Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 07, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002263
(Formerly PL210148)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Manulife Investment Management
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438- 86 and Zoning By-law 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
CR T4.0 C1.0 R4.0 (Zoning By-law No. 438- 86)
CR 4.0 (c1.0; r4.0) SS1 (x2550) (Zoning By-law 569-2013)
Proposed Zoning:
Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose:
To permit a 59-storey mixed use development
Property Address/Description:
625 Church Street
Municipality:
City of Toronto
Municipality File No.:
19 263839 STE 11 OZ
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002263
Legacy Case No.:
PL210148
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002263
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210148
OLT Case Name:
Manulife Investment Management v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
June 20, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Manulife Investment Management
David Bronskill
City of Toronto
Mark Piel
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON JUNE 20, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The parties have reached an agreement to settle an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act 1(“Act”) by Manulife Investment Management (“Appellant”) with respect to the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) required to permit the construction of a 59-storey mixed-use development at 625 Church Street (“subject site”).
2The subject site, which was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act2 on October 4, 2021, is located within Toronto’s Downtown Urban Growth Centre on the east side of Church Street, between Hayden Street and Charles Street East and is within convenient walking distance of four subway stations. It is presently occupied by a six-storey office building with a small retail component, known as the ‘Traders Building’. There is also a surface parking lot to the rear of the building, which is accessed from both Hayden Street and Charles Street East.
3The subject site is located within a tall building context that includes heights between 26-56 storeys within the immediate vicinity including, but not limited to, a 47-storey mixed-use building currently under construction at the northwest corner of Church Street and Charles Street East, as well as existing 55 and 56-storey residential buildings known as Casa III and Casa II, located at 50 and 42 Charles Street East, respectively.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
4Tyler Grinyer, a Registered Professional Planner, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence. Mr. Grinyer provided the Tribunal with a sworn Affidavit (Exhibit 1) and delivered a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale in support of the settlement. In his opinion, the proposed ZBLA is representative of good planning, has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), and conforms to: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”); the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”); the Downtown Secondary Plan (“Downtown Plan”); and Site and Area Specific Policy No. 211 (“SASP 211”), all of which support mixed-use intensification on sites well-served by Municipal infrastructure, particularly higher-order public transit.
5The original proposal contemplated the redevelopment of the subject site with a 59-storey mixed-use development containing residential, office and retail uses with a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 56,078 square metres (“sq m”). The proposal contemplated a total of 651 residential units with over 40 percent being family-sized, two or three-bedroom units.
6Following a successful mediation and subsequent discussions between the Parties, the proposal was revised and now contemplates the redevelopment of the site with a 56-storey mixed-use tower, having a total GFA of approximately 53,623 sq m. A total of 617 residential units are proposed, including 62 three-bedroom units (10%) and 185 two-bedroom units (30%).
7Other notable changes to the proposal include the creation of a new Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) at the south end of the site, which will provide increased accessibility to at-grade retail, as well as revisions to the podium (made in direct response to heritage conservation related concerns), which will see the southwest and northerly sides of the existing heritage building retained and a glass extension to the east, which will extend the office floorplate.
8With reference to visual evidence provided in his Affidavit, Mr. Grinyer drew the Tribunal’s attention to what he characterized as an ‘informal pedestrian walkway’ from Bloor Street, extending behind existing office buildings to Hayden Street, through the existing parking lot on the subject site to Al Sparrow Lane. He noted that, as part of the settlement proposal, a more formal walkway connecting these areas is contemplated.
9In support of his opinion that the proposed ZBLA meets the requisite legislative tests, Mr. Grinyer provided an overview of applicable matters of Provincial interest as well as particularly relevant policies within the PPS, GP, OP, Downtown Plan and SASP 211 including, but not limited to: the conservation of cultural heritage resources; the provision of a full range of housing options; the creation of complete communities and support for active transportation and transit. In his view, the development of the subject site, as proposed, will optimize the use of the land and infrastructure, provide new housing, jobs and retail opportunities in a transit-supportive and mixed-use compact built form, while retaining the heritage building façade within the podium (implementing City Council’s direction on April 6, 2022, which permits alteration to the heritage designated building with conditions and in accordance with a conservation strategy prepared by ERA Architects Inc.).
