Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 05, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002021 (Formerly) PL210319

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

Applicant/Appellant: 5205 Yonge Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a 32-storey mixed-use residential building with 329 units with ground floor retail Reference Number: 20 227227 NNY 18 OZ Property Address: 5203-5215 Yonge Street and 11 Parkview Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002021 Legacy Case No.: PL210319 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002021 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210319 OLT Case Name: 5205 Yonge Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a 32-storey mixed-use residential building with 329 units with ground floor retail Reference Number: 20 227227 NNY 18 OZ Property Address: 5203-5215 Yonge Street and 11 Parkview Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002022 Legacy Case No.: PL210320 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002021 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210319

Heard: July 29, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
5205 Yonge Inc.	Calvin Lantz
City of Toronto	Sarah O’Connor

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON JULY 29, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a settlement hearing in the matter of appeals brought by 5205 Yonge Inc. (“Applicant”) pursuant to s.22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) of the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) to amend the Secondary Plan and pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act from the failure of the City to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) within statutory timeframes. Both applications relate to the properties municipally known as 5203, 5205, 5211 and 5215 Yonge Street and 11 Parkview Avenue, in the City (“Subject Property”).

2These appeals were previously the subject of a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) which was held on October 8, 2021. In its decision dated October 27, 2021, Sharolyn Vettese was granted Participant status.

Subject Property

3The Subject Property is located on the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Parkview Avenue and has an area of approximately 1,922 square metres. The Subject Property has frontage of approximately 37.2 metres on Yonge Street and approximately 51 metres on Parkview Avenue. Yonge Street is a major arterial road that operates with a six-lane cross-section (three lanes in each direction). Parkview Avenue is a local road that operates with a two-lane cross-section (one lane in each direction).

4The Subject Property comprises two lots that are currently separated by a public/private lane and by a Green P Municipal parking lot. The Yonge Street portion of the Subject Property is currently occupied by two-storey retail buildings with surface parking. The Parkview portion of the Subject Property is currently occupied by a two-storey house-form building with surface parking.

5To the immediate north of the Subject Property is Parkview Avenue and located on the north side of Parkview Avenue are four mixed use towers ranging in height from 16-storeys up to 24-storeys.

6Immediately south of the Subject Property on the east side of Yonge Street are 1-storey and 2-storey commercial buildings. Immediately south of the Subject Property on the west side of Yonge Street are recently completed tall mixed-use buildings ranging in height from 10-storeys up to 42-storeys.

7To the east of 11 Parkview Avenue is an existing 19-storey building.

8The Subject Property is located within a Centre in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and is designated Mixed Use Areas.

9The Subject Property is located in the North York Centre Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) and is designated Mixed Use Area B, which permits a wide range of uses including residential, commercial and institutional uses.

10The Subject Property is subject to the former North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 (“ZBL”). The western portion of the Subject Property is zoned General Commercial Zone (C1), which permits a variety of uses including residential, commercial and institutional uses. The eastern portion of the Subject Property is zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone (R4) which permits single-family detached dwellings and accessory buildings incidental thereto.

11The Subject Property is located approximately 200 metres from the North York Centre subway station in addition to having a number of bus routes available within walking distance.

Proposal

12The applications to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Property were originally submitted to the City on December 8, 2020 and were deemed complete as of December 8, 2020. The applications went through a number of revisions to respond to comments from the City and various public bodies and residents.

13The current proposal before the Tribunal is for a 32-storey mixed-use building containing 268 residential units and 5 levels of underground parking. The 11 Parkview Avenue portion of the Subject Property will not contain any buildings and will be dedicated to the City for a public park (“Proposed Development”). The parkland dedication of 564.3 square metres which the Parties agreed to during settlement discussions amounts to an over-dedication of 374.01 square metres.

14In order to facilitate the Proposed Development, the OPA proposes to amend the Secondary Plan. The Secondary Plan permits a maximum total density of 5.99 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) and a maximum height of 100 metres. The OPA proposes a maximum density of 9.71 FSI and a maximum height of 105.1 metres. The OPA is also required to allow for less than 50% of the Gross Floor Area to be Commercial as is required in the Mixed-Use Area B designation of the Secondary Plan.

15The ZBA is required to rezone the Subject Property from C1 and R4 to a Multiple-Family Dwellings Sixth Density Zone (RM6) and Open Space Zone (O1) with site specific exceptions to provide zoning standards relating to building height, density, parking and additional zoning regulations as necessary to permit the Proposed Development.

16The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal approve the OPA and the ZBA in principle and withhold the Final Order pending confirmation from the City Solicitor that the OPA and the ZBA are in their final forms. The Parties will request a Final Order from the Tribunal on or before August 12, 2022.

Evidence

17As evidence in the hearing, the Tribunal marked the following exhibits which were identified sequentially during the hearing:

a. Exhibit 1: The Affidavit of Service of Nancy Adler

b. Exhibit 2: The Affidavit of Michael Goldberg

c. Exhibit 3: Document Book

d. Exhibit 4: Visual Evidence.

