Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 27, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002336 (Formerly) PL210089

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

Applicant and Appellant: Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Mixed Use Areas and Apartment Neighbourhoods

Proposed Designated: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 35-storey residential tower

Property Address/Description: 8-16 Locust Street and 15 Oxford Drive

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 20 113215 WET 05 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002336

Legacy Case No.: PL210089

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002336

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210089

OLT Case Name: Trolleybus Urban Development 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: Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-83 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: RM1 S16 (237) and LCR

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 35-storey residential tower

Property Address/Description: 8-16 Locust Street and 15 Oxford Drive

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 20 113215 WET 05 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002337

Legacy Case No.: PL210090

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002336

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210089

Heard: May 6, 2022 by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Trolleybus Urban Development Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) J. Park

City of Toronto (“City”) M. Crawford

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON MAY 6, 2022 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This matter involved the Appellant’s application for an amendment to the City’s Official Plan (“OPA”) and an amendment to the City’s Zoning By-Law No. 1-83 and the City’s Zoning By-Law No. 569-2013 (collectively, “ZBAs”) in order to permit a 35-storey residential apartment tower (“Development”) at the address municipally known at 8-16 Locust Street and 15 Oxford Drive in the City (“Subject Site”). The appeal arises from the City’s failure to make a decision on this application.

2Previously, this matter came before the Tribunal for a Case Management Conference on June 23, 2021, and a Procedural Order was issued on August 3, 2021.

3The Tribunal had been advised that the Parties to this proceeding had reached a settlement and therefore a settlement hearing was conducted on May 6, 2022 at the VH.

4The materials before the Tribunal were:

(i) Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the Parties Joint Document Book, comprising a total of 2,415 pages;

(ii) Visual Evidence Book, comprising 25 pages;

(iii) Affidavit of Antonio Volpentesta, sworn May 3, 2022, comprising 37 pages; and

(iv) A draft OPA and draft ZBAs now appended as Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to this Decision.

5The Tribunal qualified Mr. Volpentesta, without objection, to provide opinion evidence at the VH on land use planning matters relating to the Development and proposed settlement. He is a Registered Professional Planner of over 20 years experience and was retained by the Appellant in relation to their OPA and ZBAs applications.

6Mr. Volpentesta opined in his Affidavit and testimony at the VH as follows:

(a) The Subject Site is comprised of 6 parcels fronting onto Locust Street, located approximately 230 metres northwest of the Eglinton Avenue West and Weston Road intersection. The properties included in the assembly are comprised of vacant open space lands associated with the existing 10-storey apartment building at 15 Oxford Drive, as well as two detached dwellings, two attached semi-detached dwellings, and one semi-detached dwelling. The Subject Site is generally rectangular in shape with an area of approximately 2,656 square metres and a frontage of approximately 64.5 metres along Locust Street;

(b) The proposed height of 36-storeys fits within the planned built form context within the Mount Dennis Neighbourhood adjacent to the Development, specifically on lands west of Eglinton Avenue West between Weston Road and the CN Rail Corridor;

(c) The Development provides for the infill development of a new 36-storey residential building fronting on Locust Street. The building is comprised of a base building (i.e., podium) of 1- to 2-storeys and a tower with a combined maximum height of 36-storeys and 113.85 metres (excluding MPH). The building is proposed to contain approximately 383 residential dwelling units (including 6 rental replacement units) and below-grade residential parking spaces contained within a 3-level parking structure;

(d) The proposed OPA and ZBAs are appropriate and desirable in land use planning and urban design terms. The proposed development will fit harmoniously with the existing and planned built form context, and would enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site, which falls within the definition of a major transit station area with an appropriately scaled residential building;

(e) From a planning policy perspective, the Development is supportive of numerous policy directions that support intensification and redevelopment on underutilized sites within the built-up urban area, particularly in locations which are well-served by higher-order public transit and municipal infrastructure;

(f) The Development has appropriate regard for relevant matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), conforms to the 2019 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) and conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and appropriately responds to the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines, 2013 (“TBGs”);

(g) The OPA and ZBAs, as provided for in accordance with the Development and the settlement between the Parties as adopted by the City’s Council, will provide appropriate infill development on an underutilized site in proximity to higher-order public transit at the adjacent Mount Dennis Mobility Hub; and

(h) The OPA and ZBAs, including the provisions to be included in a Section 37 Agreement, will implement Council's decision of February 2 and 3, 2022 approving the settlement, represent good planning, subject to appropriate conditions.

