Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 07, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001387

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

Applicant and Appellant: Dormer Bay Inc., Dormer View Inc., and 2584266 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the city of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Mixed Use Areas Proposed Designated: Mixed Use Areas Purpose: To permit residential development Property Address/Description: 2810, 2812 and 2814 Bayview Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: No. 19 150397 NNY 18 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001387 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001387 OLT Case Name: Dormer Bay Inc. 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: Dormer Bay Inc., Dormer View Inc., and 2584266 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No.569-2013 - neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Residential Detached (RD) Zone Proposed Zoning: CR Commercial Residential Purpose: To permit apartment dwelling uses Property Address/Description: 2810, 2812 and 2814 Bayview Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: No. 19 150397 NNY 18 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001387 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001388

Heard: May 3, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Domar Bay Inc., et al

Counsel N. Ast C. Tanzola R. Barron (Student-at-Law)

Parties City of Toronto

Counsel S. Amini

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED STEVEN COOKE ON MAY 3, 2022 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal are the appeals made by Domar Bay Inc (“Applicant”) for the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) Council to make a decision within the legislative time frame for an application for a s. 34 (11) Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and s. 22 (7) Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) under the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) for the properties municipally known as 2810, 2812, and 2814 Bayview Avenue (“Subject Site”).

2The hearing event was originally scheduled to be a Case Management Conference (“CMC”). However, prior to the CMC the Tribunal was informed that the Parties have reached a settlement in principle. Under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedures s. 19.6 the CMC has been converted into a settlement hearing.

3The Tribunal is satisfied that proper notice of the CMC was distributed and marked the as Affidavit of Notice by Ms. Ast as Exhibit 1.

CONCERNS OF THE PARTICIPANT

4The Tribunal received one request for Participant Status from Jeremy Tio. Mr. Tio and his family reside on Granlea Road near the Subject Site and are concerned that the proposed development will increase traffic on Granlea Road were his children play. He also expressed the concern that there could be a loss of privacy to the neighbourhood backyards with the height of the proposed building.

5With no objections from the Parties the Tribunal granted Mr. Tio participant status.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AREA CONTEXT

6The proposed settlement would consist of a seven (7)-storey apartment building that would contain a mix of 31 1-bedroom units, 21 2-bedroom units, and 11 3-bedroom units for a total of 67 dwelling units. The façade fronting onto Bayview Avenue will consist of the main pedestrian entrance, as well as direct entrances to those ground level dwellings. Outdoor amenity space will be provided along the northwest portion of the subject site. The subject site will consist of a total of 36 parking spaces.

7The subject site is located on the west side of Bayview Avenue just north of the 401 and south of Sheppard Avenue. The cul-de-sac from Irvington Crescent is located directly adjacent to the south of the subject site property line. The proposed settlement would include a redesign on the cul-de-sac and place the vehicular entrance of the subject site.

8The Toronto Official Plan (“OP”) identifies Bayview Avenue as a Major Street. The OP gives an Avenue dedication to Sheppard Avenue. In March 2022, the City released a draft of its Municipal Comprehensive Review that includes the identifying of Bayview Station as a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”). The subject site is included within the boundaries of the draft MTSA.

9Located approximately 220 meters (“m”) from the subject site is the entrance to the Bayview Subway Station. In addition to the subway, the subject site is supported by multiple surface public transit routes.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

10Adam Layton was qualified by the Tribunal to give expert land use planning evidence and opinion.

11Mr. Layton testified that the revised proposal responds appropriately to matters of provincial interest as enumerated in s. 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, specifically section:

h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable 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; and

r) the promotion of built form that,

i) is well-designed

ii) encourages a sense of place, and

iii) provides for public spaces that are high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

12It is the opinion of Mr. Layton, that the proposed settlement is consistent with many of the policies stated in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”). Mr. Layton highlighted the PPS polices that relate to redevelopment in a settlement area, transit supported development, and efficient land use development. The Tribunal was informed that the subject site, currently has three existing lots with detached dwellings. By combining the three lots and creating a seven (7)-storey building, the proposed development meets the objectives of focusing and intensification of growth within a settlement area, that is supported by utilizing existing municipal services, infrastructure, amenities, and public transit.