10Mr. Grinyer noted the subject site is well-suited to accommodate significant intensification, as it is located within a settlement area for the purposes of the PPS and within a strategic growth area and urban growth centre for the purposes of the GP. He opined the development, as proposed, conforms with both the Mixed Use Area policies of the OP, as well as the Downtown Plan and SASP 211, noting the tower height is less than existing approved tower heights at the Bloor/Yonge intersection of up to 82 storeys, and is of a scale that achieves compatibility with the surrounding built form context, which includes tower heights of up to 56 storeys along Charles Street East.
11He went on to discuss the design of the proposed development, noting that the tower element has been deliberately designed to fit within the area’s existing and planned height context and, with reference to built form policies in the Downtown Plan as well as policies in SASP 211 which speak to tower heights and the public realm, Mr. Grinyer opined the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts (including shadows) on sensitive land uses and/or the public realm. He further noted that the separation/setback of the proposed tower from others on adjacent blocks is in keeping with City-wide Tall Building Design Guidelines, and the introduction of the POPS and the formal walkway between Bloor Street and Al Sparrow Lane will contribute to the enhancement and vitality of the Church Street and Charles Street corridor.
12The Mixed Use Area designation within the OP permits a broad range of commercial, residential and institutional uses in single or mixed use buildings as well as parks and open spaces and utilities. In Mr. Grinyer’s opinion, the proposal, which will provide new housing, jobs and retail opportunities in close proximity to higher-order transit with an improved pedestrian realm, conforms to the vision for Mixed Use Areas as articulated in the OP, which is for residents to be able to live, work and shop in the same area and to become less reliant upon automobiles.
13In Mr. Grinyer’s view, the site was complex and the collaborative resolution reached by the Parties has resulted in a revised proposal which achieves an appropriate balance between applicable planning objectives including, but not limited to: transit-supportive development; intensification; increasing housing supply; heritage conservation; and the provision of a high quality public realm with no unacceptable built form impacts.
14In light of all the foregoing, Mr. Grinyer recommended the Tribunal approve the development proposal as shown on the drawings prepared by RAW Design (Exhibit 1, Tab J) and grant the appeal of the ZBLA in part, withholding a Final Order contingent upon the owner of the lands signing and registering a Section 37 Agreement as well as a Heritage Easement Agreement.
ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION
15Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Grinyer, the Tribunal finds the ZBLA, and the development it will permit, are representative of good planning; have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest; are consistent with the PPS; and achieve conformity with the GP, the OP, the Downtown Plan and SASP 211.
16The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development represents an appropriate scale of intensification which is compatible with the surrounding built form context and achieves important policy objectives such as heritage conservation as well as the provision of a range of housing, retail and employment opportunities in an area well served by higher-order transit.
17The Tribunal has given regard to the decision of the approval authority in relation to this planning matter, including the City’s endorsement of the draft ZBLA and the related conditions. In addition, the Tribunal has considered the concerns as outlined in the Participant Statements filed in this proceeding, including but not limited to: heritage conservation; tower height; potential shadow impacts; and concerns with respect to the public realm, which Mr. Grinyer addressed in his evidence.
INTERIM ORDER
18The Tribunal approves the development proposal for the lands municipally known as 625 Church Street, in the City of Toronto, as shown on the plans and drawings prepared by RAW Design dated February 26, 2022, attached as Exhibit J to the Affidavit of Tyler Grinyer, sworn on June 16, 2022 and filed with the Tribunal (reproduced and attached hereto as Schedule 1);
19The appeal is granted in part and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Exhibit K to the Affidavit of Tyler Grinyer, sworn June 16, 2022 (reproduced and attached hereto as Schedule 2) is approved, in principle.
20The Tribunal will withhold its Final Order until the earlier of July 30, 2022 or until written confirmation has been received from the City Solicitor confirming that the Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form satisfactory to all Parties for the Tribunal to approve and that the following pre-requisite conditions have been satisfied:
a) That the owner of the lands subject to the application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 has:
i. Signed and registered in priority a Section 37 Agreement securing such matters, services and facilities to be provided by the owner of the lands at its own expense pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, and any other matters necessary to support the development satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning in consultation with the Ward Councillor; and
ii. Signed and registered in priority a Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, as amended, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.
21The Member may be spoken to in the event any matters arise in relation to the implementation of this Interim Order. The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and issuing the Final Order.
“S. Braun”
s. braun
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.
Footnotes
- R.S.O. 1900, c. P.13, as amended
- R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended