the land, resources, and the existing and planned infrastructure. As such, the proposal is, in my opinion, consistent with the policy direction of intensification and optimization of long-term use of land, resources and infrastructure. In her opinion, the proposed four townhouse dwelling units, at a Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 1.5, is appropriate and suitable for this site and its surrounding context.

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan 2020)

41Ms. Charkow stated the Growth Plan derives its authority from the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and amended the Growth Plan issued on May 16, 2019. The effective Growth Plan was issued on August 28, 2020. The Growth Plan should be read in conjunction with the PPS, yet in the event of a conflict between the Growth Plan and the PPS, the Growth Plan prevails. Many of the Provincial policy themes enunciated in the PPS are reflected, and further articulated, in the Growth Plan. This document therefore is a further expression and articulation of Provincial policy and is a Provincial Plan, pursuant to Section 3 of the Act.

42The Growth Plan generally aims to, among other things, create complete communities that offer more options for living, working, shopping and playing; provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages of life; and reduce traffic congestion by improving access to a greater range of transportation choices. Similar to the PPS, the Growth Plan encourages compact, vibrant complete communities, optimizing the use of land and infrastructure in order to support growth in a compact efficient form.

43The Tribunal heard the subject site is located within the area identified as "built-up area", which encompasses the whole of the City.

44Section 1.2.1 of the Growth Plan includes Guiding Principles. Some of the key principles include:

• Support the achievement of complete communities that are designed to support healthy and active living and meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime.

• Support a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households.

• Provide for different approaches to manage growth that recognize the diversity of communities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

• Protect and enhance natural heritage, hydrologic, and landform systems, features, and functions.

45Section 2 of the Growth Plan relates to "Where and How to Grow". The following quotes from that section capture important policy directions of the Growth Plan relating to the subject ZBLA application:

This Plan is about accommodating forecasted growth in complete communities. These are communities that are well designed to meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime by providing convenient access to an appropriate mix of jobs, local services, public service facilities, and a full range of housing to accommodate a range of incomes and household sizes. Complete communities support quality of life and human health by encouraging the use of active transportation and providing high quality public open space, adequate parkland, opportunities for recreation, and access to local and healthy food. They provide for a balance of jobs and housing in communities across the GGH to reduce the need for long distance commuting. They also support climate change mitigation by increasing the modal share for transit and active transportation and by minimizing land consumption through compact built form.

It is important to optimize the use of the existing urban land supply as well as the existing building and housing stock to avoid over-designating land for future urban development while also providing flexibility for local decision-makers to respond to housing need and market demand. This Plan's emphasis optimizing the use of the existing urban land supply represents an intensification first approach to development and city-building, one which focuses on making better use of our existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and less on continuously expanding the urban area.

46Policy 2.2.2.3 directs municipalities to develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout the delineated built-up areas through:

a. identify strategic growth areas to support achievement of the intensification target and recognize them as a key focus for development;

b. identify strategic growth areas to support achievement of the intensification target and recognize them as a key focus for development;

c. Identify the appropriate type and scale of development in strategic growth areas and transition of built form to adjacent areas;

d. encourage intensification generally throughout the delineated built-up area;

e. ensure lands are zoned and development is designed in a manner that supports the achievement of complete communities;

f. prioritize planning and investment in infrastructure and public service facilities that will support intensification; and

g. be implemented through official plan policies and designations, updated zoning and other supporting documents.

47The Tribunal further heard the City's OP identifies the locations where growth is directed to through the various land use directions and overall City urban structure, which provide for different approaches to manage growth within the City recognizing the diversity of our neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods contemplate development in accordance with development criteria to ensure it respects and reinforces the existing physical character of the neighbourhoods.

48Ms. Charkow opined the subject site is well serviced by existing surface transit routes, to and from the subway system to better utilize and optimize the subject site from a transit and transportation perspective. The Revised Proposal will contribute to achieving a complete community, which will complement the stores and services in the broader area and will contribute to the evolution of this part of South Forest Hill as a complete community.

