Ontario Land Tribunal
, by
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 20, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003194 (Formerly MM170031)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Subject: Site Plan
Referred by: Marino and Lucy D'Alessandro
Property Address/Description: 3526 Lake Shore Blvd W
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003194
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003194
Legacy Case No.: MM170031
Legacy File No.: MM170031
Case Name: D'Alessandro 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: Marino and Lucy D'Alessandro
Subject: Application to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Class 1 Industrial (I.C1)
Proposed Zoning: Residential Multiple-1 (RM-1), Greenspace (G) and Commercial-Avenues (C1-AV)
Purpose: To permit townhouse dwelling units, apartment buildings, a public park and a new public road.
Property Address/Description: 3526 Lake Shore Blvd W
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 15 170337 WET 06 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003790
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003194
OMB Case No.: MM170031
OMB File No.: PL170577
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Marino and Lucy D'Alessandro
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Purpose: To permit townhouse dwelling units, apartment buildings, a public park and a new public road.
Property Address/Description: 3526 Lake Shore Blvd W
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 15 170350 WET 06 SB
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003793
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003194
OMB Case No.: MM170031
OMB File No.: PL170578
Heard: May 9, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Minto (3526 Lakeshore) Inc. | Andrew Jeanrie |
| City of Toronto | Mark Piel |
DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND SHARYN VINCENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal for consideration is a request to accept revisions to the Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision appeals wherein the Tribunal withheld its Final Order of February 4, 2019 to allow the appeal(s), pending the completion of certain conditions or the finalization of certain planning instruments.
2The Tribunal Order in 2019, was withheld pending receipt from the Parties of confirmation that the following conditions have been satisfied:
- that the site plan agreement has been executed, secured and registered;
- that the Section 37 agreement has been executed, secured and registered;
- that the form of the zoning by-law is satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner; and
- that the conditions of draft plan approval have been finalized for approval by the Tribunal.
3On February 10, 2022 upon a request on consent of the Parties, the Tribunal reopened this case and scheduled a one day Hearing in order for the Tribunal to hear new evidence in support of minor revisions to the previous scheme approved in principle, and further to hear evidence with respect to the test of consistency and conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan, 2020, which had come into force and effect since the original interim decision on these appeals.
BACKGROUND
4Marino and Lucy D’Alessandro, the original Appellants, have executed the sale and transfer of the lands to co-Appellant Minto (3526 Lakeshore) Inc. and therefore, the appeals against Council’s failure to make decisions with respect to the applications to amend the zoning to permit the redevelopment of lands located at 3526 Lakeshore Boulevard and the related proposed plan of subdivision and site plan application will be wholly assumed by Minto (3526 Lakeshore) Inc.
5The Appellant is continuing to propose to redevelop an underutilized parcel with a mix of uses, implementing the vision for the Long Branch Triangle’s evolution from industrial uses to a mixed-use residential community.
6The proposal continues to include 16 new development blocks (4 blocks in the plan of subdivision) for residential townhouses and a mixed-use building, as well as a block for a public park and two new public streets.
HEARING
4The Parties acknowledged that the Section 37 Agreement was still being worked on amongst the Parties. Counsel for the City requested that the previous Order requiring the Site Plan to be registered prior to the issuance of the Final order on the zoning amendment, be rescinded, and that Conditions of Draft Plan Approval be approved by the Tribunal, and the Order explicitly allow the final approval of the Plan of Subdivision, to lie with the City as per s. 50(56.1) of the Planning Act (the “Act”).
5The Tribunal received and marked the following new documents as Exhibits to the Hearing:
Exhibit 1: Joint Document Book Exhibit 2: Visual Evidence Book Exhibit 3: Draft Zoning By-Law Amendment
Exhibit 4: Draft Plan of Subdivision
Exhibit 5: Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions
EVIDENCE
6Evidence in support of the Application was provided by the Appellant’s witness, Caitlin Allan who was qualified by the Tribunal to give opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning. Being the only land use planner providing evidence at this Hearing, the Tribunal accepts her uncontroverted evidence.