7Based on the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. Volpentesta, the submissions of counsel for the Parties and a review of the materials, the Tribunal is satisfied that the settlement reached by the Parties, culminating in the draft OPA and ZBAs included at Attachments 1, 2 and 3 hereto, is reasonable, fair and appropriate; is consistent with the PPS; conforms to the Growth Plan and to the City’s OP and TBGs; and represents and respects good planning principles. Therefore, the Tribunal allows the appeal in part.

INTERIM ORDER

8Therefore, the Tribunal Orders on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation of the pre-requisite matters described in paragraph 8 to 8, inclusive, THAT the appeals are allowed in part and that the proposed Amendment to the City of Toronto Official Plan, a copy of which is provided as Attachment 1 to this Decision/Order (“Draft OPA”), is hereby approved in principle AND THAT the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments, copies of which are provided as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 to this Decision/Order (“Draft ZBAs”), are hereby approved in principle:

(a) The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the pre-requisite matters described in paragraph 8 to (c), inclusive;

(b) The Tribunal is advised that the Draft OPA and the Draft ZBAs are in a final form that is satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

(c) The Tribunal is advised by counsel for the City that

i. the Appellant has provided a revised Transportation Impact Study including a revised Parking Justification, satisfactory to the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

ii. the Appellant has provided accessible parking spaces in accordance with the supply and dimensional requirements in Section 200.15 of City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 as amended by By-law No. 579-2017 to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

iii. the Appellant has provided all regular parking spaces, accessible parking spaces, and a minimum of one (1) Type 'G' loading space for the project in accordance with the dimensional requirements noted in Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

iv. the Appellant has submitted revised drawings illustrating the conveyance of lands required for the cul-de-sac satisfactory to the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

v. the Appellant has submitted a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this Development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed Development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

vi. the Appellant has made satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and entered into the appropriate agreement with the City of Toronto for the design and construction of the cul-de-sac and any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this Development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and Traffic Impact Study accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

vii. the Appellant has provided space within the Development for installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers Chapter 681, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

viii. the Appellant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review as they relate to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review;

ix. the Appellant has submitted a revised Landscape Plan and/or Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Report and that Tree Preservation matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

x. the submitted Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study, has been peer reviewed by a third-party Noise and Vibration Consultant retained by the City of Toronto at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

xi. the submitted revised Rail Safety Assessment, has been peer reviewed by a third-party retained by the City of Toronto at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

xii. the submitted Rail Safety Assessment has been reviewed to the satisfaction of Metrolinx;

xiii. the Appellant has provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including wind tunnel test, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

xiv. the Appellant has provided information regarding the current number and type of rental units on the land and, if required, has addressed all rental replacement requirements in accordance with the Official Plan and City standards to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; and

xv. community benefits and other matters in support of the development have been secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the Appellant and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

9The Tribunal Member shall remain seized for the purpose of reviewing and approving the final form of the Draft OPA and the Draft ZBAs and issuance of the Final Order and with respect to all outstanding matters relating to this Interim Order, and may be spoken to concerning the matters described in paragraph 8 and 8 above.

10The Tribunal may convene a further hearing event or telephone conference call attendance, or may require further written submissions, in the event that the Parties require assistance in implementing the provisions of this Interim Order or with respect to issuance of the Final Order.

“William R. Middleton”

william r. middleton

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.

OLT-22-002336 – Attachment 1

OLT-22-002336 – Attachment 2

OLT-22-002336 – Attachment 3