49Ms. Charkow further opined the Revised Proposal implements the policies of the PPS and the Growth Plan by:

• Accommodating a more compact, intensified, and well-designed urban form, at an appropriate location within the context of the subject site, located within the South Forest Hill neighbourhood, a neighbourhood where a variety of residential dwelling types immediately surround the subject site;

• Better utilizing a site that is within close walking proximity to surface public transit that feeds directly into the subway system;

• Making efficient use of an under-utilized parcel;

• In its modest way, assisting the City in meeting its targets for housing in a grade related form of housing;

• Providing an alternative housing type that diversifies the housing mix within the broader neighbourhood area. The townhouse form of residential intensification is appropriate for this location and it contributes to a more complete community by broadening the housing choice available in the neighbourhood;

• Respecting the natural environment and, in particular, the sloped ravine feature of the Nordheimer Ravine, west of the subject site. This has been appropriately addressed.

50Ms. Charkow concluded the Revised Proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. This suggests that, subject to local planning considerations, the subject site is an appropriate and optimal location to accommodate the proposed townhouse form of residential intensification.

City’s Official Plan (“City OP”)

51The Tribunal heard as part of its Municipal Comprehensive Review exercise, the City reviewed the City OP's built form policies of Section 3.1.2 (Built Form) and 3.1.3 (Built Form - Building Types) in relation to the latest version of the Growth Plan (2019). Amendments to the built form policies were adopted by City Council on December 17, 2019, as Official Plan Amendment No. 480 ("OPA 480"). The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved OPA 480 on September 11, 2020 and issued a Notice of Decision. As such, OPA 480 is now in full force and effect. This affidavit will also review applicable City OP policies prior to and after the adoption of OPA 480.

52The Tribunal further learned that the post OPA 320 and OPA 480 policies were reviewed in preparation of this affidavit and no issue of non-confirmation was identified with the recent policy amendments.

Neighbourhoods Policies - City OP

53The Tribunal heard that Section 4.1.1, "Neighbourhoods" are considered "physically stable areas made up of residential uses in lower scale buildings such as detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses, as well as interspersed walk-up apartments that are no higher than four storeys".

54The proposed townhouse dwelling type conforms with the use provisions of the Neighbourhoods area.

55The City OP sets out development criteria within the "Neighbourhoods" designation. According to this section of the City OP, "physical change to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and generally "fit" the existing physical character.

56Ms. Charkow opined the Revised Proposal is in conformity with the Neighbourhoods policies of the City OP. Specifically, she noted the following planning observations:

• The existing driveway is located along the north lot line of the subject site with access from Russell Hill Road. The proposed development will shift the driveway access further south to be located along the southern lot line, still accessed from Russell Hill Road.

• The proposed townhouse dwellings are contemplated to be located on freehold lots (with the exception of the common element driveway and underground garage) that are sized and configured to accommodate the proposed building, suitable setbacks, landscaping, outdoor amenity areas and the vehicular access to/from the subject site. The size and configuration of the townhouse units respect the pattern of development in the area. In addition, the configuration of the proposed townhouses is similar to the configuration of other existing developments in the area.

• The height, massing and scale of the dwellings proposed respect and reinforce the physical character of existing residential buildings in the area. The proposed three-storey townhouses are similar in height to other existing buildings, including other existing townhouse developments in the vicinity, and compatible in height with the adjacent four- and five-storey apartment buildings. This accommodates appropriate and sensitive fit within the immediate and general environs of the subject site.

• The neighbourhood is comprised of an eclectic mix of residential building types, including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, townhouses and apartment buildings. Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 permits a wide range of residential building types in the area, including townhouses. Infilling this site with a townhouse dwelling type therefore augments the existing and planned mix of dwelling types in this neighbourhood.

• Patterns of front, rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space vary in the neighbourhood between different building types. Due to the location, the proposed townhouses have been designed to face both Russell Hill Road and the pathway for Sir Winston Churchill Park. The proposed form accommodates the appropriate side, rear and front facing yards that accommodate important design elements of the building, landscaping, and walkways.

• The subject site is located adjacent to the Nordheimer Ravine. Physical features related to the ravine will be maintained including those trees abutting the subject site. In addition, the existing rear detached garage will be removed and the rear portion of the subject site is proposed to be enhanced with landscaping using native species.

Built Form Policies - City OP

57The Tribunal heard Section 3.1.2 of the City OP provides direction concerning a number of objectives relating to site development and built form. These policies relate to any building project anywhere in the City and therefore, some of the Built Form policies may have more limited applicability to the Revised Proposal.