7Ms. Allan advised the proposal includes the Applications for the approval of a ZBLA, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan Approval applications. Upon consent of the Parties, the Tribunal was asked to stand down the appeal of the Site Plan at this time with the intent being that the final details will not require the adjudication of the Tribunal.
8Ms. Allan explained that based on the uncontested evidence of Ms. West, the planning witness qualified in the Hearing in January 2019, the Tribunal allowed for the appeals in principle. Since that time, modifications have been made to the plans which impacted the anticipated zoning regulations.
9Ms. Allan briefly reviewed and summarized the approved in principle application. The proposed development implements the evolution of this area from industrial uses to a mixed-use community, as outlined in the OP. The proposal has been integrated with 3600 Lake Shore Boulevard, and in particular the new park, public roads and orientation of the residential blocks have been designed to connect with the subdivision that is now built, resulting in a comprehensive build-out.
10Ms. Allan informed the Tribunal that since January 2019, modifications to Blocks 1-7 have been proposed to add an additional floor to the already proposed stacked townhouses. This has resulted in the introduction of an additional unit type, one storey, one bedroom units, with the corresponding increase in unit count and overall Gross Floor Area (“GFA”), all generally within the previously contemplated building envelops. All other substantive details secured for at the zoning level have stayed the same.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Planning Act
11The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act. Ms. Allan highlighted matters of provincial interest, including:
h) orderly development of safe and healthy communities
j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing
p) the appropriate location of growth and development
q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians
r) the promotion of built form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.
12Section 51 (25) of the Act contains criteria that an approval authority must have regard to when considering a Plan of Subdivision.
13In addition, s. 3 (5) of the Act requires the Tribunal’s decision to be consistent with the PPS and conform to the applicable Growth Plan which, in this instance, is the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
14In Ms. Allan’s opinion the modified Application continues to have appropriate regard for these considerations.
15In making a decision under the Act with respect to a ZBLA, a ZBLA falls under s. 24(1) of the Act. Despite any other general or special Act, where an official plan is in effect, no public work shall be undertaken and, except as provided in subsections (2) and (4), no by-law shall be passed for any purpose that does not conform therewith.
Zoning By-law Amendment
16Ms. Allan testified that there have been minor changes to the language of the ZBLA since the previous Hearing including details of the height relative to grades. Ms. Allan testified that changes resulting from the internal reorganization of Blocks 1-7 (Exhibit 2, Visual Evidence), results in additional height, unit count and GFA, and is appropriate from a planning and built form perspective.
17Ms. Allan advised the Panel that as per Schedule A, the ZBLA applies to the entire Subject Lands, and proposes three zones for the Subject Lands: RM1 (North and West Parcels), G (Park) and C1-AV (South Parcel). The C1-AV zone is to generally develop in accordance with Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) No. 1055-2014. There are certain site-specific permissions including a reliance on Schedule C for heights and setbacks. The RM1 zone is to generally develop in accordance with the Etobicoke Zoning Code, similarly with a reliance on Schedule C for heights and setbacks. The Site-specific definitions are introduced on a site-wide basis, as well as permitted projections, minimum parking standards and minimum amenity space.
18Ms. Allan testified, the total number of units across the site has increased from 415 units to 509 units. Within Blocks 1-7 more, the unit count has increased from 240 units to 334 units (inclusive of 95 1-bedroom units, 76 2-bedroom units and 163 2-bedroom units). The resulting GFA has increased from approximately 48,000 to 51,200 square metres (“m²”).
19As a result of the increased unit count, the number of parking spaces will increase, based on the same minimum requirement secured for as part of the previous proposal. The total parking count on the site is now proposed to be 713 residential spaces (637 residents and 70 visitors). The number of bicycle parking spaces on the site will be 392, and in keeping with the same ratios as secured for previously. At least two loading spaces continue to be proposed.
20The metric height increase is approximately 2.0 metres (“m”) on each block (between 1.5 m and 2.4 m), but still fits within the site-specific envelope established by the draft ZBL that was presented and approved in principle by the Tribunal in 2019.