13It was the opinion of Mr. Layton, that the proposed infill project addresses the minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within a built-up area as laid out in PPS s. 1.1.3.5.

14Mr. Layton stated that it was his opinion that the proposed settlement conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”). Mr. Layton reviewed the various policies within the Growth Plan that are relevant to the proposed development.

15Mr. Layton highlight that during the City Municipal Comprehensive Review the subject site is located in what has been identified as a potential MTSA. The Growth Plan policies regarding MTSA direct that minimum density targets, with planned intensification, that is within walking distance of the station. It was the testimony of Mr. Layton that the proposed development is approximately 220 m from the Bayview Subway Station. While the proposed development would help contribute to the density targets of the potential MTSA, it was Mr. Layton’s expert opinion that the proposed development should still be considered appropriate as it will still be transit-supported regardless of the designation.

16At the request of the City Council, the Applicant conducted a Sensitivity Analysis to see if a potential “right-in, right-out” access from Bayview Avenue, for vehicular traffic was feasible. Mr. Layton informed the Tribunal that the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) raised concerns that due to the location proximity to the westbound on-ramp to Highway 401, access to the subject site from Bayview Avenue could negatively impact the on-ramp.

17As a result of the proposed vehicular entrance was relocated to the Irvington Crescent cul-de-sac and traffic from the subject site would use the existing local road networks. The proposed settlement reduced the amount of parking to include 30 parking spaces for residents and six (6) parking spaces for visitors. Mr. Layton testified that a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) was conducted on July 29, 2020 based on the requested 53 parking spaces at the time. The study concluded that the proposed development would create a minimal impact to the local road network and generate approximately 25 two-way trips during the peak weekday hours.

18The City Growing Up Guidelines provide guidance to the range of dwelling unit mix for mid-rise and tall buildings for new developments. The guidelines encourage that a new development includes a minimum target of 15% two-bedroom units and 10% three-bedroom units. Mr. Layton testified that the proposed development meets and exceeds the target with 31% two-bedroom and 16% three-bedroom units.

19As part of the settlement the Parties have agreed on a $70,000.00 Section 37 contribution. While not required by the OP, it is the belief of Mr. Layton that this contribution will help provide community improvements for the surrounding area.

20Overall, it is Mr. Layton’s professional opinion that the proposal represents good land use planning and should be approved in principle with the final order being withheld until the City is satisfied that the conditions have been adequately addressed. No other witness provided testimony at the hearing.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

21In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided Mr. Layton. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, is supported by accessible public transit that includes a subway station in the immediate area, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular, with the increase in two and three-bedroom dwelling units as desired by the City.

22The Tribunal has considered the concerns raised by the Participant but was not persuaded that the concerns they have raised are sustainable given the evidence offered in support of the planned development. While there will be an increase to the existing local road network the TIS conducted on July 29, 2020, show an acceptable increase during peak rush hours. The Tribunal notes that there has been a reduction of 17 parking space since the time of the TIS.

23The Participants also raised a concern regarding the privacy of their backyard. The Tribunal is satisfied, through the evidence provided by Mr. Layton, that the settlement proposed stepped built form with a 45-degree angular plane from the prescribe setbacks in the ZBL adequately addresses these concerns.

24The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the GP, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities that is supported by public transit.

ORDER

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and the City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 7625 and No. 569-2013 are hereby amended, in principle, in accordance with Attachments 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

26The Final Order of the Tribunal is being withheld pending confirmation from the City Solicitor that the City has received:

1. The zoning by-law amendments, accurately reflecting the Tribunal’s decision and in a form acceptable to the City and the Applicant; and,

2. An Executed Section 37 agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

27The Member may be spoken to should any issues arise.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE 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.