58Section 3.1.3 of the City OP, as revised by OPA 480, provides for built form directions by Building Type. The Revised Proposal conforms to the direction for Townhouse buildings being generally no taller than four storeys and has been designed to provide unit entrances and is visible from the public street, fronting a public park and accessible from a visible walkway, has been generally integrated within existing grades and provides for appropriate facing distances, building heights, angular planes and step-backs.

59Ms. Charkow opined the Revised Proposal has been designed to appropriately generate a balance of accommodating a built form and appropriate use of building mass and density that compatibly fits in its existing and planned context, and provides an appropriate transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as directed in this section of the City OP. The Revised Proposal respects and reinforces the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and the proposed design is in keeping with the physical character of the neighbourhood. The proposed townhouses will also maintain adequate light and privacy and does not introduce any adverse shadow implications.

60As such, the Built Form policies applicable to the Revised Proposal have been satisfactorily addressed.

Natural Heritage Policies - City OP

61The Tribunal heard the City's natural heritage system integrates the features and functions which include significant landforms and features, watercourses, valley slopes and floodplains, terrestrial natural habitat types, significant aquatic features and functions, vegetation communities and species of concern, and significant biological features that are directly addressed in Provincial policies, such as areas of natural and scientific interest. The western most portion of the subject site forms part of the Natural Heritage System map in the City OP. In addition, the majority of the subject site is located within the boundaries of the RNFPB and the TRCA regulation limit.

62A Natural Heritage Impact Statement (“NHIS”), prepared by Beacon Environmental, was included with the formal ZBLA application submission package. The NHIS included a summary of provincial and municipal natural heritage policies, a description of natural heritage features on the subject site, constraints assessment, recommended development limits, assessment of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and how the application conforms with applicable provincial, municipal, and other conservation authority policies.

63The Tribunal learned that with respect to Policy 3.4.8, which requires a minimum setback of 10.0 m from existing or potential natural hazards, such as the top-of-bank, the Revised Proposal incorporates the required 10.0 m setback from the top-of-bank and will convey an additional portion of land located at the southwest corner of the subject site to the City, which is within the 10.0 m setback. As such, no OPA is required to the Natural Heritage policies of the City OP.

64The NHIS states that the proposed development will not result in new hazards and that the proposed development will provide for greater separation from the woodland edge than the existing condition on the subject site due to the location of the rear detached garage being wholly within the boundaries of the Nordheimer Ravine.

65As per comments from RNFP, two mature trees will be preserved on the subject site. This includes the Red Oak in the front yard and the White Oak in the rear yard.

66The remaining western portion of the subject site will be enhanced with native species landscaping and will function as a buffer between the proposed development and the Nordheimer Ravine. These measures, together with others recommended by the natural heritage consultant, will contribute to the preservation of the majority of trees on and off site.

67In consultation with the TRCA and the City, a Ravine Stewardship Plan will be prepared and submitted as part of the revised Site Plan application.

68Ms. Charkow informed the Tribunal that a detailed and comprehensive analysis has been undertaken to support the building location and design, from a natural heritage perspective.

69Ms. Charkow opined the Revised Proposal satisfactorily addresses the requirements of the City OP in relation to the Natural Environment.

Housing Policies - City OP

70The Housing policies of Section 3.2.1 of the City OP, in relation to the consideration of the Revised Proposal, include:

• A full range of housing, in terms of form, tenure and affordability, across the City and within neighbourhoods, will be provided and maintained to meet the current and future needs of residents...(emphasis added)

• The existing stock of housing will be maintained and replenished. New housing supply will be encouraged through intensification and infill that is consistent with this Plan.

71The Tribunal heard the subject area, the South Forest Hill neighbourhood, is a desirable neighbourhood, containing an array of community facilities and a range of different unit types. The internal portions of the neighbourhood are generally single detached dwellings with some semi-detached dwellings, townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings interspersed throughout. Allowing the proposed townhouse development on a local road, which already accommodates low-rise apartment buildings and other townhouses units, which fits with the evolving character of Russell Hill Road and will extend the range of housing types and choice available within the immediate area.

72Ms. Charkow opined from a planning perspective, it is highly desirable to broaden housing type offerings, advancing the principle of a better balance and choice of housing in this neighbourhood and in having this community evolve as a more complete community.

