Queenlaw Development Limited v. Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 73921

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 10, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002466

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2022

(Formerly PL210053)

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

Applicant/Appellant: QueenLaw Development Limited

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a 12-storey 310-unit mixed-use building

Reference Number: 17 278454 WET 05 OZ

Property Address: 1045-1049 The Queensway

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002466

Legacy Case No.: PL210053

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002466

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210053

OLT Case Name: Queenlaw Development Limited v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 25, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

QueenLaw Development Limited

Counsel

M. Helfand

Parties

City of Toronto

Counsel

M. Mahoney

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED STEVEN COOKE ON JULY 25, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a Settlement hearing in the matter of appeals under s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act, (the “Act”) by QueenLaw Development Limited (the “Applicant”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (the “City”) to make a decision in respect to application to amend Chapters 304, 320 and 324 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code and Zoning By-law No. 514-2003 (collectively the “ZBL”) to permit a mixed-use development at the property municipally known as 1045 and 1049 The Queensway (the “Subject Site”).

2The Applicant has proposed to develop a 12-storey mixed use development that would include a variety of residential, commercial, retail, and live/work units. The Applicant and City appeared in support of the settlement proposal to modify the ZBL.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

3The Tribunal must have regard to those matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, and must be satisfied that the settlement ZBL that is being proposed is:

a) consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”);

b) conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”);

c) conforms with City Official Plans (the “OP”); and

d) represents good planning.

4With the consent of all Parties, Michael Bissett was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert evidence in the field of land-use planning. The Affidavit of Mr. Bissett was marked as Exhibit 1a and his Acknowledgement of Expert Duty was marks as Exhibit 1b. Mr. Bissett was the only witness brough before the Tribunal.

Proposed Settlement

5Mr. Bissett informed the Tribunal that the proposed settlement plans include an H-shaped building with a centrally located 12-storey tower with two 3 – 6 storey wings along the east and west side. The east and west wings would have a 21.0 metre separation distance.

6The Applicant had proposed two previous developments before the Parties settled on the proposed settlement plan. Mr. Bissett took the Tribunal to the below Statistical Comparison to review the proposed variations.

Original Proposal (December 2017)

Revised Proposal (July 2020)

Settlement Plans (April 2022)

Site Area

3,918 sq. m.

Building Height Storeys Metres (Top of Roof) Metres (Top of MPH)

12 storeys 38. 2 metres 43.3 metres

14 storeys 52.0 metres

12 storeys 37.6 metres 42.6 metres

Gross Floor Area Residential GFA Retail GFA Total Project GFA

25,442 sq. m. 504 sq. m. 25,946 sq. m.

25,501 sq. m. 513 sq. m. 26,114 sq. m.

22, 770 sq. m. 707 sq. m. 23,477 sq. m.

Density (FSI)

6.3 FSI

5.9 FSI

Dwelling Units Bachelor One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Total Dwelling Units

0 (0%) 187 (60%) 92 (30%) 31 (10%) 310 (100%)

0 (0%) 186 (57%) 106 (33%) 33 (10%) 325 (100%)

14 (5%) 152 (54%) 82 (29%) 36 (13%) 284 (100%)

Amenity Space Indoor Amenity Space Outdoor Amenity Space

620 sq. m. (2.0 sq. m / unit) 620 sq. m. (2.0 sq. m / unit)

628 sq. m. (1.9 sq. m. / unit) 675 sq. m. (2.1 sq. m. / unit)

568 sq. m. (2.0 sq. m. / unit) 568 sq. m. (2.0 sq. m. / unit)

Vehicular Parking Residential Visitor Commercial Car-share Total Vehicle Parking

177 spaces 31 spaces Shared with visitor 5 spaces 213 spaces

271 spaces 48 spaces 6 spaces 5 spaces 330 spaces

155 spaces 42 spaces 7 spaces 5 spaces 209 spaces

Bicycle Parking Spaces Long-term Short-term Total Bicycle Parking

211 spaces 22 spaces 233 spaces

221 spaces 23 spaces 244 spaces

194 spaces 20 spaces 209 spaces

1 Type “G”/“B” space

1 Type “G” space

7The Tribunal was informed that the settlement agreement between the Parties includes 0.4 metres along the St. Lawrence Avenue portion of the Subjects Site be conveyed to the City for a road widening, an off-site parkland dedication of 383.6 square metres to be located near by on Zorra Street, and an executed s. 37 agreement to be put towards community benefits.

Official Plan

8The OP identifies the Subject Site as a Mixed Use Areas and Avenues designation. The Queensway is also identified in the OP as a Major Arterial Road. It is the opinion of Mr. Bissett that the intensification of the Subject Site with the utilization of the existing municipal infrastructure conforms to the objectives desired in the OP. Located on The Queensway, Mr. Bissett testified that the Subject Site has immediate access to surface public transit.

9The proposed development would provide a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 23,477 square metres. The GFA comprises of 707 square metres of non-residential space and 22,770 square metres of residential. The 284 residential dwelling units, including 82 two-bedroom (29%) and 36 three-bedroom units (13%) meet the desired criteria of the City policies. At grade fronting onto The Queensway will be retail and 4 live/work units.

Matters of Provincial Interest

10In review of the proposed settlement, in is the expert opinion of Mr. Bissett that the matter of provincial interest has been considered. In particular he notes the applicability of sections:

f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

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

o) the protection of public health and safety;

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;

r) and the promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

11It is the opinion of Mr. Bissett that the proposal is consistent with the PPS by promoting efficient development and land use patterns, providing for an appropriate range and mix of residential housing, is considered transit-supportive, uses existing infrastructure, and promotes intensification of under-utilized lands while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety.

12Mr. Bissett opined that the proposed settlement conforms with the Growth Plan by optimizing existing infrastructure and transit, contributing to growth within a delineated built-up urban area and meeting the objectives of a complete community.

13It was the expert testimony of Mr. Bissett, that the intensification of the Subject Site is consistent with the policies of the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan and the parent policies of the OP.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

14In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided by Mr. Bissett. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular, with the increase in three-bedroom dwelling units as desired by the City.

15The 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. Moreover, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities and develop underutilized areas in an organized fashion.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the zoning appeal is allowed and that Chapters 304, 320 and 324 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, as amended, and By-law 514-2003 are hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment “1” to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

17Pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order shall be, and was, effective as of the date of the hearing of this appeal, and the delivery of the Oral Decision and Order of the Tribunal, on Monday, July 25, 2022.

“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.

Attachment “1”

Zoning By-law Amendment