21Ms. Allan opined the revised built form in Blocks 1-7 will fit well into the existing and planned built form context. The new buildings will continue to result in a compatible relationship with the existing low-rise residential neighbourhood to the east and be compatible with the newly constructed townhouses to the west of the site and those proposed for the site on other blocks.
22Ms. Allan advised the proposed modifications will not give rise to any changes to the previous findings related to land use compatibility from a noise, vibration and safety perspective.
23In Ms. Allan’s opinion, the proposal, as modified, will result in the regeneration and intensification of a Brownfield site located less than 1 kilometre from the Long Branch GO Station and served by higher-order public transit (including the 501 Queen streetcar route), adding new housing and jobs to the area in a compact built form.
24Ms. Allan summarized, that based on the changes made to Blocks 1-7, the maximum permission for dwelling units has increased to 509 units (from 415 units), and the maximum GFA has increased to 51,200 m² (from 48,000 m²). No change has been made to the maximum heights requested for each block. In Ms. Allan’s opinion, the heights previously approved in principle by the Tribunal are sufficient to accommodate the scheme as modified.
Draft Plan of Subdivision
25Ms. Allan briefly summarized the approved in principle Draft Plan of Subdivision which was to implement the redevelopment of the Subject Lands in the form described above, a Draft Plan of Subdivision which establishes four development blocks of various sizes.
26Ms. Allan advised no changes to the Draft Plan of Subdivision are proposed as a result of these modifications, although there have been a few changes to the draft plan conditions as part of the refinement process (rather than out of changes to the draft plan itself).
Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS)
27Ms. Allan informed that since the previous hearing in 2019, a new PPS (2020) has come into full force and effect.
28Ms. Allan opined, the proposed Applications are consistent with the PPS and the policies relating to:
a. intensification in built-up areas including brownfield areas and sites close to transit (1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4);
b. appropriate separation and buffering between industries and sensitive uses such as residential (1.2.6.1);
c. the provision of an appropriate range and mix of housing (1.4.3);
d. the efficient use of land and infrastructure (1.6.1, 1.6.3, 1.6.7.4) and;
e. sites with contaminants to be assessed and remediated as necessary prior to any activity (3.2.2).
29In conclusion, in Ms. Allan’s opinion the modified Application is consistent with the current PPS as it promotes an efficient development and land use pattern through the mixed-use intensification of an underutilized site.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan)
30Ms. Allan advised that since the previous hearing in 2019, a new Growth Plan Statement has come into full force and effect (May 16, 2019, as amended in August 2020).
31Ms. Allan advised that the proposed Application conforms to the Growth Plan and, in particular, the policies relating to:
a. how growth is to occur (Section 2.2.1):
growth will be focused in delineated built-up areas, strategic growth areas, locations with existing or planned transit and public service facilities focusing intensification in intensification areas.
will support the achievement of complete communities that will (amongst other matters) feature a diverse mix of land use, provide a range of housing options, expand convenient access to a range of transportation options and ensure the development of high quality compact built form.
provides those lands adjacent to or near to existing and planned frequent transit should be planned to be transit-supportive and supportive of active transportation and a range and mix of uses and activities.
provide a diverse range and mix of housing types and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents, in support of creating complete communities (2.2.6)
In conclusion, in Ms. Allan’s opinion, the modified Application conforms with the Growth Plan as it is based on a mix of densities and uses, which make efficient use of infrastructure and will be transit supportive. It adds density within the delineated built-up area and contributes to the municipal intensification targets for Toronto (based on the updated population targets up to 2051). The proposed development continues to contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as it includes residential, commercial and parkland uses in a transit-oriented and walkable neighbourhood and intensifies the subject site located along an arterial road which has frequent transit uses.
City OP
32Ms. Allan testified, the Subject Lands are designated Mixed Use Area, Neighbourhoods and Parks and Open Spaces. Blocks 1-7 are designated Neighbourhoods. The Mixed Use Areas are made up of a broad range of commercial, residential and institutional uses, in single use or mixed use buildings, as well as parks and open spaces and utilities.
