Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 31, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002461 (Formerly PL180617)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2245883 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: CR T5.0 C3.0 R3.0 (south portion) AND R4A Zl.O (north portion)
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit 44-storey mixed-use building
Property Address/Description: 808 Mount Pleasant Road
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipal File No.: 17 261931 STE 22 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002461
Legacy Case No.: PL180617
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002461
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180617
OLT Case Name: 2245883 Ontario Inc. v. City of Toronto
Heard: May 24, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 2245883 Ontario Inc. | A. Skinner |
| City of Toronto | M. Piel |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW ON MAY 24, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision approves a settlement in principle as requested by the Parties.
22245883 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”) appealed to the Tribunal on the absence of a decision by the City of Toronto (“City”) on an application for Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) at 808 Mount Pleasant Road (“site”).
3A request for Participant status was received from Dr. Michael Shunock. Dr. Shunock had been denied Party status by the Tribunal in its Decision issued on April 13, 2022. The Parties did not object to the request for Participant status, provided that the Participant is not given further opportunity to make written submissions, given this late request being considered at a settlement hearing. The Parties were prepared to address the issues raised in the Participant request form through the planning evidence at this hearing.
4The Tribunal granted Participant status to Dr. Shunock but denied any opportunity for further written submissions. Through the findings of this Decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Participant’s issues of parkland dedication, connection to the transit system, and transportation impacts have been suitably addressed by the Parties in the settlement.
5The Tribunal qualified Robert Dragicevic, an experienced Registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. Mr. Dragicevic provided oral, written and visual evidence as contained in Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, with reference to the Document Book, being Exhibit 1.
6Based on the uncontested evidence of Mr. Dragicevic, the Tribunal finds as follows.
7The settlement proposal would permit a 35-storey mixed-use building, being a 26-storey tower atop a 9-storey podium. This site of 2.7 hectares is located at the southwest corner of Mount Pleasant Road and Roehampton Avenue, being just north of Eglinton Avenue East. In addition to 808 Mount Pleasant Road, the site also includes three residential properties along Roehampton Avenue. The rear or westerly portion of 808 Mount Pleasant Road is no longer included in the ZBA, as that area will be conveyed to abutting lands which front on Eglinton Avenue.
8No Official Plan Amendment is required with this ZBA because the site is designated as Mixed Use in the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan and the design conforms with the height, density and design policies for this growth centre.
9The macro-issues, identified by the Parties and some of which are raised by the Participant, are suitably addressed by the site design details of this development, as follows:
the provision of a range of housing unit sizes (including 2- and 3-bedroom units) to meet projected needs at a density that is suitable for the area and supported by grade-level retail and community services;
adjacent to the Mount Pleasant Light Rail Transit (“LRT”) station of the Crosstown LRT which is now under construction, resulting in the mutual support of both housing and transit;
the podium and tower location, setbacks and stepbacks enhance the pedestrian space along Mount Pleasant Road, respect the design of adjacent buildings, and importantly, produce little to no shadow on the outdoor sports fields at the secondary school to the northeast of the site;
the north 0.03 hectares of the site at the intersection of Mount Pleasant Road and Roehampton Avenue will be conveyed to the City for needed parkland in the neighbourhood;
transportation needs are addressed by well-designed internal loading and below-grade parking areas, including facilitating truck turn-around within the building; and
the settlement agreement provides for physical space and financial contribution for family support programs to be located at grade in the building.
10Provincial and City policies are implemented through this ZBA and the resulting development, including matters of a growth centre, housing, transit support, neighbourhood fit (including visual design, shadows, and wind effects), and community needs for parkland and social supports.
11As such, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA: has full regard for the provincial interests of s. 2 of the Planning Act; is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; conforms with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020; and conforms with the City’s Official Plan and the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan. In summary, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Dragicevic’s concluding evidence and finds that the ZBA represents good planning in the public interest.
12At the request of the Parties, and having found that the ZBA satisfies all legislative requirements, the Tribunal granted the Interim Order as set out below.
13The Parties intend to seek final approval from the Tribunal within a few months, while the City’s ability to utilize s. 37 of the Planning Act remains in effect.
INTERIM ORDER
14The Tribunal Orders that:
the appeal is allowed in part;
amendments to the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and to former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 are approved in principle, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings contained in Exhibit 2, Tab G; and
the Final Order is withheld pending confirmation from the City of Toronto that:
a. the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments to City of Toronto By-law No. 569-2013 and, if necessary, former City of Toronto By-law No. 438-86, as amended, are to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; and include the requirement for appropriate matters, services and facilities to be provided by the Owner at its sole expense pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and any other matters necessary to support the development as a legal convenience;
b. the Owner has provided a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and supporting documents, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;
c. the Owner has financially secured and designed any upgrades and/or required improvements to municipal infrastructure in connection with the accepted Functional Servicing Report, and entered into the appropriate agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades to such infrastructure are required to support this development;
d. the Owner has signed a Section 37 Agreement securing such matters, services and facilities to be provided by the owner at its own expense pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and any other matters necessary to support the development, all satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and registered said Agreement on title to the lands, satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and
e. the Owner has provided a signed solicitor's certificate from the Owner's real estate lawyer licensed to practice in Ontario providing the opinion that encumbrances registered on title to the parkland dedication and parkland over-dedication for the revised proposal including, but not limited to, a “right of purchase” registered as Instrument No. AT2938877 are discharged and the rights associated therewith are extinguished and no longer enforceable as against the parkland dedication and the parkland over-dedication to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
15The Parties are directed to report to the Tribunal, within 90 days of issuance of this Interim Order, either requesting a Final Order or reporting on their progress and expected timeline.
16This Member will remain seized for issuance of a Final Order, unless unavailable by a lengthy hearing elsewhere which may preclude a timely Decision required by the Parties, in which case this Member is not seized.
17The Parties may contact the Tribunal should difficulties arise in implementing this Interim Order.
“S. Tousaw”
S. tousaw
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.