18Planning evidence and opinion to support the OPA and the ZBA was provided by Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a Registered Professional Planner and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He was qualified without objection by the Tribunal to provide independent expert land use planning evidence.

19The Tribunal had the benefit of Mr. Goldberg’s oral testimony in addition to his detailed sworn affidavit which was presented and entered as Exhibit 2. It is Mr. Goldberg’s professional opinion that the proposed OPA and ZBA satisfy all legislative tests, constitute good planning and conform to all applicable planning policies.

20The Tribunal has carefully considered Ms. Vettese’s concerns which are detailed in her Participant statement dated October 6, 2021.

Provincial Policy Statement 2020

21The Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) outlines policies to manage and direct land use to achieve effective and efficient development and land use patterns. It provides a framework that promotes and encourages intensification in locations well served by municipal infrastructure.

22In his Affidavit, Mr. Goldberg listed a number of policies that relate to the Proposed Development, including but not limited to policies promoting a mix of residential types, transit-supportive development, the efficient use of land and resources and promotion of opportunities for intensification.

23Mr. Goldberg opined that the Subject Property is an appropriate location for high density development and a tall mixed-use building with ground floor retail is an efficient use of land that will utilize existing infrastructure and community facilities. In addition, the Subject Property is within a major transit area where higher levels of height and densities currently exist and are planned for the future.

24The policies set out in the PPS identify a need for municipalities to provide a range and mix of housing types and densities. The mix of retail space and residential units in the Proposed Development will contribute to the economic viability of the area and support existing shops, restaurants and other services.

25Mr. Goldberg opined that the Proposed Development optimizes the use of land, resources and infrastructure, which supports the policy directives in the PPS and is consistent with the PPS.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

26The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) policies provide direction on where growth should be distributed and how it should occur regarding development, population growth and employment. The Growth Plan promotes compact, vibrant complete communities that optimize the use of land and infrastructure to support growth in a compact efficient form.

27In his Affidavit, Mr. Goldberg listed a number of principles and policy directives that relate to the Proposed Development. The Growth Plan prioritizes intensification and a range and mix of housing types. Section 2 of the Growth Plan speaks to complete communities that better utilize land in urban growth centres to decrease urban sprawl: “this Plan’s emphasis on optimizing the use of the existing urban land supply represents an intensification first approach to development and City-building, one which focuses on making better use of our existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and less on continuously expanding the urban area”. Mr. Goldberg opines that the Proposed Development satisfied this policy directive. It represents intensification within a strategic growth area which is located in close proximity to a major transit area.

28Mr. Goldberg also brought the Tribunal to policy 2.2.4 of the Growth Plan regarding Transit Corridors and Station Areas. Mr. Goldberg opined that the location of the Subject Property is in an area which has been identified by the Province of Ontario and the City as an area to accommodate significant growth. It is located in a Higher Order Transit corridor and will better utilize and optimize the site and the transit infrastructure accessible to the site.

29In his Affidavit, Mr. Goldberg submitted that the variety of housing options proposed will achieve a more complete community and will contribute to the maturation of this part of the City. Mr. Goldberg is of the opinion that the OPA, the ZBA and the Proposed Development which they facilitate are in conformity with the policies of the Growth Plan.

The City Official Plan and the North York Centre Secondary Plan

30The OP is a comprehensive policy document that guides development in the City, providing direction for managing size, location and built form compatibility of different land uses and the provision of municipal services and facilities.

31The OP identifies the Subject Property as Centres and designates it as Mixed Use Areas. Section 2.2(2) states that growth will be directed to Centres, Avenues and Employment Districts. This enables the efficient use of land and promotes opportunities for people to live close to work and transit.

32The Mixed Use Areas designation permits a broad range of commercial, residential and institutional uses in mixed-use buildings. In his Affidavit, Mr. Goldberg noted that the Subject Property is surrounded on all sides by Mixed Use Areas and various existing tall buildings with high densities. From both planning and urban design perspectives, he submitted that the Subject Property is within a context that contemplates the scale of development that is being proposed and the proposed height is similar to surrounding buildings. As such, it is Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Proposed Development satisfactorily addresses the Mixed Use Area and built form policies of the OP. The Proposed Development strikes a balance of accommodating a building density that compatibly fits within the existing and planned context in the area.

33Mr. Goldberg noted that the Subject Property is in close proximity to other mixed-use buildings of various heights, is within 200 metres of a subway station and fulfills the objectives of the Mixed Use Areas designation. He opined that the proposed height will be a “good fit” within the surrounding context.

34In his Affidavit, Mr. Goldberg opined that the lower parking standard in warranted. The objectives of the OP are to minimize automobile dependency and promote healthier living by promoting walking and cycling. The Proposed Development contains adequate underground parking for residents and visitors while remaining transit supportive by not providing an oversupply of parking.

35The OP provides policy direction regarding housing provision in order to address the needs of current and future residents. The Proposed Development increases the housing stock in the City and provides greater choice to residents. Mr. Goldberg opined that the inclusion of a number of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units provides options for families and will also assist in achieving a more complete community.