33Ms. Allan stated that the Neighbourhoods are low rise and low density residential areas and that development within Neighbourhoods will be consistent with the objective of remaining physically stable while respecting and reinforcing the existing physical character.
34In Ms. Allan’s opinion, the intensification of lands designated Neighbourhoods is appropriate given that the site presents an opportunity for compatible infill development, given its former non-residential use and large, irregular area that differs from the adjacent uses. The increase in height to five (5) storeys is permitted on Neighbourhoods within Site Area Specific Policy (“SASP 23”), applicable to the site.
35Ms. Allan summarized that SASP 23, provides for the evolution of the area from industrial uses into a residential and mixed-use community. Blocks 1-7 are in the portion of the site to which SASP 23 applies. The revised built form represents a hybrid design between a townhouse and low-rise apartment building (which the OP identifies as generally 4 storeys or less). The SASP however, allows for low rise apartments to a maximum of six (6) storeys in height on lands designated Neighbourhoods.
36Ms. Allan advised The SASP also allows for a total of 2,200 housing units, and a maximum gross density of 3.0 times the lot area, or 2.5 times the lot area if the project contains a residential component. In Ms. Allan’s opinion, the proposal, as modified, does not exceed these maximums.
37Ms. Allan explained the proposed setbacks of Blocks 1-7 from the adjacent residential properties are appropriate, and have been configured to provide adequate privacy, sunlight and skyview. The resulting incremental shadow impact (based on the analysis prepared by BDP Quadrangle) is limited. In Ms. Allan’s opinion, the proposal conforms with the built form and massing policies of the OP, including a mix of housing options and densities by providing 1, 2 and 3 bedroom options and is generally in keeping with the relevant urban design guidelines.
38Ms. Allan opined the increased unit count (in addition to the units already approved in principle for the subject site) will increase housing options in the local area and further contribute to achieving population forecasts for the City of Toronto (2051) as set out in the Growth Plan and OP.
39In conclusion, in Ms. Allan’s opinion, the proposed ZBLA and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications are appropriate and desirable in land use planning and urban design terms and should be approved. The increase in density is supportive of the policy framework expressed in the PPS, Growth Plan, and the OP, all of which promote intensification within built-up urban areas, particularly in locations which are well-served by municipal infrastructure, including transit.
40Counsel for the City consented and agreed with the evidence presented with no objections.
FINDINGS
41Having considered the revisions proposed, the Tribunal finds and accepts the uncontradicted land use planning evidence of Ms. Allan that the proposed ZBLA and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications are appropriate and desirable in land use planning and urban design terms.
42The Chair queried the proposed organization of the stacked units which, as reflected in the settlement materials, contemplate the one storey, one bedroom units to be situate above the grade related two storey unit. Given that the one storey, one bedroom unit would represent the only potentially barrier free unit proposed within the mix, and given that there are 95 proposed, the Tribunal directed that the Parties revisit the floor plans through the site plan process and address s. 2(h.1) of the Act with respect to the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which the Act applies. This matter of provincial interest is reiterated in the preamble of s. 51(24) wherein, the [approval authority], when considering a plan of subdivision, is required to have regard to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality
ORDER
43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed as revised and the ZBLA is approved subject to the execution and registration of the Section 37 agreement, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision and related draft conditions are authorized.
44The Tribunal withholds its final order until advised by the Parties that the s. 37 agreement has been executed and registered, and that the amending by-law has been submitted in final form, and that the final form of the amending zoning by-law incorporates the provisions necessary to require barrier free units at grade in Blocks 1-7.
45The Tribunal herein amends its prior Order wherein the execution of the site plan agreement was a condition precedent to the Tribunal issuing its final order on the ZBLA, by striking said pre-condition.
CONCLUSION
46The Parties raised no further matters for the fair and expeditious resolution of these appeals.
47The Members remain seized of the matter and may be spoken to should need arise.
48The directions in this Decision are so ordered.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE
MEMBER
“Sharyn Vincent”
SHARYN. VINCENT
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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.