73Ms. Charkow stated the Revised Proposal is in conformity with the City OP by:

• The Revised Proposal is appropriately massed and designed that fits with the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood and results in no adverse impact.

• The Revised Proposal is designed to conform to the development criteria for development in Neighbourhoods and the Built Form policies of the City OP;

• The Revised Proposal provides for a type of housing contemplated in the Neighbourhood;

• The Revised Proposal provides for the required top-of-bank setback and preserves large mature trees on the subject site meeting the policy requirements for Natural Heritage.

74Ms. Charkow opined that the Revised Proposal conforms with the City OP.

Townhouse and Low-rise Apartment Guidelines, 2018

75The Tribunal heard that on March 26, 2018, City Council adopted the new City-wide "Townhouse and Low-rise Apartment Guidelines". The purpose of these guidelines is to assist with the implementation of the City OP policies and provide specific design direction for a range of low-rise residential building types including townhouses. They address infill townhouse development in terms of site context, site organization, building massing, detailed design and private and public realm.

76Now adopted by City Council, this guideline document is subject to Section 5.3.2.1 of the City OP, as follows:

• Implementation plans, strategies and guidelines will be adopted to advance the vision, objectives and policies of this Plan. These implementation plans, strategies and guidelines, while they express Council policy, are not part of the Plan unless the Plan has been specifically amended to include them, in whole or in part, and do not have the status of policies in this Plan adopted under the Planning Act.

77The guidelines provide guidelines on parking orientation and access, street designs including lanes, mews and walkways, building placement and addressing fit and transition, location of primary entrances, private outdoor amenity space, building relationship to grade, streetscape, landscaping, architectural design and materials, stormwater management and other utility equipment.

78The Tribunal further heard the guideline document should be considered within the context of each proposal and each neighbourhood. These guidelines are not policy nor prescriptions but rather suggestions relating to important building and site elements for individual infill townhouse proposals. There is no one manner to design townhouse redevelopments and therefore, appropriate regard should be given to this guideline document and it should be applied as appropriate in the circumstance.

79The proposed development creates four (4) new townhouse units, facing both Russell Hill Road and the pathway to Sir Winston Churchill Park, with shared walkways connected to a new public sidewalk, and landscaping, along both Russell Hill Road and the side yard shared with Sir Winston Churchill Park. Provision of a common access private driveway from Russell Hill Road provides access to the eight residential parking spaces provided for in the shared basement level parking garage. Outdoor amenity space is being provided through proposed rear yard decks and roof top terraces. Sufficient setbacks have been designed into all elements of the proposed townhouses to satisfactorily address these guidelines. The location, height and massing of the buildings, together with the above, will provide a compatible relationship with the properties on Russell Hill Road, the Nordheimer Ravine, and the greater South Forest Hill neighbourhood.

80Ms. Charkow opined that the proposed townhouse development therefore generally satisfies the applicable guidelines set out above.

81Ms. Charkow further opined that an appropriate degree of regard has been devoted to this guideline document, in the consideration of the many elements of this townhouse building and site design.

DECISION

82In adjudicating these appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Act (including but not limited to: the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; adequate provision of a full range of housing and appropriate location of growth and development). As well, the Tribunal must be convinced that the Revised Proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”). The Tribunal must also find that the Revised Proposal conforms with policies of the City’s OP and represents good land use planning in the public interest.

83The Tribunal, having reviewed all evidence provided and having heard the opinion of Ms. Charkow, accepts the uncontroverted expert land-use planning evidence provided by the witness. The Tribunal finds that the proposed planning instruments, as it will permit the development have appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial Interest. The Tribunal also finds that the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS, conform to the GP, conforms to City’s OPs, and represent good land-use planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

84THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals against Zoning By-law Nos. 438-86 and 569-2013 are allowed in part.

1. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of the Final order until the Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that all conditions have been met including;

a. The final form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendments are to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings in Confidential Appendix B to the report, (March 29, 2021) from the City Solicitor, including the re-zoning of the rear portion of the Site to Open Space - Natural (ON) to be conveyed into public ownership as directed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and

b. The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, including confirmation of water and fire flow, sanitary and storm water capacity, Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report (the "Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water and confirmation that the amending by-laws do not require any modifications to address the accepted Engineering Reports, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the City Solicitor; and,

c. The owner has submitted a revised Landscape Plan and Arborist- Report acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

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.