36Mr. Goldberg discussed the Secondary Plan and set out the following 3 reasons why the OPA is required:

a. The Subject Property is within Mixed Use Area B which permits up to 50% residential uses. The OPA is required to increase the residential permissions;

b. The Secondary Plan is structured to have a system where an increase in density is permitted up to 33% beyond the base, which in this case would be up to 5.99 FSI. The Proposed Development is seeking 9.71 FSI thereby requiring the OPA; and

c. The Subject Property is located within an area permitted to have up to 100 metres in height. The Proposed Development is 105.1 metres to the roof plan thus requiring the OPA.

37Mr. Goldberg opined that the increased height of the Proposed Development is minor in nature and satisfies the policies of the Secondary Plan. From the pedestrian / ground level, the increase from 100 metres to 105.1 metres is indiscernible. In addition, the Subject Property is located on Yonge Street, a main arterial road, which contemplates increased height and density.

38Mr. Goldberg’s opinion is that the Proposed Development and requested amendments to the Secondary Plan conform to the OP.

Design Guidelines

39Mr. Goldberg noted that the City has a number of Design Guidelines that must be referred to, including but not limited to the Tall Building Guidelines.

40Overall, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Proposed Development will not result in adverse impacts in terms of sunlight and sky views. It is located in an area surrounded by tall buildings and increased height and density are contemplated. The proposed setbacks are appropriate and contribute to the overall design.

41Mr. Goldberg concluded that from a policy and guideline perspective, the Proposed Development has been designed to generally satisfy the Design Guidelines of the City.

CONCLUSION

42The Subject Property is located on a major arterial roadway, being Yonge Street, and is prime for redevelopment. The Subject Property is appropriate to be considered for increased height and density given its location. It is surrounded by tall mixed-use buildings and is in close proximity to transit, thereby contributing to a decrease in automobile dependency.

43The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Proposed Development advances transit and intensification related policies in the PPS relating to urban growth centres and major transit station areas. The OPA and the ZBA that facilitate the Proposed Development will optimally utilize a site that is currently underutilized. This is an example of efficient development in a compact form that optimizes the use of existing land and infrastructure.

44The PPS, the Growth Plan, the OP and the Secondary Plan call for compatible intensification for complete communities that offer a range and mix of housing options for current and future residents. The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development facilitated by the OPA and the ZBA satisfy all statutory tests as contained in Mr. Goldberg’s Affidavit.

45The Tribunal accepts and agrees with Mr. Goldberg’s opinions that the OPA and the ZBA may be approved in principle, subject to the completion of the final forms of the OPA and the ZBA.

INTERIM ORDER

46The Tribunal orders that the Appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [47] below, and the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment are hereby approved in principle.

47The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon satisfactory fulfillment of the transmission to the Tribunal by the City Solicitor of the final forms of the amendments to the City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 7625. The final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment shall include, but not be limited to, an agreement pursuant to s. 37 of the Planning Act which has been executed by the Applicant and the City, and registered on title to the Subject Property. The s. 37 agreement shall secure the following:

(a) the community benefits, namely:

(i) indoor recreational amenity space;

(ii) mezzanine level bicycle parking;

(iii) grade-related retail;

(iv) a monetary contribution payable prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit for the proposed development, toward the cost of acquiring or improving parkland servicing the North York Centre area, or constructing and furnishing a public recreational centre or social or community facility serving the North York Centre area, in an amount equal to $4,000,000.00, indexed upwardly in accordance with Statistics Canada's Construction Price Index (being the Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Table: 18-10-0135-01 or its successor) calculated from the date of final approval of the zoning by-law amendment to the date of payment; and

(v) the Applicant shall dedicate the property municipally known as 11 Parkview Avenue as parkland in full satisfaction of the Applicant’s obligations under Section 42 of the Planning Act. The parkland shall be free and clear, above and below grade, of all easements, encumbrances, and encroachments, in an acceptable environmental condition. The Applicant shall convey the parkland to the City prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit for the proposed development; and

(vi) the Applicant shall complete all required park improvements prior to Condominium Registration.

(b) as a legal convenience to support development at the Applicant’s sole cost and expense:

(i) as a condition of site plan approval, the Applicant shall convey to the City a 1.17 metre strip of land along the rear of the Yonge Street Portion of the Site for the widening of the existing lane, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(ii) as a condition of site plan approval, and prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development, the Applicant shall address the outstanding issues identified in the memorandum dated February 3, 2021 from the Manager, Development Engineering, Engineering and Construction Services, including an updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report that addresses staff's concerns, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and

(iii) as a condition of site plan approval, and prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development, the Applicant shall design and provide financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, and Geohydrology Report to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, and Geohydrology Report, accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

48If the Parties do not satisfy the pre-requisites set out in paragraph [47] above, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order on or before August 12, 2022, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.

49The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

50The Tribunal Member may be spoken to should any issues arise.

“C. Hardy”

c. hardy

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.